APPENDIX A TO THE EPA KEPONE
MITIGATION PROJECT REPORT
THE FEASIBILITY OF MITIGATING KEPONE
CONTAMINATION IN THE JAMES RIVER BASIN
Project Director
G. W. Dawson
Pacific Northwest Laboratory
Richland, Washington 99352
Operated for the U.S. Department of Ener
by Battelle Memorial Institute
Project Officer
Martin Brossman
Criteria and Standards Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
June 1978

-------
APPENDIX A TO THE EPA KEPONE
MITIGATION PROJECT REPORT
THE FEASIBILITY OF MITIGATING KEPONE
CONTAMINATION IN THE JAMES RIVER BASIN
Project Director
G. W. Dawson
Pacific Northwest Laboratory
Richland, Washington 99352
Operated for the U.S. Department of Er.er
by Battelle Memorial Institute
Project Officer
Martin Brossman
Criteria and Standards Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
June 1978

-------
EPA FOREWORD
This report has been prepared as one of the inputs to the Environmental
Protection Agency's Kepone Mitigation Feasibility Project. The funded par-
ticipants included: The Corps of Engineers, Norfork District; the Department
of Energy's Pacific Northwest Laboratory (operated by Battelle Memorial
Institute); EPA's Gulf Breeze Environmental Research Laboratory; and the
Virginia Institute of Marine Science. The separate reports of the participants
appear as Appendices to the Kepone Mitigation Feasibility Project Report.
While conclusions and recommendations are included in each participant's
report, they are conditional within the scope of each project participant's
tasks. Project conclusions and recommendations are the responsibility of EPA
and are included in the Kepone Mitigation Feasibility Project Report.
iii

-------
AUTHOR ORGANIZATION BY MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS
Chapter III - S. J. Shupe, G. W. Dawson
Chapter IV - G. W. Dawson, J. A. McNeese, M. J. Schneider, G. E. Fierce,*
B. S. Ausmus*
Chapter V - G. W. Dawson, S. J. Shupe, W. C. Weimer
Chapter VI - H. T. Huh,* A. W. Rudolph,* S. Pomeroy,* D. Tolle*
Chapter VII - Y. Onishi, R. M. Ecker
Chapter VIII - M. J. Schneider, G. W. Dawson
Chapter IX - G. W. Dawson, D. C. Christensen, S. J. Shupe
Chapter X - G. W. Dawson, J. A. McNeese, D. C. Christensen, G. E. Pierce,*
G. Riley
* Battelle Columbus Laboratories
v

-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report summarizes research conducted by the Pacific Northwest
Laboratory (Battelle) for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during the
period April 1, 1977 to March 31, 1978. In addition to the major authors
listed by chapter, significant contributions were made by Messrs. R. G. Parkhurst,
B.	W. Mercer, R. C. Jones, S. E. Wise, P. L. Peterson, J. L. Rising, J. Kutt,
C.	Veverka, J. T. McGinnis,* B. M. Bartilson,* B. C. Christenson,* D. McKenzie,
M. A. Eischen,* M. Luttinger;* Ms. S. R. Gano, S. I. Thoreson, and N. C. Painter.
The authors also wish to acknowledge the guidance and assistance provided by
Messrs. J. Koehler and C. Terrell of the U.S. EPA.
Support work for the project was performed under separate subcontracts
with Drs. S. P. Pavlou and R. N. Dexter (URS, Inc.); and Drs. C. J. Touhill
and A. J. Shuckrow (Touhill, Shuckrow, and Associates, Inc.).
* Battelle Columbus Laboratories
vii

-------
CONTENTS
EPA FOREWORD		iii
AUTHOR ORGANIZATION BY MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS 	
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 		vii
LIST OF FIGURES		xix
LIST OF TABLES		xxxv
CHAPTER I - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 		1-1
CHAPTER II - STUDY FINDINGS		II-l
CHAPTER III - PROBLEM STATEMENT		II-l
CHAPTER IV - PROPERTIES OF KEPONE		II-2
CHAPTER V - ANALYSIS OF CURRENT KEPONE DISTRIBUTION . . .	II-3
CHAPTER VI - ECOLOGICAL PROFILE OF THE JAMES RIVER. ...	II-5
CHAPTER VII - THE MOVEMENT OF KEPONE IN THE JAMES RIVER . .	II-5
CHAPTER VIII - ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF KEPONE 		II-6
CHAPTER IX - HOPEWELL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION 		II-6
CHAPTER X - ALTERNATIVES FOR THE MITIGATION OF
KEPONE IN THE JAMES RIVER		II-7
CHAPTER III - PROBLEM STATEMENT		III-l
SUMMARY		III-l
Content		III-l
Findings		III-l
INTRODUCTION 		III-3
PRODUCTION OF KEPONE IN HOPEWELL, VIRGINIA 		III-4
Location		III-4
ix

-------
Production Process at Allied 		III-4
Production Process at Life Science
Products Company 		111-10
SUMMARY CHRONOLOGY 		111-12
ESTIMATE OF TOTAL DISCHARGES 		Ill-14
Losses from the Life Science Products Plant ....	111-14
Losses from the Allied Semi-Works Plant		111-15
RESIDUAL KEPONE DISPOSITION DURING THE
LIFE SCIENCE PRODUCTION PERIOD 		111-16
Atmospheric Releases 		111-16
Discharges to the Sewer System		111-16
Bulk Discharges		111-19
DISTRIBUTION OF KEPONE RESIDUALS FOLLOWING
CESSATION OF PRODUCTION		111-19
The Atmospheric Compartment		111-19
The Water Compartment		111-19
Sewage Treatment Plant Effluent 		111-21
Soils and Sediment		111-21
REFERENCES 		111-34
CHAPTER IV - PROPERTIES OF KEPONE		IV-1
SUMMARY		IV-1
Content		IV-1
Findings		IV-1
INTRODUCTION 		IV-2
BASIC CHEMISTRY OF KEPONE		IV-2
NATURAL PATHWAYS FOR KEPONE MOVEMENT 		IV-2
Volatilization 		IV-3
x

-------
Sorption - Desorption		IV-5
BIOLOGICAL TRANSLOCATION 		IV-9
Aquatic Organisms 		IV-9
Avian Organisms		IV-12
Uptake in Plants		IV-16
Biological Transport 		IV-19
DEGRADATION PROCESSES	• . .	IV-20
Biochemical Oxidation		IV-20
Photochemical Degradation 		IV-20
APPRAISAL OF KEPONE MOVEMENT AND PERSISTENCE		IV-22
REFERENCES		IV-2 3
CHAPTER V - ANALYSIS OF CURRENT KEPONE DISTRIBUTION 		V-l
SUMMARY		V-l
Content . 		V-l
Findings		V-l
INTRODUCTION 		V-3
FIELD STUDY METHODS		V-3
The Hopewell Area		V-3
Bailey Bay and its Tributaries		V-5
Sampling Procedures 		V-5
Analytical Methods Used for Kepone Detection ....	V-7
Analytical Method Used for Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Detection		V-9
Results and Discussion 		V-10
Solvent Extraction of Soils for Hexachlorocyclo-
pentadiene 		V-19
xi

-------
Related Analyses 		V-19
Details of the Field Sampling Program		V-21
RESULTS AND FINDINGS		V-28
Bailey Bay and Tributary Streams 		V-28
The Hopewell Area		V-41
Landfill		V-78
WATER WITHDRAWALS		V-86
COMPOSITE PROFILE OF KEPONE - HOPEWELL		V-93
Sewage Treatment Plant 		V-9 3
SoU		V-93
Pebbled Ammonium Nitrate Site and Landfill		V-93
James River		V-94
REFERENCES		V-97
CHAPTER VI - ECOLOGICAL PROFILE ON THE JAMES RIVER		VI-1
SUMMARY		VI-1
Content		VI-1
Findings		VI-1
GENERAL FEATURES		VI-2
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MAJOR TRIBUTARIES		VI-7
Appomattox River 		VI-7
Chickahominy River		VI-7
Nansemond River		VI-7
SALINITY DISTRIBUTION 		VI-3
TEMPERATURE AND TUR3IDITY 		VI-8
ECOLOGY OF THE TIDAL JAMES RIVER		VI-10
xii

-------
Overview of Previous Studies ." 		VI-10
Aquatic Ecology		VI-11
REFERENCES		VI-21
CHAPTER VII - MOVEMENT OF KEPONE IN THE JAMES RIVER		VII-L
SUMMARY		VII-1
Contents		VII-L
Findings	'		VII-1
INTRODUCTION		VI1-2
THE FIELD SAMPLING PROGRAM		VII-2
Meteorological and Hydrological Data		VII-4
Channel and Flow Characteristics 		VII-4
Water Quality Characteristics 		VII-4
Suspended and Bed Sediment Characteristics		VII-4
RESULTS		VII-5
DISCUSSION		VII-5
Bathymetry 		VII-15
Flow Characteristics 		VII-15
Temperature 		VII-15
Conductivity		VII-30
pH		VII-30
Dissolved Oxygen 		VII-34
Suspended Sediment		VII-36
Kepone		VII-36
MATHEMATICAL SIMULATION OF TRANSPORT OF SEDIMENT
AND KEPONE IN THE JAMES RIVER ESTUARY 		VII-39
Mathematical Model Formulation of FETRA Code . . . ¦. VII-40
xiii

-------
Computer Simulation Results		VII-45
REFERENCES 		VII-84
CHAPTER VIII - ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF KEPONE		VIII-1
SUMMARY 		VIII-1
Content 		VIII-1
Findings 		VIII-1
INTRODUCTION 		VIII-2
PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF KEPONE 		VIII-2
ACUTE TOXICITY		VIII-2
CHRONIC TOXICITY, BIOCONCENTRATION, AND BIOACCUMULATION . .	VIII-5
IMPLICATIONS OF KEPONE EFFECT STUDIES 		VIII-9
FOOD RELATIONS OF THE JAMES RIVER BIOTA 		VIII-18
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF FUTURE KEPONE CONTAMINATION . .	VIII-20
REFERENCES 		VIII-26
CHAPTER IX - HOPEWELL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION		IX-1
SUMMARY		IX-1
Content		IX-1
Findings		IX-1
INTRODUCTION		IX-2
ESTABLISHMENT OF EXAMPLE CRITERIA		IX-2
CONTAMINATED SOIL		IX-4
Source Elimination 		IX-5
Interdiction of Transport Routes and Elimination
of Contact		IX-8
CONTAMINATED SEWERLINES		IX-10
DISPOSAL SITES AND LAGOON 		IX-14
xiv

-------
APPRAISAL		IX-17
Nitrogen Park		IX-17
Life Science Products 		IX-18
Station Street Neighborhood 		EX-19
Landfill		IX-20
Proposed Separation of Combined Storm Sewers ....	IX-21
The Sewer System		IX-22
The Sewage Treatment Plant 		IX-23
The Lagoon		IX-23
Summary of Mitigation Activities		IX-24
DISPOSAL		IX-24
Kepone Destruction 		IX-25
The Capabilities of Current Incineration
Technology		IX-26
Rotary Kiln		IX-28
Multiple Hearth 		IX-28
Liquid Injection 		IX-28
Fluidized Bed		IX-28
Molten Salt		IX-29
Wet Oxidation - Zimmerman Process 		IX-29
Plasma Destruction 		IX-30
Multiple Chamber 		IX-31
Gas Combustion		IX-31
Pyrolysis		IX-31
Cement Kilns 		IX-31
REFERENCES		IX-3 2
xv

-------
CHAPTER X - ALTERNATIVES FOR THE MITIGATION OF KEPONE
IN THE JAMES RIVER		X-l
SUMMARY		X-l
Content		X-l
Findings		X-l
INTRODUCTION		X-3
DREDGE SPOIL FIXATION 		X-4
Procedures		X-4
Results		X-5
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT 		X-10
Microbial Interactions 		X-12
Role of Fungi and Mold in Biodegradation		X-13
Co-metabolish (Co-oxidation) 		X-13
3ioaccumulation 		X-14
IMPLICATIONS		X-15
In Situ Amelioration		X-15
Elutriate Treatment 		X-16
PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL ELUTRIATE AND SLURRY TREATMENT ....	X-18
Photochemical Degradation 		X-18
Amine Photosensitization 		X-19
Chlorine Dioxide 		X-21
Ozonation		X-22
Radiation		X-24
Catalytic Reduction 		X-27
CARBON ADSORPTION 		X-2S
Sorbents		X-3 3
xvi

-------
POLYMER FILMS 		X-43
APPRAISAL	'		X-47
REFERENCES		X-58
APPENDIX A - THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTS TO DETERMINE SORPTION
AND VOLATILITY PROPERTIES OF KEPONE 		A-l
APPENDIX B - SEDIMENT CORES DATA FOR THE JAMES RIVER		B-l
APPENDIX C - ENVIRONMENTAL AND LABORATORY SAMPLES		C-l
APPENDIX D - LIST OF SPECIES IN THE TIDAL JAMES RIVER ....	D-l
APPENDIX E - BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE HOPEWELL-JAMES
RIVER ENVIRONMENT		E-l
APPENDIX F - APPLICABLE FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTORY
MATERIALS AND REGULATIONS FOR STANDARDS		F-l
APPENDIX F - VIRGINIA WATER AND AIR QUALITY STANDARDS ....	G-l
APPENDIX H - ADDITIONAL DATA ON THE USE OF POLYMER FILMS ...	H-l
APPENDIX I - SUBMITTAL FROM ALLIED CHEMICAL, INC. ESTIMATING
QUANTITIES OF KEPONE RESIDUALS	;	1-1
APPENDIX J - TEST OF EMERGENCY RULE CLOSING JAMES RIVER
TO SPORT AND COMMERCIAL FISHING		J-l
APPENDIX K - DETAILS OF ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES IN THE
JAMES RIVER		K-l
APPENDIX L - DESCRIPTION OF BIOLOGICAL DEGRADATION STUDIES
AT BATTELLE		 . . .	L-l
APPENDIX M - MATHEMATICAL SIMULATION OF SEDIMENT AND KEPONE
TRANSPORT IN THE TIDAL JAMES RIVER		M-l
APPENDIX N - MOLTEN SALT INCINERATION OF KEPONE LADEN SATES . .	N-l
xvii

-------
FIGURES
111.1	Location of the Affected Areas on the
Janes River	 III-5
111.2	Relative Position of Important Features in
Hopewell Area	 III-6
III. 3 The Bailey Creek Area	 III-7
111.4	The Allied Semi-Works Plant Site and
Surrounding Area	 III-3
111.5	The Life Science Products Plant Site and
Surrounding Area	 III-9
111.6	The Kepone Lagoon Area	 111-18
111.7	The Hopewell Landfill and Sewage Treatment Plant. . . 111-20
111.8	Location of Monitoring Wells in the Hopewell Area . . 111-24
111.9	' Kepone Levels in Soil - 1975-1976 as' Noted in
SWCB Bulletins and Files (yg/g-ppm) . . . . . . . 111-26
111.10	James River Sediment Kepone Concentrations in the
Vicinity of Hopewell, Virginia Based on Data Col-
lected in 1976 by the State Water Control Board . . . 111-28
111.11	James River Sediment Kepone Concentrations from
Richmond, Virginia to the Mouth of the Chickahominy
River Based on Data Collected in 1976 by the State
Water Control Board 	 111-29
111.12	James River Sediment Kepone Concentrations from
Williamsburg, Virginia to Newport News Based on
Data Collected in 1976 by the State Water Control
Board	 111-30
111.13	James River Sediment Kepone Concentrations from
Richmond, Virginia to the Mouth of the Chickahominy
River Based on Data from 1976 and Early 1977 . . . . 111-31
111.14	James River Sediment Concentrations in the Vicinity
of Hopewell, Virginia Based on Data from 1976 and
Early 1977 	•	 111-32
xix

-------
III.15 James River Sediment Kepone Concentrations from
Williamsburg, Virginia to Newport News Based on
Data from 1976 and Early 1977 	 111-33
IV.1 Pathways by which Kepone Moves in the
Environment		IV-3
IV.2 Plots of K as a Function of Percent Carbon
and Particle Diameter		IV-7
IV.3	Relative Partitioning of Kepone in Soil-
Water System		IV-9
V.l Schematic Summary of Environmental Sample Types . . .	V-4
V.2 Expanded View of Push Tube Coring Device Employed
for Samples from Bailey Bay		V-6
V.3	Sampling Pattern for Bailey Bay and Tributaries . . .	V-22
V.4	Sites for Soil Samples in Hopewell		V-24
V.5	Surface Water and Runoff Sample Locations 		V-26
V.6	Pump Station Solids and Wastewater Sample Locations. .	V-29
V.7 Results of Kepone Analysis in Sediment Cores
(yg/g-ppm)		V-31
V.8 Ebb Flow Conditions Showing Downstream Movement
of Bailey Bay Waters		V-32
V.9 Flow Reversal Observed with the Incoming Tide. . . .	V-33
V.10	Reconstruction of Normal Downstream Patterns with
the Outgoing Tide		V-34
V.ll GC/MS Analyses of Bailey Bay Sediment Extracts . . .	V-40
V.12 Kepone Concentration in Sewage Solids and
Wastewater		V-4 3
V.13 Location of Runoff Samples at Life Science Company
Plant		V-4 6
V.14 Runoff Sampling Locations and Kepone Concentrations
in Open Areas Around the Life Science Site Novem-
ber 29, 1977 (ug/H-ppb)		V-47
xx

-------
V.15 Effect of Runoff on Movement of Kepone in Hopewell
Area Concentrations in \ig/l (ppb)		V-49
V.16 Relation of Bailey Creek Kepone Concentrations to
Position and Conditions (ug/£-ppb)		V-50
V.17 Runoff Sample Locations and Results of Kepone
Analysis, September 7,. 1977 (pg/S, —ppb)		V-53
V.18 Results of Soil Analysis in Hopewell Area
(ug/g-ppm)		V-54
V.19 Nitrogen Park Sampling Sites (9/27/77) and Results
of Subsequent Kepone Analysis (ug/g-ppm) 		V-55
V.20 Soil Sampling Locations and Kepone Concentrations
in Open Areas Around the Life Science Site (2/4/78)
(ug/g-ppm)		V-59
V.21 Results of Ground-water Analysis, May 17-18, 1977
(ug/2. -ppb)		V-60
V.22 Location of Sample Sites Around Kepone Sludge Lagoon .	V-62
V.23 Location of Key Features in Hopewell, Virginia . . .	V-67
V.24 The Pebbled Ammonium Nitrate Plant Site		V-68
V.25 Auger Sampling Locations and Results November 23, 1977
(pg/g-ppm)		V-69
V.26 Deep Core Drilling Locations and Results of Kepone
Analysis December 5, 6, 7 & 8, 1977 (ug/g-ppm) . . .	V-71
V.27 Hand-Core Sampling Locations and Results of Kepone
Analysis December 7, 1977 (ug/g-ppm)		V-72
V.28 Kepone Residuals in the PAN Reservoir-Area		V-75
V.29 Kepone Concentrations in Water from the PAN Site,
January 13, 1978 (ug/^-ppb)			V-76
V.30 Results of Coring in Moody's Creek Marsh
December 1, 1977 (Kepone in ug/g-ppm)		V-77
V.31 Known and Suspected Deposits of Kepone in the
Hopewell Landfill 		V-79
V.32 Landfill Sampling Locations and Results of Kepone
Analysis, November 30, 1977		V-81
xxi

-------
V.33 Location of Marsh Contaminated by Bulk Discharge. . .	V-83
V.34 Location of Sample Sites in the Marsh Below the
Bulk Discharge Area		V-84
V.35 Kepone Levels in Surface Sediment of Marsh and
Approximate Boundary of Heavy Contamination ....	V-85
V.36 Plant/Industry Locations Within the Piedmont Region
of the James River		V-91
V.37	Flow Pattern and Kepone Content of Hopewell
Water Supply		V-92
71.1 Location of Geographic Features 		VI-3
VI.2	Four Salinity Zones		VI-4
VI.3 Fishing, Spawning and Nursery Areas for Fish and
Shellfish		VI-5
VI.4 Primary Sport Fishing Areas		VI-6
VI.5 Salinity Distribution		VI-9
VI.6 Species Diversity, Richness and Evenness of the
•Benthic Invertebrates		VI-13
VI.7 Chlorophyll-a Concentrations During the Summer
1965-1966 (yg/Z-ppb) 		VI-14
VII.1 Location of Transects for James River Sampling . . .	VII-3
VII.2 Bathymetry at JR-1 and JR-2		VII-16
VII.3 Bathymetry at JR-3 and JR-4		VII-17
VII.4 Bathymetry at JR-7 and JR-8		VII-13
VII.5 Bathymetry at JR-9 and JR-10		VII-19
VII.6 Depth Distribution of Kepone by Sediment Size
Fraction - JR-9 Bailey Bay		VII-20
VII.7 Depth Distribution of Kepone by Sediment Size
Fraction - JR-4 West of Swann Point		VII-21
VII.3 JR-1 James River 3ridge		VII-22
VII.9 JR-2 Rocklanding Shoal 		VII-23
xxii

-------
VII. 10 JR-3 Hog Island			VII-24
VII. 11 JR-4 West of Swarm Point		VII-25
VII.12 JR-7 Windmill Point 		VII-26
VII.13 JR-8 Jordan Point 		VII-27
VII.14 JR-9 Bailey Bay		VII-2S
VII.15 JR-10 City Point 		VII-29
VII. 16 Average Conductivity as a Function of Tidal Stage . .	VII-31
VII.17 Average Conductivity as a Function of Depth ....	VII-31
VII.18 Lateral Variation of Average Conductivity 		VII-32
VII.19 Longitudinal Variation of pH 		VII-32
VII.20 Vertical Variation of pH in Main Flow Channel
During Flood		VII-33
VII. 21 Lateral Variation of pH During Flood		VII-33
VII.22 Variation of Dissolved Oxygen with Tidal Stage . . .	VII-34
VII.23 Variation in Dissolved Oxygen with Depth 		VII-35
VII.24 Lateral Variation in Dissolved Oxygen Content. . . .	VII-35
VII. 25 Longitudinal Variation of Suspended Solids		VII-36
VII.26 Vertical Variation of Suspended Solids in Main
Flow Channel During Flood 		VII-37
VII.27 Lateral Variation of Suspended Solids During Flood . .	VII-37
VII.28 Longitudinal Variation of Kepone Attached to
Suspended Sediment		VII-38
VII.29 Lateral Variation of Kepone Attached to Suspended
Sediment During Flood 		VII-39
VII.30 Tidal James River 		VII-47
VII.31 Longitudinal Distributions of Total Sediment Con-
centration at the Maximum Ebb Tide for the Fresh-
Water Discharge of 58.3 m^/sec, together with
Field Data . 		VII-51
xxiii

-------
VII.32 Longitudinal Distributions of Total Sediment
Concentration at the Slack Tide for the Fresh-
Water Discharge of 58.3 m^/sec, together with
Field Data	 VII-52
VII.33 Longitudinal Distributions of Total Sediment
Concentration at the Maximum Flood Tide for the
Fresh-Water Discharge of 58.3 tn^/sec, together with
Field Data	 VII-53
VII.34 Tidal Averaged Sediment Concentration of Each
Sediment Type for the Fresh-water Discharge of
58.3 m3/sec 	 VII-54
VII.35 Longitudinal Distribution of Sediment Concentration
of Each Sediment Type at Slack Tide for the Fresh-
water Discharge of 247 m^/sec 	 VII-55
VII.36 Tidal Averaged Sediment Concentration of Each
Sediment Type for the Fresh-water Discharge of
247 m^/sec 	 VII-56
VII.37 Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone
Concentrations at Maximum Ebb Tide for the Fresh-
water Discharge to 58.3 m3/sec	 VII-58
VII.38 Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone
Concentrations at Slack Tide for the Fresh-water
Discharge of 58.3 m^/sec	 VII-59
VII.39 Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone
Concentrations at Maximum Flood Tide for the
Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m^/sec	 VII-60
VII.40 Tidal Averaged Particulate Kepone Concentrations
for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m^/sec .... VII-61
VII.41 Longitudinal Distributions of Tidal Averaged
Particulate Kepone Concentrations per Unit Volume
of Water for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m^/sec . VII-62
VII.42 Longitudinal Distributions of Tidal Averaged
Total, Dissolved and Particulate Kepone Concen-
trations for the Fresh-water of 58.3 m^/sec .... VII-64
VII.43 Variation of River 3ed Elevation Changes Due
co Sediment Deposition and/or Bed Scouring at
Maximum Ebb Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge
of 58.3 m^/sec	 VII-66
xxiv

-------
VII.44 Change in Bed Surface Kepone Concentration Occurred
During 1-Month Simulation for the Fresh-water Dis-
charge of 58.3 m^/sec	 VII-67
VII.45 Tidal Averaged Particulate Kepone Concentrations for
the Fresh-water Discharge of 247 m^/sec	 VII-69
VII.46 Longitudinal Distributions of Tidal Averaged Total,
Dissolved and Particulate Kepone Concentrations for
the Fresh-water Discharge of 247 mVsec	 VII-70
VII.47 Variation of River Bed Elevation Changes Due to
Sediment Deposition and/or Bed Scouring at
Maximum Ebb Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge
of 247 m^/sec	 VII-71
VII.48 Change in Bed Surface Kepone Concentration
Occurred During 1-Month Simulation for the
Fresh-water Discharge of 247 m^/sec 	 VII-72
VII .49 Tidal Veraged Particulate Kepone Concentrations
for the Fresh-water Discharge of 681 m^/sec .... VII-73
VII.50 Longitudinal Distributions of Tidal Averaged Total,
Dissolved and Particulate Kepone Concentrations for
the Fresh-water Discharge of 681 m^/sec	 VII-75.
VII.51 Variation of River Bed Elevation Changes to
Sediment Deposition and/or Bed Scouring at
Maximum Ebb Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge
of 681 m3/sec	 VII-76
VII.52 Change in Bed Surface Kepone Concentration
Occurred During 1-Month Simulation for the
Fresh-water Discharge of 681 m^/sec 	 VII-77
VII.53 Changes in Total Kepone Concentrations Due to Partial
Kepone Cleanup Activities 	 VII-81
VII.54 Changes in Dissolved Kepone Concentrations Due to
Partial Kepone Cleanup Activities	 VII-82
VII.55	Changes in Particulate Kepone Concentrations Due
to Partial Kepone Cleanup Activities	 VII-83
VIII.1	Partial Food Web for Selected James River
Species 	 VIII-21
VIII.2 Time Dependence of Kepone Contamination to
Sediments	VIII-25
xxv

-------
IX.1 Sewer Cleaning Costs 		IX-13
IX. 2 Thermal Destruction Plot for Kepone		IX-25
IX.3 Thermal Destruction Plot for DDT		IX-27
IX.4 Comparison of Thermal Destruction of the
Two Pesticides		IX-27
X.l Structures of Mirex, Kepone and Kelevan		X-ll
X.2 Experimental Apparatus Employed in "Landfarm"
.Evaluations		X-19
X.3 Experimental Apparatus Employed to Test Amine
Activated Photodegradation 		X-20
X.4 Beaker Test Showing Sediment, Sorbent, and Water
Representation of Magnetic Retrieval of Sorbent
Using Electromagnet		X-35
X.5 Dimensions Employed in Verticle Column Tests for
Sorbents		X-38
X.6 Proposed Method of Deployment for Polymer Films . . .	X-44
X.7 Conceptual Design of Apparatus for Deployment
of Polymer Films		X-45
X.8 Overall Concept for Barge-Deployment of Bottom-
Sealing Film		X-46
A. 1 Plots of K as a Function of Percent Carbon and
Particle Diameter		A-15
H.l Bailey Bay, Showing Channels to be Dredged		H—5
H.2 Polymer Film Deployment Concept		3-6
K.l Seasonal Dominance of Fish During the Winter ....	K-2
K.2 Seasonal Dominance of Fish During the Spring ....	K-3
K.3 Seasonal Dominance of Fish During the Summer ....	K-4
K.4 Seasonal Dominance of Fish During the Fall		K-6
K.5 Distribution of Major Freshwater Fish		K-7
xxv i

-------
K.6 Spawning and Nursery Areas for the Estuarine Fish,
Hogchoker and Bay Anchovy		K-9
K. 7 Distribution of the Herrings		K-10
K.8 Distributionof the Striped Bass and White Perch . . .	K-12
K. 9 .Distribution of Nursery Areas for the Spot,
Weakfish and Silver Perch		fC-14
K.10 Distribution of Dominant Benthic Invertebrates During
the Summer of 1972 		K-17
K.ll Distribution of Dominant Benthic Invertebrates During
the Fall of 1972		K-13
K.12 Distribution of Oligochaete and Polychaete Worms . . .	K-19
K.13 Distribution of Oligochaete Worms,
Limnodrilus spp.		K-20
K.14 Fishing and Nursery Areas of Blue Crab,
Calinectes Sapidus 		K-22
K.15 Distribution of the Hard, Soft, Wedge and
Asian Clams		K-23
K.16 Distribution of the Wedge Clam (Rangia Cuneata)
During the Summer of 1972		K-25
K.17 Distribution of Oyster Beds		K-26
K.18 Distribution of Oyster Drills 		K-28
K.19 Common Overwintering Waterfowl Species 		K-29
K.20 Common Shorebirds, Gulls, and Terns of Shore, Beach
and Tidal Flats		K-31
K.21 Common Marsh and Perching Birds of the Wetlands . . .	K-32
K.22 Mammals Associated with the James River		K-35
K.23 Plant Relations for Tidal Wetlands		K-38
K.24 Areas of Soil Erosion and Deposition		K-40
xxvii

-------
L.l Sediment-Water Assembly 	 L-2
L.2 Calcium Concentrations in Water and Sediment Water
of Contaminated and Control Microcosms During
the Pretreatment Period	 L-4
L.3 NO3-N Concentrations in Water and Sediment Water
of Contaminated and Control Microcosms During
the Pretreatment Period 	 L-6
L.4 Chloride Concentrations in Water and Sediment Water
of Contaminated and Control Microcosms During the
Pretreatment Period	 L-8
M.l Comparison of Numerical Solution Analytical
Solution to One-Dimensional Steady Convection-
Diffusion Equation with a Source Term	 M-13
M.2 Comparison of Numerical Solution with Analytical
Solution of One-Dimensional Steady Convection-
Diffusion Equation with a Decay Term	 M-14
M.3 Convergence of Unsteady-State One-Dimensional
Diffusion Equation to Steady-State Solution	 M-15
M.4 Comparison of Numerical Solution with Analytical
Solution to Two-Dimensional Diffusion Equation. • . • M-17-
M.5 Tidal James River 	 M-18
M.6 Longitudinal Velocity Distributions at Maximum Ebb,
Slack and the Maximum Flood Tides for Fresh-water
Input Discharge of 58.3 m3/sec	 M-21
M.7 Longitudinal Depth Variation at Maximum Ebb Tide for
the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m^/sec	 M-22
M.8 Longitudinal Depth Variation at Slack Tide for the
Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m-Vsec	 M-23
M.9 Longitudinal Depth Variations at Maximum Flood Tide
for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m^/sec .... M-24
M.10 Longitudinal Distributions of Total Sediment Concen-
tration at the Maximum Ebb Tide for the Fresh-water
Discharge of 58.3 ra^/sec, together with Field Data . . M-26
xxviii

-------
M.ll Longitudinal Distributions of Total Sediment Con-
centration at the Slack Tide for the Fresh-water
Discharge of 58.3 m^/sec, together with Field Data . . M-27
M.12 Longitudinal Distributions of Total Sediment Concen-
tration at the Maximum Flood Tide for the Fresh-water
Discharge of 58.3 m-^/sec, together with Field Data . . M-28
M.13 Longitudinal Distribution of Sediment Concentration
of Each Sediment Type at Maximum Ebb Tide for the
Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m-Vsec	 M-29
M.14 Longitudinal Distribution of Sediment Concentration
of Each Sediment Type at Slack Tide for the Fresh-
water Discharge of 58.3 m^/sec	 M-30
M.15 Longitudinal Distributions of Sediment Concentration
of Each Sediment Type at Maximum Flood Tide for the
Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m^/sec 	 M-31
M.16 Changes of Sediment Concentrations with Time at
River Kilometer 75.7 for the Fresh-water Discharge
of 58.3 m^/sec	 M-32
M.17 Tidal Averaged Sediment Concentration of Each Sediment
Type for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m-Vsec. • • M-33
M.18 Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone
Concentrations at Maximum Ebb Tide for the Fresh-
water Discharge to 58.3 m^/sec	 M-34
M. 19 Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone
Concentrations at Slack Tide for the Fresh-water
Discharge 58.3 m^/sec	 M-35
M.20 Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepcne
Concentrations of Maximum Flood Tide for the
Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m^/sec 	 M-36
M.21 Changes of Particulate Kepone Concentrations with
Time at River Kilometer 75.7 for the Fresh-water
Discharge of 58.3 m-Vsec	 M-38
M.22 Tidal Averaged Particulate Kepone Concentrations
for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m-^/sec .... M-39
M.23 Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone
Concentrations per Unit Volume of Water at Maximum
Ebb Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of
58.3 m^/sec	 M-40
xxix

-------
M.24 Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone
Concentrations per Unit Volume of Water at Slack
Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m?/sec. . . M-41
M.25 Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate
Kepone Concentrations per Unit Volume of Water
at Maximum Flood Tide for the Fresh-water
Discharge of 58.3 m^/sec	 M-42
M.26 Longitudinal Distributions of Tidal Averaged
Particulate Kepone Concentrations per Unit Volume
of Water for the Fresh-water Discharge of
58.3 m^/sec	 M-43
M.27 Longitudinal Distributions of Total, Dissolved and
Particulate Kepone Concentrations at Maximum Ebb
Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m^/sec. . . M-44
M.28 Longitudinal Distributions of Total, Dissolved
and Particulate Kepone Concentrations at Slack
Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m^/sec. . . M-45
M.29 Longitudinal Distributions of Total, Dissolved
and Particulate Kepone Concentrations at Maximum
Flood Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of
58.3 m^/sec	 M-46
M. 30 Changes of Total, Dissolved and Particulate Kepone
Concentration with Time at River Kilometer 75.7
for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m^/sec .... M-47
M.31 Longitudinal Distributions of Tidal Averaged Total,
Dissolved and Particulate Kepone Concentrations
for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m^/sec .... M-48
M.32 Variation of River Bed Elevation Changes Due to
Sediment Deposition and/or Bed Scouring at
Maximum Ebb Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge
of 58.3 m^/sec	 M-50
M.33 Change in Bed Surface Kepone Concentration Occurred
During 1-Month Simulation for the Fresh-water Dis-
charge of 58.3 tn^/sec	 M-51
M.34 Longitudinal Velocity Distributions at Maximum Ebb,
Slack and the Maximum Flood Tides for Fresh-water
Input Discharge of 247 nP/sec	 M-53
xxx

-------
M.35 Longitudinal Depth Variation at Maximum Ebb Tide
for the Fresh-water Discharge of 247 m^/sec	 M-54
M.36 Longitudinal Depth Variation at Slack Tide for
the Fresh-water Discharge of 247 m^/sec 	 M-55
M.37 Longitudinal Depth Variation at Maximum Flood
Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 247 m^/sec • • • M-56
M.38 Longitudinal Distribution of Sediment Concentra-
tion of Each Sediment Type at Maximum Ebb Tide
for the Fresh-water Discharge of 247 m-Vsec. • • • • • M-57
M.39 Longitudinal Distribution of Sediment Concentra-
tion of Each Sediment Type at Slack Tide for the
Fresh-water Discharge of 247 m^/sec 	 M-58
M.40 Longitudinal Distributions of Sediment Concentra-
tion of Each Sediment Type at Maximum Flood Tide
for the Fresh-water Discharge of 247 m^/sec	 M-59
M.41 Tidal Averaged Sediment Concentration of Each
Sediment Type for the Fresh-water Discharge of
247 m^/sec	 M-60
M.42 Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone
Concentrations at Maximum Ebb Ride for the Fresh-
water Discharge to 247 m-^/sec	 M-61
M.43 Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone
Concentrations at Slack Tide for the Fresh-water
Discharge of 247 m^/sec	 M-62
M.44 Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone
Concentrations at Maximum Flood Tide for the
Fresh-water Discharge 247 m3/sec 	 M-63
M.45 Tidal Averaged Particulate Kepone Concentrations
for the Fresh-water Discharge of 247 nrfysec	 M-64
M.46 Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone
Concentrations per Unit Volume of Water at Maximum
Ebb Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of
247 m-Vsec	 M-66
M.47 Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone
Concentrations per Unit Volume of Water at Slack
Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 247 m^/sec . . . M-67
xxxi

-------
M.48 Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone Con-
centrations per Unit Volume of Water at Maximum Flood
Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 247 m-Vsec • • • M-68
M.49 Longitudinal Distributions of Tidal Averaged
Particulate Kepone Concentrations per Unit Volume
of Water for the Fresh-water Discharge of 247 m^/sec. . M-69
M.50 Longitudinal Distributions of Total, Dissolved and
Particulate Kepone Concentrations at Maximum Ebb
Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 247 m-7sec . . . M-70
M.51 Longitudinal Distributions of Total, Dissolved and
Particulate Kepone Concentrations at Slack Tide for
the Fresh-water Discharge of 247 m^/sec 	 M-71
M.52 Longitudinal Distributions of Total, Dissolved and
Particulate Kepone Concentrations at Maximum Flood
Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 247 m^/sec . . . M-72
M.53 Longitudinal Distributions of Tidal Averaged Total,
Dissolved and Particulate Kepone Concentrations
for the Fresh-water Discharge of 247 m^/sec	 M-73
M.54 Variation of River Bed Elevation Changes Due to
Sediment Deposition and/or Bed Scouring at Maximum
Ebb Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 247 m^/sec. . M-74
M.55 Change in Bed Surface Kepone Concentration Occurred
During 1-Month Simulation for the Fresh-water Dis-
change of 247 m^/sec	 M-76
M.56 Longitudinal Velocity Distributions at Maximum Ebb,
Slack and the Maximum Flood Tides for Fresh-water
Input Discharge of 681 m^/sec	 M-77
M.57 Longitudinal Depth Variation at Maximum Ebb Tide
for the Fresh-water Discharge of 681 m-Vsec	 M-78
M.58 Longitudinal Depth Variation at Slack Tide for the
Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m^/sec 	 M-79
M.59 Longitudinal Depth Variations at Maximum Flood Tide
for the Fresh-water Discharge of 681 m^/sec	 M-80
M.60 Longitudinal Distribution of Sediment Concentration
of Each Sediment Type at Maximum Ebb Tide for the
Fresh-water Discharge of 681 m^/sec 	 M-81
xxxii

-------
M.61 Longitudinal Distribution of Sediment Concentration
of Each Sediment Type at Slack Tide for the Fresh-
water Discharge of 681 m3/sec	 . M-82
M.62 Longitudinal Distributions of Sediment Concentration
of Each Sediment Type at Maximum Flood Tide for the
Fresh-water Discharge of 681 m-Vsec	 M-83
M.63 Tidal Averaged Sediment Concentration of Each Sedi-
ment Type for the Fresh-water Discharge of
631-.m3/sec	 M-84
M.64 Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone
Concentrations at Maximum Ebb Tide for the Fresh-
water Discharge to 681 m^/sec	 M-85
M.65 Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone
Concentrations at Slack Tide for the Fresh-water
Discharges of 681 m^/sec	 M-86
M.66 Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone
Concentrations at Maximum Flood Tide for the Fresh-
water Discharge of 681 m^/sec	 M-87
M.67 Tidal Averaged Particulate Kepone Concentrations
for the Fresh-water Discharge of 681 m-Vsec	 M-88
M.68 Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone
Concentrations per Unit Volume of Water at Maximum
Ebb Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of
681 m^/sec	 M-89
M.69 Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone
Concentrations per Unit Volume of Water at Slack
Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 681 m^/sec . . . M-90
M.70 Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone
Concentrations per Unit Volume of Water at Maximum
Flood Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of
681 m^/sec	 M-91
M.71 Longitudinal Distributions of Tidal Averaged
Particulate Kepone Concentrations per Unit
Volume of Water for the Fresh-water Discharge
of 681 m^/sec	 M-92
M.72 Longitudinal Distributions of Total, Dissolved
and Particulate Kepone Concentrations at Maximum
Ebb Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of
681 m^/sec	 M-94
xxxiii

-------
M.73 Longitudinal Distributions of Total, Dissolved and
Particulate Kepone Concentrations at Slack Tide for
the Fresh-water Discharge of 681 mVsec	 M-95
M.74 Longitudinal Distributions of Total, Dissolved and
Particulate Kepone Concentrations at Maximum Flood
Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 681 m-Vsec . • • M-96
M.75 Longitudinal Distributions of Tidal Averaged
Total, Dissolved and Particulate Kepone Concentra-
tions for the Fresh-water Discharge of 681 m^/sec. . . M-97
M.76 Variation of River Bed Elevation Changes Due to
Sediment Deposition and/or Bed Scouring at Maximum
Ebb Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 681 m^/sec. . M-98
M.77 Change in Bed Surface Kepone Concentration Occurred
During 1-Month Simulation for the Fresh-water Dis-
charge of 681 m^/sec	 M-99
N.l Experimental Apparatus for Molten Salt
Incineration Tests 	 N-2
xxxiv

-------
TABLES
1.1	Estimate of Kepone Residuals 		1-2
111.1	Kepone Batch Residuals 		III-1Q
111.2	Production Levels of Kepone		III-ll
111.3	Kepone Concentrations in Fish and Oyster Tissues. . .	111-17
111.4	Historical Data on Reported Kepone Concentrations
in Monitoring Well Water (ug/5, -ppb)	 111-22
III. 5 Location of Monitoring Wells 		 111-23
III.6	Concentration of Kepone in the Hopewell STP
Effluent as Reported by the City of Hopewell .... 111-25
IV.1 Relation of Kepone Concentrations in Water and
Suspended Solids in James River and Bailey Bay
Grab Samples		IV-5
IV.2 Effect of pH on Kepone Concentrations in Leachate
from Sediments with 1 yg/g (ppm) Kepone		IV-7
IV.3 Bioconcentration Factors Reported for Various
Species		IV-11
IV.4a	Kepone in Maryland and Virginia Bald Eagles .... IV-13
IV.4b Kepone Residues in Osprey Eggs at Increasing
Distances from the Mouth of the James River,
Virginia	 IV-14
IV.5 Kepone Residuals in Avian Species 1976-1977 ...... IV-15
IV.6 Growth of Barley in Kepone Contaminated Sediments . . IV-18
IV.7 Potential Export of Kepone from the James River
Via Migrating Stocks 	 IV-21
V.l Recovery of Kepone from Bailey Bay Sediment
Samples		V-ll
V.2 Kepone Extraction from Bailey Bay Sediment Samples . .	V-12
V.3 Recovery of Kepone from James River Water Samples . .	V-15
V.4 Precision of Kepone Analyses for Environmental
Water Samples		V-16
xxxv

-------
V.5 Recovery of Kepone from James River Water Samples . .	V-17
V.6 Extraction of Trace Concentrations of Kepone from
Virginia American Water Company Samples by Two
Solvent Systems		V-17
V.7 Sequential Extraction of Kepone from Natural Waters. .	V-18
V.8 Recovery of Hexachlorocyclopentadiene from Soil and
Sediment Samples 		V-20
V.9 Site Descriptions for Soil Samples		V-25
V.10 Site Description for Runoff and Creek Water Samples. .	V-27
V.ll Pump Stations Located in Figure V.6		V-30
V.12 Kepone Distribution in Sediment Cores with
Depth (ppm)		V-36
V.13 Delineation of Grain Size and Kepone Content in
Bailey Bay Sediments		V-38
V.14 Toxicant and Heavy Metal Content of Bailey Bay
Sediments (ug/g-ppm) 		V-39
V.15 Daily Variation in Kepone Content of Sewage and
Precipitation at Hopewell Primary Treatment Plant . .	V-42
V.16 Approximate Kepone CcJntribution by Tributary
During Low Flow and Runoff		V-52
V.17 Results of Kepone Analysis at Depth in Surface Soils .	V-57
V.18 Vertical Kepone Concentration Patterns in Nitrogen
Park		V-57
V.19 Kepone Levels in the Vicinity of the Sludge Lagoon . .	V-63
V.20 Comparative Values for Components Found in the Kepone
Sludge Lagoon, Seeps, and Nearby Water 		V-64
V.21 Results of Periodic Kepone Analysis in Disposal
Lagoon		V-65
V.22 Kepone Concentration at PAN Site		V-70
V.23 Vertical Kepone PAN Distribution in Deep Cores from
the PAN Site (ug/g)		V-73
xxxv i

-------
V.24 Distribution of Hexachlorocyclopentadiene in the
PAN Site (pg/g-ppra)		V-74
V.25 Kepone Concentrations in Landfill Soil Cores
(ug/g-ppm)		V-82
V.26 Kepone Concentration in Auger Samples 		V-86
V.27 Kepone Concentration in Marsh Area Sediment
Core Samples		V-87
V.28 Surface Water Withdrawals Within the Piedmont Region
of the James River		V-89
V.29 Surface Water Withdrawals (Public Use) Within
Piedmont Region on James River Basin		V-90
V.30 Basis for Estimate of Kepone Deposits in James
River Sediments		V-95
V.31	Estimate of Kepone Residuals Including Material
Drummed at the Life Science Products Plant After
Closure (December 1977) 		V-96
VI.1	Biological-Ecological Studies of the James
River by Organizations	 VI-12
VI.2 Biomass Estimates Developed by VIMS for
James River Finfish	 VI-19
VII.1 Results - James River Sampling Program JR-1 James
River Bridge June 25, 1977 . ¦	 VII-6
VII.2 Results - James River Sampling Program JR-2
Burwell Bay June 26, 1977 	 VII-7
VII.3 Results - James River Sampling Program JR-3 Hog
Island June 27, 1977 	 VII-8
VII.4 Results - James River Sampling Program JR-4 West
fo Swann Point June 28, 1977 	 VII-9
VII.5 Results - James River Sampling Program JR-7
Windmill Point June 28, 1977 	 VII-10
VII.6 Results - James River Sampling Program JR-8
Jordan Point June 27, 1977 	 VII-11
VII.7 Results - James River Sampling Program JR-9
Bailey Bay June 26, 1977	 VII-12
xxxvii

-------
VII.8 Results - James River Sampling Program JR-10 City
Point June 25, 1977 	 VII-13
VII.9 Results - James River Sampling Program Bailey
Creek June 27, 1977 	 VII-14
VII.10 Kepone in Bed Sediments 	 VII-14
VIIoll Test Conditions for Kepone Simulation 	 VII-48
VII.12	Summary of Simulation Results on Kepone Migration
from Burwell Bay Seaward for all Four Cases .... VII-78
VIII.1	Acute Toxicity Values of Kepone to Selected
Species 	 VIII-3
VIII.2 Chronic Effects, Bioconcentration and Bioaccumlation
of Kepone			VIII-6
VIII.3 Comparison of Species Based on Laboratory Data
Available and Importance to the James River .... VIII-10
VIII.4 Comparison of Tissue Concentrations of Kepone
Resulting from Chronic Laboratory Exposure with
Tissue Concentration Measured in Field Sampled
Organisms	VIII-15
VIII.5 Alternative Criteria for Kepone Levels in Water
and Sediment	VIII-19
IX. 1 Cost of Soil Removal at Selected Sites	 IX-6
IX.2 Estimated Cost for Lime Treatment of Soils
and Subsequent Runoff Control 	 IX-7
IX.3 Cost of Amine Accelerated Photolysis of
Kepone	 IX-8
IX.4 Estimated Costs of Amending Surface Soils
in Contaminated Areas	 IX-9
IX.5	Sewer Cleaning Cost Criteria 		IX-11
IX.6	Sewer Cleaning Costs 		IX-12
IX. 7	Cost of Cleaning Sewer Lines in Hopewell		IX-14
IX.3	Lagoon Sealing Cost Equations 		IX-15
:t:ccviii

-------
IX.9 Cost Summary for Sealing or Grouting the
Disposal Lagoon		IX-16
IX.10 Cost Summary for Nitrogen Park Alternatives .... IX-17
IX.11 Cost Summary for Life Science Products
Site Alternatives	 IX-18
IX.12 Cost Summary for Station Street Nieghborhood
Alternatives	 IX-19
IX.13 The Cost of Preferred Mitigation Alternatives. . . . IX-24
X.l Candidate for Fixation Agent Testing on Kepone
Contaminated Sediments 		X-6
X.2 Kepone Concentrations in Elutriate and
Leachate Solutions		X-7
X.3 Comparative Cost of Implementing Dredge and
Stabilization Options in Various Kepone Concen-
tration Regimes on the James River		X-9
X.4 Cost of Implementing Dredge and Stabilization
Options in Various Reaches of the James River. . . .	X-10
X.5 Solubilities of Mirex, Kepone and Kelevan 		X-ll
X.6 Possibilities for Biological Amelioration of Kepone
in Bailey Bay		X-17
X.7 Effects of Sunlamp Irradiation on Amine Solutions . .	X-20
X.8 Kepone Residuals After Application of CIO2		X-22
X.9 Effect of Westgate Process on Synthetic Scrubber
Water		X-23
X.10 The Effect of UV-Ozonalysis on the Kepone Level in
Wastewater Effluent from the Hopewell Sewage
Treatment Plant 		X-23
X.ll Preliminary Cost Analysis for Ultrox System ....	X-24
X.12 Capital Cost for Ultrox System		X-25
X.13 Ozone Generation Power Cost 		X-25
X.14 UV Light Power Cost		X-26
xxxix

-------
X.15 Monitoring and Maintenance Cost for Ultrox System . .	X-26
X.16 Effects of y Radiation on Kepone Concentrations
in Sediment		X-27
X.17 Granular Carbon Systems Unit Process Sizes ....	X-29
X.18 Capital Cost for Granular Carbon Systems .....	X-29
X.19 Operating and Maintenance Costs for a 50 MGD
Granulated Activated Carbon Treatment Plant ....	X-30
X.20 Sizing Requirements for Solids Removal System . . .	X-31
X.21 Capital Costs for Solids Removal System 		X-31
X.22 Plant Maintenance Cost for 50 MGD Coagulation . . .	X-32
X.23 Cost Comparison for a 50 MGD Activated Carbon Facility
and a 50 MGD Solids Removal Facility		X-32
X.24 Removal Capabilities of Sorbents Tested for Kepone
Sorption		X-34
X.25 Effectiveness of Sorbents in Accumulating Kepone
from Bailey Bay Sediments		X-36
X.26 Effect of Surface Application of Sorbents with
Depth		X-39
X.27 Effect of Anthracite Coal on Kepone Concentrations
in Water		X-40
X.28 Effect of Surficial Application of Coal to Kepone
Availability 		X-40
X.29 Comparative Cost of Implementing In Situ Application
of Coal and Retrievable Media Options in Various
Kepone Concentration Regimes on the James River . . .	X-42
X.30 Comparative Cost of Implementing In Situ Application
of Coal and Retrievable Media Options in Various
Reaches of the James River		X-42
X.31 First Approach Polymer Film Sealant - Preliminary
Cost Estimate Bailey Bay		X-48
X.32 Second Approach Polymer Film Sealant^ - Preliminary
Cost Estimate 3ailey Bay		X-49
xxxx

-------
X.33 Summary of Results for Candidate Alternatives in
Bailey Bay and the James River		X-50
X.34' Comparison of Selected Fixation Agents 		X-51
X.35 Comparison of Selected Elutriate Treatment
Alternatives for a 50 MGD Operation		X-53
X.36 Comparison of In Situ Alternatives		X-54
X.37 Comparison of Costs for Implementation of
Alternatives to the James River 		X-57
A.l Representative Surface Tensions at 20°C Used to
Estimate the Dependence of CT for Kepone on Degree
of Chlorination		A-4
A.2 Representative Surface Tensions at 20°C Used to
Estimate the Dependence of a for Kepone on the
Ketone Group		A-5
A.3 Representative Water-Organic Interfacial Tension
at 20°C Used to Estimate 
-------
K.l Productivity Rates of Marsh Communities and
Environmental Contributions		K-39
K.2 Marsh and Swamp Acreage		K-42
L.l Monitored Parameters in Water and Interstitial
Sediment Water During Equilibration and Pre-
treatment Periods for Contaminated and Control
Sediment-Water Microcosms 		L-3
M.l Test Conditions for Kepone Simulation		M-20
M.2 Summary of Simulation Results on Kepone Migration
from Burvell Bay Seaward for All Four Cases ....	M-100
N.l Analysis of Samples from Kepone Destruction in
Molten Na2C03 		N-3
N.2 Analysis of Samples from Kepone Destruction in
Molten K2S207-K2S04-V205 		N-4
xxxxii

-------
CHAPTER I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
During the period 1966-1975, a highly chlorinated organic pesticide,
Kepone, was discharged to the environment around Hopewell, Virginia from
production activities at the Allied Chemical Semi-Works Plant and the Life
Science Products Company plant. It is estimated that more than 91,000 kg
(200,000 lb) of Kepone may have been released. Oyster and sediment samples
from as early as 1967, and fish and bird samples from the early 1970's con-
tain Kepone quantities indicating that measurable losses can be attributed
to Allied Chemical's processes. Life Science Products releases were associ-
ated with atmospheric emissions, wastewater discharges and bulk disposal of
off-specification batches.
Atmospheric emissions associated with Life Science Products drying and
bagging operations resulted in widespread transport of Kepone dusts in Hopewell
and as far as 25 km (16 mi) north. The Kepone subsequently settled to the
surface soils where in Hopewell it is estimated that as much as 45 to 450 kg
(100 to 1000 lb) currently reside within a radius of 3 km (2 mi) from the Life
Science.Products plant site.
Life Science Products wastewater discharges entered the sewer system and
reached Bailey Creek after passage through the Hopewell primary treatment
plant. In turn, these waters flowed to Bailey Bay, in the James River on its
way to Chesapeake Bay. It is estimated that 540 kg (1200 lb) of Kepone pres-
ently lie in Bailey Bay attached to sediments. Another 9,000 kg (20,000 lb)
are bound in the top foot of sediments of the James River.
Bulk discharges other than those released to the sewer occurred at two
known sites and perhaps more. Batches of incompletely reacted raw materials
or off-specification product were hauled to the Hopewell landfill and a dis-
posal trench at the former Pebbled Ammonium Nitrate Plant where they were
dumped. Kepone-bearing residues from the Life Science Products plant closure
are also buried at the landfill, and Kepone-contaminated sludge from the
Hopewell treatment plant is stored in a specially constructed disposal
lagoon nearby.
An extensive sampling plan was implemented by Battelle in the Hopewell
and Bailey Bay areas to document current Kepone levels and determine the
routes of transport. Samples were collected from sediments, surface and deep
soils, surface and ground water, sewage, and the sewer system. Results of
analyses were evaluated to determine the most probable means of Kepone entry
into the James River. A summary of estimated environmental inventories of
Kepone is presented in Table 1.1.
Current studies have shown that Kepone migrates into the James River as
a result of runoff and leachate which solubilizes soil deposits of Kepone and
suspends contaminated particulate matter. The estimate of this input varies
from a low of a few grams per day during dry weather to as much as 64 g
(0.14 lb) per day during storms.
1-1

-------
TABLE 1.1. ESTIMATE OF KEPONE RESIDUALS

Estimated Quantity of Keoone--
Residing In
kg
lb
Sewer System
23
50
Surface Soil (1 in.)
45-450
100-1,000
Kepone Sludge Lagoon
100
220
Bailey Bay Sediments*
540-2,000
1,200-4,300
James River Sediments*
9,000-17,000
20,000-38,000
Drums at Hopewell
9,400
20,700
Drums at Portsmouth
13,000
28,800
Landfill7
1,400
3,100
Pebbled Ammonium Nitrate
Plant Site
100
220
Rounded total*
33,700-43,600
73,500-95,500
* Low value reflects estimate extrapolated from mean concen-
trations, high value reflects estimates based on mean plus
one standard deviation,
t Includes identified deposits only.
A mathematical model was constructed for the James River co predict the
movement of Kepone. The model includes use of a sediment transport code which
was first successfully employed and verified on the Columbia and Clinch Rivers.
Input data were obtained from sampling of the James River during the project.
Verification was accomplished using data from surveys conducted by the Virginia
Institute of Marine Science. Based on outputs from the model and estimates
of the water/sediment partition coefficient, it is projected that Kepone
deposits in Bailey Bay and the James River are being moved seaward by natural
dispersive mechanisms at a rate of approximately 76 to 170 kg/yr (167 to
374 lb/yr) past Burwell Bay (River Kilometer 28). Over 65% of these losses or
56 to 110 kg/yr (109 to 243 lb/yr) is due to the desorption of Kepone from
sediments and subsequent transport in a dissolved state. An additional 10 to
100 kg/yr (22 to 220 lb/yr) of Kepone are carried out of the river in the
flesh of migratory fish.
1-2

-------
The presence of Kepone in the James River has contributed to adverse
environmental and economical impacts. Laboratory data reveal that Kepone is
acutely toxic to fish at concentrations as low as 6.6 ug/I (ppb). Chronic
exposure to as little as 0.05 ug/2, (ppb) Kepone may lead to sublethal effects.
While specific cause-and-effect relations cannot be documented in the James
River, an occurrence of scoliosis in finfish and declining populations of
sensitive species coincides closely with the Kepone production at Hopewell.
A major impact, which can be identified, is the presence of Kepone in blue
crabs and commercial fish at levels in excess of FDA Action Levels. This has
resulted in emergency orders by the State of Virginia restricting sport and
commercial fishing in the James River and its tributaries. These restrictions
impacted the sport and commercial fisheries of the James River as well as
fishery-related activities.
At the projected rate for movement of Kepone down the James River, these
environmental and economical effects are likely to continue. Laboratory data
suggest that aquatic life may not be safe- from adverse effects until Kepone
levels can be reduced to 0.008 ug/Z (ppb) in water and 0.C15 ug/g (ppm) in
sediments and in food for biota. It may take decades for the James River to
reach these levels through natural conditions. Kepone discharges from the
James River are believed to be too small to threaten similar effects in
Chesapeake Bay. The 76 to 170 kg/yr (167 to 374 lb/yr) of Kepone, which passes
from Burwell Bay, will be sorbed to clean sediments. These Kepone-laden
sediments will ultimately enter Chesapeake Bay, but the inflow rate is small
and much may pass cut of the Bay prior to deposition on the bottom. However,
caution is necessary because no hydrodynamic data have been reviewed in the
3ay area to quantify projections, nor is the possible impact of unusual storm
events known. Further effort is needed to clearly define risks to Chesapeake
Bay.
There are few technological approaches available which could accelerate
the restoration of the Kepone-contaminated James River. Sediments can be
dredged, but overboard disposal of spoils might aggravate the Kepone problem.
Hence, sediments will have to be contained or fixed. In situ stabilization
may be attractive if an effective fixation agent can be identified. Two novel
approaches were also found to have some promise after preliminary laboratory
evaluation: (1) application of activated carbon to bottom sediments in situ
to decrease availability of Kepone to the water column and food chain; and
(2) use of retrievable sorbents in situ to physically concentrate and remove
Kepone. Institution of any of these options would cost in excess of S3 billion.
Even if restoration were aimed only at sediments containing the bulk of the
Kepone [93% lie in sediments with 0.1 to 1.0 ug/g (ppm)] the cost would exceed
$1.5 billion.
The findings of the Battelle study are presented in Chapter II. These
are followed by a discussion of the sequence of events leading to the EPA
Kepone Mitigation Feasibility Project in Chapter III. Subsequent chapters
address the methods employed and results obtained in each of seven study
areas: (1) the physical, chemical, and biological properties of Kepone related
to fate and movement in the environment (Chapter IV); (2) the status of
1-3

-------
environmental Kepone residues in the Hopewell area (Chapter V); (3) che eco-
logical make up of che James River (Chapter VI); (4) the status of Kepone
residues in the James River and predictions of movement based on mathematical
modeling (Chapter VII); (5) the ecological effects of Kepone (Chapter VIII);
(6) the evaluation of alternatives available for mitigation of Kepone in the
Hopewell area (Chapter IX); and (7) the evaluation of nondredging alternatives
for mitigation of Kepone in the James River (Chapter X). Each chapter begins
with a brief summary of its concents and the major findings therein. Detailed
support data for chapters can be found in referenced appendices.
1-4

-------
CHAPTER II
STUDY FINDINGS
Ths Battelle effort is one of four funded studies of EPA's Kepone Miti-
gation Feasibility Project. Some of the key objectives of the project were
to assist in answering a series of questions pertaining to Kepone contami-
nation in the James River:
•	What is the current distribution of Kepone residuals in the environment?
•	How are these deposits changing with time?
•	What impacts can be associated with the current and projected future
inventories of environmental Kepone contamination?
•	What actions can be taken to decrease those impacts?
•	What costs are associated with potential restoration alternatives?
Ultimately, the answers to these questions will provide a foundation for
answering the overriding or summary issue of what should be done about the
present situation. An in-depth discussion of study methods and results is
presented in this report both in the form of information reported by others
and as results of research initiated as a part of the.EPA Kepone Mitigation
Feasibility Project. In order to facilitate the application of the data in
this report to future restoration efforts in the James River Basin, the
pertinent findings of the study are summarized in this chapter.
CHAPTER III - PROBLEM STATEMENT
•	Kepone production output from Allied's Semi-Works Plant in Hopewell
totaled 763,475 kg (1,681,865 lb) from 1966 through early 1974.
•	Little data exist concerning the discharge of Kepone residuals into
the environment from Allied's production facilities.
•	Eleven oysters collected in 1967 from the James River near its mouth
contained an average of 0.1 yg/g (ppm) Kepone in their tissues.
•	Sediment samples from the Jamestown/Dancing Point reach of the James
River had levels of Kepone of 0.04 and 0.02 yg/g (ppm) in 1967.
•	Of four bald eagle carcasses collected between 1970 and 1973 in eastern
Virginia, three had Kepone in their livers at concentrations of 12, 86,
and 0.13 yg/g (ppm) wet weight.
II-l

-------
•	Four bluerish taken from the lower James River in 1973 were subsequently
analyzed and contained 0.94, 0.01, 0.56, and 0.96 yg/g (ppm) Kepone in
their edible meat.
•	Life Science Products Company (LSP) began producing Kepone in March 1974
with a total recorded output of 769,390 kg (1,696,225 lb) over its
one-and-a-half years of operation.
•	Kepone was discharged from the LSP plant in: (1) atmospheric releases
from drying and bagging operations; (2) daily wastewater effluent;
(3) acute wastewater discharges due to spills, malfunctions, and bad
batches; and (4) solid waste loads routed to terrestrial sites.
•	Analysis of LSP wastewater effluent showed levels of Kepone ranging up
to 36,600 ug/Z (ppb) during the production period.
•	Discharge of contaminated wastewater from LSP occurred ac the Hopewell
landfill, at the site of the former Allied Pebbled Ammonium Nitrate
Plant, and into the city sewer system.
•	Sludge from the Hopewell Primary Sewage Treatment Plant analyzed in
1975 contained from 200 to 600 ug/g (ppm) Kepone.
•	In 1975, Kepone was detected in surface waters at concentrations of
0.3 ug/2. (ppb) in the James River near Hopewell, 0.1 ug/l (ppb) in the
Appomattox River, and from 1 to 4 yg/i (ppb) in Bailey Creek.
•	Soil from the LSP site contained more than 10,000 ug/g (ppm) Kepone
immediately following plant closure, with levels diminishing to 2 ug/g
(ppm) 900 m (3,000 ft) away.
•	Sampling in the James River in 1976 showed Kepone levels in the bottom
sediment extending from City Point at Hopewell to Newport News in the
lower tidal zone. Concentrations ranged from 0.02 to 1.0 ug/g (ppm)
in the top 9 cm of sediment, with the exception of Bailey 3ay where levels
up to 10 ug/g (ppm) were reported.
CHAPTER IV - PROPERTIES OF KEPONE
•	Kepone is strongly sorbed onto soil and sediment particles such that
at equilibrium in the environment, concentrations on particulate matter
are 10^ to 10^ times those in the surrounding water.
•	Laboratory and field observations indicate that Kepone does not. volatil-
ize to any significant extent.
•	Kepone's solubility is a direct function of solution pH. Kepone levels
in leachate from sediments with 1 ug/g (ppm) Kepone increased from
0.031 yg/i (ppb) at a pH of 7.2 to 6.34 yg/I (ppb) at pH 12.0.
II-2

-------
•	Algae from the James River have been found to contain Kepone concentra-
tions above the level required to adversely affect productivity (0.35
to 1.0 yg/g).
•	Kepone was bioconcentrated by laboratory oysters, mysids, and spot from
sea water containing less than 0.03 ug/£ (ppb) Kepone.
•	Bird species in which Kepone residuals have been detected include the
great blue herron, mallard duck, coot, black duck, wood duck, herring
gull, Canadian goose, hooded mersanger, and bald eagle.
•	Experiments indicate that plants sorb Kepone in their roocs but do act
transport it upward through the stem and leaf compartments.
•	There is no evidence to date of Kepone degradation in tha natural environ-
ment .
CHAPTER V - ANALYSIS OF CURRENT KEPONE DISTRIBUTION
•	Use of a toulene:ethyl acetate solvent "system for Kepone analysis elimi-
nates extract cleanup steps for the majority of Hopewell environmental
samples.
•	An estimated 540 kg (1200 lb) of Kepone reside in the sediments under-
lying Bailey Bay and Bailey Creek.
•	The most heavily contaminated bottom sediments of Bailey Bay display a
vertical Kepone distribution, with concentrations peaking at depths of
10 to 20 cm.
•	Highest Kepone levels in Bailey Bay occur at the mouth of Bailey Creek,
with elevated levels continuing in conjunction with the flow pattern
of creek water through the Bay.
•	Surface soil samples from Hopewell contain Kepone concentrations ranging
from several hundred ug/g (ppm) in the area adjacent to the former Life
Science Products (LSP) plant site to 0.1 ug/g (ppm) in the outskirts of
town.
•	Sampling results show little downward movement of Kepone through the
soil column, with concentrations in the top 2.5 cm (1-in.) layer gen-
erally a full order of magnitude (10-fold) greater than Kepone levels
in the second 2.5 cm (inch) of soil.
•	The current inventory of Kepone in Hopewell soils resulting from atmo-
spheric fallout during production periods totals between 45 and 450 kg
(100 and 1000 lb).
II-3

-------
Surface runoff translocates an estimated 60 to 70 g/day of Kepone from
Hopewell soils to the James River system during average periods of
rainfall.
Highest levels of Kepone in surface runoff were detected in the vicinity
of the LSP site, ranging from 10 to 700 ug/2. (ppb).
No Kepone was detected in shallow ground-water samples from three wells
in the LS? neighborhood.
Detectable levels of Kepone were found in shallow ground-water wells at
the Hopewell landfill, at the site of the Kepone/sludge disposal lagoon,
and at a location east of the Hopewell sewage treatment plant. Measured
concentrations of Kepone at these wells were 0.24, 0.81, and 0.08 yg/Z,
(ppb), respectively.
Over a 5-month sampling period, two ground-water seeps from the bank
below the Kepone/sludge disposal lagoon contained between 9.6 and
361 ug/2. (ppb) Kepone.
The concentration of Kepone in the Hopewell domestic water supply systren
is below a detectable limit of 0.02 yg/2. (ppb).
The highest Kepone concentration in an environmental sample, 35,163 ug/g
(ppm), was found in marsh sediment adjacent to the southeastern portion
of the Hopewell landfill.
Kepone levels in the top 10 cm (4 in.) of this marsh average 12,200 ug/g
(ppm) and account for approximately 1,400 kg (3100 lb) of the chemical
in a 1000 m^ (0.25 acre) area.
Analysis of samples from the Pebbled Ammonium Nitrate Plant site identi-
fied Kepone residuals to depths of 12 m (40 ft), comprising an estimated
inventory of 100 kg (220 lb) of Kepone.
An average of 6 g/day of Kepone exit the Hopewell primary sewage treat-
ment plant (STP) in its effluent.
Continuing Kepone levels in the plant effluent are fed by storm runoff
originating in the Life Science neighborhood, by supernatant drawoff
from the STP holding tank, and by inflows from the residential sanitary
sewer lines.
The amount of Kepone residuals persisting in the Hopewell sewer system
and STP is estimated to be less than 23 kg (50 lb).
Approximately 100 kg (220 lb) of Kepone are present in the Kepone/sludge
disposal lagoon.
II-4

-------
•	An estimated 9000 kg (20,000 lb) of Kepone reside in the top foot of
sediment underlying the James River.
CHAPTER VI - ECOLOGICAL PROFILE OF THE JAMES RIVER
•	James River species and their distribution through the tidal portion of
the river are summarized in Appendices D and K.
•	The Virginia Institute of Marine Science estimates total summer biomass
of finfish in the James River (RM 0-45) to be 1.65 x 10^ kg (3.^ x
10& lb).
CHAPTER VII - THE MOVEMENT OF KEPONE IN THE JAMES RIVER
•	Particulate Kepone concentrations up to 0.241 ug/g (ppm) Kepone were
found in the river proper. Suspended matter in Bailey Creek contained
up to 1.38 ug/g (ppm) Kepone.
•	Dissolved Kepone concentrations up to 0.042 ;jg/f. (ppb) were found in
the river proper. At most stations, dissolved Kepone was below the
detectable limit of 0.006 ug/& (ppb).
•	Only two mathematical models are currently available for calculating
migration of contaminants by taking into account both dissolved and
particulate species and their interactions.
•	Mathematical simulation of Kepone transport under most probable flow
conditions yields an estimate of 89.1 kg/yr Kepone transported seaward
from Burwell Bay.
•	In the most probable scenario, Kepone transport is comprised of 75%
dissolved material and 25% associated with particulate material.
•	Calibration and verification activities reveal good agreement with all
available data.
•	Sensitivity analysis under the most probable flow conditions with
Kepone river bed values twice as high and a 5-fold increase in par-
tition coefficient (5 x 10"^ in place of 1 x 10"^) yield a prediction
of 170 kg/yr transported seaward of 3urwell Bay.
•	In the latter case, dissolved Kepone accounts for 92% of the total load.
•	Analysis of conditions likely to result from implementation of cleanup
in selected segments of the river suggests that little or no effect will
be noted in total Kepone discharge levels. Ambient Kepone concentrations
can be reduced in treated areas, however.
II-5

-------
CHAPTER VIII - ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF KEPONE
•	The fish species in Che James River that is most sensitive Co che
acute toxic effects of Kepone is spot (Leiostomus Xanthurus) with a
96-hr LC50 of 6.6 yg/i, (ppfa) .
•	Sublethal effects with chronic exposure have been reported at Kepone
concentrations in water as low as 0.05 ug/H (ppb) (sheepshead minnows).
•	Kepone bioconcentration factors calculated from laboratory studies range
from 3.1 in blue crab to a high of 13,470 in mysid.
•	The major route of Kepone uptake in fish is from Kepone dissolved or
suspended in the water.
•	Filter feeding shellfish take up Kepone from contaminated suspended
solids.
•	Bioaccumulation of Kepone from food and sediments is significant in
blue crabs and polychaete worms.
•	In laboratory studies, contaminated oysters depurated Kepone to non-
detectable levels in 7 to 20 days.
•	Fish species both bioconcentrate and depurate Kepone at slower rates
than oysters.
•	Analysis of field and laboratory data suggest that Kepone levels at or
below 0.008 ug/fc, (ppb) in water and 0.015 ug/g (ppm) in botcom sedimenc
would result in no adverse ecological impacts.
•	The current FDA Action Limits are 0.3 ug/g (ppm) Kepone in the edible
meat of fish and shellfish, and 0.4 ug/g (ppm) in blue crab.
CHAPTER IX - HOPEWELL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
•	Current data on human and ecological dose response to Kepone levels in
soil are insufficient to establish technical criteria for designating
required clean-up actions in Hopewell.
•	Potential techniques for mitigating the impacts of Kepone in surface
soil include scraping or excavation, soil cover and seeding, lime treat-
ment to accelerate leaching, amine accelerated photolysis, and che
addition of synthetic soil amendments.
•	Uncertainties concerning the effectiveness and environmencal impact of
lime treatment deem it an inadvisable mitigation alternative at this
point.
II-6

-------
•	Tree cover inhibits the effectiveness of amine accelerated photolysis
and synthetic soil amendments.
•	Cost of excavating and drumming contaminated marsh sediment adjacent
to the southeastern portion of the landfill is estimated to be $5000.
•	Covering Nitrogen Park with 5 cm (2 in.) of uncontaminated soil and reseed-
ing would cost approximately $3,500.
•	High-temperature incineration is an effective means of destroying harm-
ful Kepone residuals.
CHAPTER X - ALTERNATIVES FOR THE MITIGATION OF
KEPONE IN THE JAMES RIVER
•	In laboratory studies, two stabilization agents (molten sulfur and an
organic epoxy grout) offered up to 1 order of magnitude reduction in
Kepone leachate levels.
•	Silicate-based stabilization agents available at the time of testing
were found to be ineffective in reducing Kepone leachate concentration.
•	Should silicate-based fixative be found that is effective, in situ appli-
cation may warrant testing.
•	Application of activated carbon to contaminated sediments decreases
the availability of Kepone to the surrounding aquatic system.
•	In laboratory studies, coal did not significantly inhibit Kepone transfer
from contaminated sediment to the overlying water.
•	Retrievable sorbents are capable of removing Kepone from contaminated
sediments.
•	Polymer film laid over the sediments in Bailey Bay is an insufficient
mitigative action since perforation necessary to allow venting of
degradation gases will also allow the escape of Kepone.
•	Activated carbon and UV-ozone treatment are each effective in removing
Kepone from certain aqueous solutions.
•	Application of the laboratory tested options to the contaminated por-
tions of the James River would cost in excess of $3 billion.
•	Unit costs for mitigation alternatives in the James River were esti-
mated to be:
-	Application of Retrievable Carbon - $0.52/ft^ sediment
-	Application of Retrievable Sorbent in situ - $0.90/ft3 sediment
-	Oozer Dredge with Ocean Disposal - $1.07/ft3 sediment
-	Oozer Dredge with Sulfur Stabilization - $1.37/ft^ sediment
-	Oozer Dredge with Incineration - 1.57/ft^ sediment
II-7

-------
CHAPTER III - PROBLEM STATEMENT
SUMMARY
Content
Chapter III provides a description of the Kepone contamination issue
prior to initiation of the EPA Kepone Mitigation Feasibility Study. Follow-
ing a brief background statement, a section on Kepone production is presented
This includes a description of the chemical processes utilized by Allied and
Life Sciences, and a table of annual production output. Next, a chronology
of significant events relating to Kepone contamination is summarized. This
is followed by a discussion of Kepone residual discharges, including avenues
of release, approximate amounts discharged, and the resulting deposition in
the environment following cessation of production.
Findings
• Kepone production output from Allied's Semi-Works Plant in Hopewell
totaled 763,475 kg (1,681,865 lb) from 1966 through early 1974.
• Little data exist concerning the discharge of Kepone residuals into
the environment from Allied's Production facilities.
•	Eleven oysters collected in 1967 from the James River near its mouth
contained an average of 0.1 pg/g (ppm) Kepone in their tissues.
•	Sediment samples from the Jamestown/Dancing Point reach of the James
River had levels of Kepone of 0.04 and 0.02 ug/g (ppm) in 1967.
•	Of four bald eagle carcasses collected between 1970 and 1973 in eastern
Virginia, three had Kepone in their livers at concentrations of 12, 86,
and 0.13 ug/g (ppm) wet weight.
•	Four bluefish taken from the lower James River in 1973 were subsequently
analyzed and contained 0.94, 0.01, 0.56, and 0.96 yg/g (ppm) Kepone in
their edible meat.
•	Life Science Products Company (LSP) began producing Kepone in March 1974
with a total recorded output of 769,390 kg (1,696,225 lb) over its one-
and-a-half years of operation.
® Kepone was discharged from the LSP plant in: 1) atmospheric releases
from drying and bagging operations, 2) daily wastewater effluent,
3) acute wastewater discharges due to spills, malfunctions, and bad
batches, and 4) solid waste loads routed to terrestrial sites.
•	Analysis of LSP wastewater effluent showed levels of Kepone ranging up
to 36,900 ug/i (ppb) during the production period.
III-l

-------
Discharge of contaminated wastewater from LSP occurred at the Hopewell
landfill, at the site of the former Allied Pebbled Ammonium Nitrate
plant, and into the city sewer system.
Sludge from the Hopewell Primary Sewage Treatment Plant analyzed in 19
contained from 200 to 600 ug/g (ppm) Kepone.
In 1975, Kepone was detected in surface waters at concentrations of
0.3 ug/£ (ppb) in the James River near Hopewell, 0.1 ug/I (ppb) in the
Appomattox River, and from 1 to 4 ug/£ (ppb) in Bailey Creek.
Soil from the LSP site contained more than 10,000 ug/g (ppm) Kepone
immediately following plant closure, with levels diminishing to
2 ug/g (ppm) 900 m (3000 ft) away.
Sampling in the James River in 1976 showed Kepone levels in the bottom
sediment extending from City Point at Hopewell to Newport News in the
lower tidal zone. Concentrations ranged from 0.02 to 1.0 ug/g (ppm)
in the top 9 cm of sediment, with the exception of Bailey Bay where
levels up to 10 ug/g (ppm) were reported.
III-2

-------
INTRODUCTION
Kepone is a registered trade name for decachlorooctahydro-l,3,4-methano-
2H-cyclobuta(cd)pentalen-2-one, a member of the cyclodiene family of insecti-
cides. It was developed by Allied Chemical Company in the early 1950s to
control specific insect pests. The majority cf production was exported to
Central America for use on the banana root borer and to a European firm for
conversion to other products. Domestic use was limited to small quantities
placed in ant and roach traps at a maximum allowable level of 0.125£ Kepone.
Such traps were marketed by 27 firms in the U.S.
Kepone has been a subject of public concern since health officials found
high concentrations in the blood of a Life Science Products Company chemical
worker in July 1975. Subsequent investigations revealed contamination of the
local environment originating from atmospheric, wastewater, and bulk releases
of Kepone from production facilities in Hopewell, Virginia. As a result of
this contamination, the Life Science Products Company was closed. Numerous law
suits have been filed against the company, the staff, and Allied Chemical who
supplied the raw materials and paid a tolling fee for production of the pro-
ducts. One suit filed by the Federal government resulted in the largest fine-
ever levied under Public Law 92-500. Finally, some 118 km (75 mi) of the
James River have been closed to the commercial and recreational taking of
certain fish, shellfish and crab species. Most recently, the ban on male blue
crabs was extended to southern portions of Chesapeake Bay near the river's
mouth.
The tidal James River, extending from below the'city of Richmond to its
mouth in the lower Chesapeake Bay, supports the livelihood of many watermen
and individuals associated with fishery-related activities. Thus, the restric-
tions stemming from Kepone residuals are believed to have had an adverse
effect upon the economy of the region. It has been projected that no signi-
ficant amount of Kepone will reach Chesapeake Bay, but little definitive work
has been directed to substantiate this. The major economic impact of such an
event and the potential closure of Chesapeake Bay waters to commercial and
recreational fishing make a detailed investigation of paramount concern now,
while time may allow appropriate preventive actions for the future.
The work performed by Battelle and reported in this document has been
directed toward determining: (1) the magnitude of previous releases of Kepone;
(2) the distribution of available Kepone; (3) the existence of any substantial
current sources of Kepone for movement into the James River; (4) the fate and
effects of Kepone deposits in the James River; and (5) the nature and efficacy
of potential mitigative activities. The final objective is important in that
it will influence the selection of any remedial actions taken to cleanse the
river of Kepone. However, if all objectives are to be achieved, an understanding
of the overall Kepone problem is necessary.
III-3

-------
PRODUCTION OF KEPONE IN HOPEWELL, VIRGINIA
Location
The city of Hopewell lies along the southern shore of the James River,
118 km (75 mi) from Chesapeake Bay (Figures III.l-III.3). The economic core
of this city of approximately 25,000 people is a major industrial chemicals
complex. Kepone production in Hopewell began in 1966 and continued through
the summer of 1975. The pesticide was manufactured at two locations: the
Allied Chemical Company Semi-Works plant located near Gravelly Run and the
Life Science Products Company plant on State Highway 10 to the west of the
Allied Plant_(Figures III.4 and III.5). Production at the two facilities
occurred at different times, at different intensities, and in somewhat dif-
ferent modes. In the following sections the processes used to produce Kepone
are discussed.
Production Process at Allied
The Allied Chemical Corporation Semi-Works plant was designed to be a
flexible facility for the production of specialty or smaller volume products _
on a batch basis. It was used for Kepone production intermittently during
the period 1966-1974. Kepone was made there by reacting hexachlorocyclopenta-
diene (HCP) with sulfur trioxide (SO3), sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and sulfuric
acid (H2SO4) in the presence of a catalyst, antimony pentachloride (SbCls).
The empirical equation for this reaction is:
2C.C1, + 2SO- + SNaOH + H.SO. - C,-Cl..rt0 + 2NaCl + 3Na~S0. + 5H_0
o 6	3	24 10 10	242
(HCP)	(Kepone)
In the 1966 Allied process (Ameen, 1966), each batch consisted of charg-
ing a 2800-2, (750-gal) glass-lined reactor with 3443 kg (7590 lb) of HCP,
11.3 kg (25 lb) of antimony pentachloride (SbCls) catalyst and 0.68 kg (1.5 lb)
of water. The reactor was heated to 60°C with agitation. Over a time period
of 5.5 hr, 1513 kg (3336 lb) of sulfur trioxide (SO3) (50% excess) were added
at a rate which maintained reactor temperature at 60 co 65aC. The entire mix-
ture was finally heated to 85 to 90°C, at a pressure of 3500 g/cm2 (50 psig)
or below for 10 to 12 hr.
The resultant mixture was quenched in 6% aqueous sodium hydroxide (NaOH)
solution to hydrolyze the reaction mass and put it in solution. Twenty-three
separate quenches were required for each reaction batch because of the large
quantity of caustic solution that was used. In the quenching process, each of
two 2800-1 (750-gal) vessels was charged with an average of 1800 I (475 gal)
of water and 159 I (42 gal) of 50% NaOH, followed by 217 kg (479 lb) of
reaction mass. This mixture was then heated, while agitating, to 95 to 100°C.
Additional NaOH was added if the mixture failed to go into solution.
III-4

-------
M
M
I—I
I
L/i
Chickaliominy River
llopewe
James River
L|>|ie& Island
C i ty Po nit
Jordan Point
\ llopewe 11
K) waboth Kiver
Bailey Creek
FIGURE III.l. Location of the Affected Areas on the James River

-------
M
M
I
a-»
11)
• llirotts firk	'
I 111# &cl«nc« ProtfccU hwi
AIM&*•! UMh
A»«n|y* 
-------
MOUTH OF
MOODY'S CREEK
REGIONAL
STP
JAMES
MOUTH OF
JORDAN
POINT
•'list-
¦
'«'Whii» Tint &




&iwgE|g&*

rfr*» - Vl?
T'.-v
ssiiggSa
%F%$22
»e

*¦ m


•V
,...*®KB»
\
HOPEWELL
STP
KEPONE
LAGOON
MOUTH OF
CATTAIL
CREEK
BAILEY
CREEK
FIGURE III.3. The Bailey Creek Area
III- 7

-------
STATI ON STREET
PUMP STATION	SEMI -WORKS PLANT
VIRGINIA AMERICAN	GRAVELLY
WATER COMPANY	RUN
FIGURE III.4. The Allied Semi-Works Plant Site and
Surrounding Area
III-8

-------
FORMER
LIFE SCIENCE
PLANT SITE
UPPER POYTHRESS
RUN MARSH
\
STATION STREET
PUMP STATION

H

¦ .
"V,®
HOPEWELL NEWS
BUILDING
NITROGEN
PARK
ALLIED
COOLING WATER
DISCHARGE TO
POYTHRESS RUN
FIGURE III.5. The Life Science Products Plant Site and
Surrounding Area
III-9

-------
The solution was then neutralized at 95 to 100°C with about 23 kg (50 lb)
of sulfuric acid (H2SO4) to a pH of 5 or 6 to precipitate the Kepone. The
slurry was transferred to a 2800-A (750-gal) centrifuge feed vessel and cooled
to 60°C.
The Kepone was recovered by centrifuging the slurry in a 122-cm (48-in.)
diameter by 76-cm (30-in.) high centrifuge. The centrifuge was charged with
about 181 kg (400 lb) wet cake per load, each cake being washed with 300 to
380 I (80 to 100 gal) of warm water to remove sodium sulfate, sodium chloride,
excess sulfuric acid, etc. The wet cake was then dried in a forced hot-air
oven of 4.08-m3 (144-ft^) capacity at an inlet temperature of 125 to 135°C.
The dried Kepone was loaded in polyethylene-lined Fibre-pak drums of
91-kg (200-lb) capacity. An average of 2500 kg (5,500 lb) of Kepone, contain-
ing 5.2% water, was obtained from each batch processed, constituting an approxi-
mate conversion of 81% of the HCP to Kepone. An average analysis of the
quality of Kepone produced is shown in Table III.l.
TABLE III.l. KEPONE BATCH RESIDUALS
(AMEEN, 1966)
Wt%
Water	5.2
Methanol Insolubles 0.3
Sulfate	0.03
HCP	0.1
pH	6.0
Production Process at Life Science Products Company
Life Science.Products Company, Inc. began production of Kepone soon after
Allied ceased Kepone production in early 1974.* The company was formed by an
agreement with Allied, whereby Allied supplied raw materials to Life Science
for Kepone production and paid a prearranged toll price for the Kepone pro-
duct. This tolling type of operation allowed for capital recovery surcharges
on the original plant and environmental control equipment subsequently installed
Life Science was provided operational instructions on Kepone processing by
Allied and thus used approximately the same technology.
The Life Science process consisted of charging a dimerization reactor
with 4300 kg (9500 lb) of HCP, 9.1 kg (20 lb) of antimony pentachloriae cata-
lyst and 0.64 kg (1.4 lb) of water. As in the Allied process, the reactor was
heated to 60°C. Over a 2-hr period, 1450 kg (3200 lb) of SO3 were added as
III- 10

-------
the reactor temperature was allowed to rise to 100 to 105°C. The reaction was
then held at this temperature and agitated until complete, an estimated 5 to
7 hr. After 5 hr, the reaction mixture sample was tested for completeness of
reaction.
The quenching procedure was similar to Allied's, although 38,000 I
(10,000 gal) of water and 2500 Z (670 gal) of 50% NaOH were used. The solu-
tion was neutralized at 90°C with 360 kg (800 lb) of sulfuric acid to precipi-
tate the Kepone. The precipitated Kepone slurry was sent to a rotary vacuum
filter where the Kepone solids were removed onto the rotating filter cloth and
washed with water prior to discharge from the filter. Damp Kepone dropped
into the intake of the direct fired rotating tray (Wyssmont) dryer and was
cried to a moisture level of about 5 wt%. Dried granular Kepone dropped
directly from the dryer into 210-3. (55-gal) fiber-pak drums which were used to
ship 102 kg (225 lb) net Kepone product.
Listed in Table III.2 are figures provided for the amount of production
output of Kepone on a yearly basis.
TABLE III.2. PRODUCTION LEVELS OF KEPONE
(FERGUSON, 1975)
Production Output from
Allied Semi-Works Plant
Year
kg
lb
1966
35,935
78,125
1967
47,990
105,800
1968
36,535
80,550
1969
46,990
103,600
1970
41,460
91,400
1971
204,800
451,515
1972
176,970
390,150
1973
100,435
221,425
1974
72,260
159,300
Total

1,681,865
III-ll

-------
TABLE III.2. (continued)
Production Output
from Life Science
Products Company
Year
kt?
lb
1974
385,370
849,000
1975
384.020
846,625
Total
769,390
1,696,225
SUMMARY CHRONOLOGY
Listed below is a chronology of relevant events that took place during
the time Kepone was produced in Hopewell, Virginia. The events and dates
listed are taken from the proceedings of the Senate Subcommittee Hearings on
Kepone Contamination (1976). Although testimony is occasionally conflicting,
the general chronology presented should provide a useful background summary.
1966 - March 1974	Intermittent manufacture of Kepone by Allied
Chemical Corporation occurs at its Semi-works
plant in Hopewell.
November 1973	Life Science Products Company, Inc. (LSP)
signs agreement with Allied to produce
Kepone on a toll processing contract basis.
LSP receives permission from the city of
Hopewell to discharge its future wastewaters
into the city sewerage system.
March 1974	LSP begins production of Kepone.
Malfuctions of production equipment allow
the release of sulfur trioxide to the atmo-
sphere. As a result, the Virginia Air
Pollution Control Board cites LSP for failure
to obtain a permit.
October 1974	On the basis of recommendations of the Vir-
ginia State Air Pollution Control Board, a
baghouse collector is installed at Che LSP
plant. Complaints about emissions had occur-
red from February through August.
Ill-12

-------
During a survey of the Hopewell sewage treat-
ment plant, the staff of the Virginia State
Water Control Board discovers that the plant's
digester is not operating properly. They
learn that a chemical, Kepone, is being dis-
charged into the city sewerage system.
A meeting is held by the staff members of the
city of Hopewell, the State Water Control
Board (SWCB), the State Department of Health,
and LSP. Staff of the SWCB state that the
levels of Kepone discharged to the sewage
treatment plant must be drastically reduced.
December 1974	The staffs of the SWCB and State Department of
Health meet again with the city and LSP. The
staffs inform them that further pretreatment of
wastewater discharged by the company would be
required to meet a limitation of 0.0077 kg
(0.017 lb) of Kepone per day in the Hopewell
sewage treatment plant effluent.
March 1975	A barrel of hexachloracyplopentadiene is added
instead of sulfuric acid. Worker becomes ill
from fumes.
April 9, 1975	The staff of the SWCB recommends amendments to
the Hopewell NPDES permit. These amendments
provide for limitations on Kepone in the sewage
treatment plant effluent of 1.0 Ug/i, ppb, (maxi-
mum instantaneous concentration); 0.5 Ug/&, ppb,
[daily average; 0.00758 kg/day (0.0167 lb/day)
daily maximum]. The amendments also contain the
condition that the city of Hopewell require LSP
to pretreat effluent to a level of 100 ]ig/1 (ppb)
Kepone, effective June 6, 1975.
April 1975	The city of Hopewell begins construction of an
asphalt-sealed lagoon to contain the existing
sludge from the plant which was thought to
contain Kepone under requirements from the
State of Virginia.
May 1975	Strong odor of hexachlorocyclopentadiene at the
Hopewell sewage treatment plant causes an opera-
tor to seek medical attention. Sixty-eight
kilograms (150 lb) of HTH are added to the
sewer lines to oxidize the HCP. Little
improvement is noted.
Ill-13

-------
July 11, 1975	The Atlanta Center for Disease Control (ACDC)
received the blood specimen of an LSP worker.
An analysis of the blood reveals a 7.5 mg/2,
(ppm) level of Kepone.
July 18, 1975	Virginia state officials are notified by the
ACDC that Kepone has been detected in a blood
sample taken from an employee of LSP.
July 22, 1975	Virginia state health officials conduct an
inspection of the LSP operations and examine
10 employees working in the plant. Some of
those examined have symptoms of neurological
illnesses, with several being severe enough
to require hospitalization. An inspection
of the plant reveals air, ground, and build-
ing contamination by the product, Kepone, and
the various compounds used in making Kepone.
July 24, 1975	The State Department of Health meet with offi-
cials of LSP. LSP management agrees to close
the plant and comply voluntarily with all the
conditions of the health department.
ESTIMATE OF TOTAL DISCHARGES
Losses From the Life Science Products Plant
From the preceding chronology it can be seen that there were numerous
problems associated with production of Kepone at the Life Science Products
plant. Subsequent investigations revealed that there were also significant
discharges of Kepone from this facility. These losses were derived from four
basic sources: (1) atmospheric releases from drying and bagging operations;
(2) daily wastewater discharges; (3) acute wastewater releases due to spills,
malfunctions, and bad batches; and (4) tank truck and solid waste loads
dumped or routed to the terrestrial sites. Testimonies of former employees
show that these releases from the Life Science plant involved several tons of
the chemical through its year-and-a-half of production. However, without
daily records, it is impossible to quantify these discharges. Evidence also
indicates that Kepone was inadvertently carried home on workers' persons and
clothes throughout the production period.
The best means of estimation would be a material balance based on raw
hexachlorocyclopentadiene (HCP) supplied by Allied Chemical to the Life
Science Products facility, the stoichiometry of product (81% yield), and
outputs returned to Allied. By differences, the order of magnitude of total
discharges could be ascertained, i.e.:
Losses = 0.81 x (Theoretical Yield of HCP Supplies) - Sales
111-14

-------
However, Allied Chemical has deemed it inappropriate to release data, which
would assist in making an accurate appraisal, since litigation is continuing.
Without that information, total losses can only be estimated. This has been
accomplished in the following manner. Life Science Products originally had a
design capacity of 1400 kg/day (3000 lb/day) when production began in
March 1974. In March 1975, a second dryer was added to the operation to
double the capacity. Since there was continual pressure to maximize output,
production was generally above the design capacity. Testimony by Mr. Virgil
Hundtofte at the Senate Hearings on Kepone Contamination suggests average
production was about 1800 kg/day (4000 lb/day) during the initial period when
design capacity was 1400 kg/day (3000 lb/day). Over 2700 kg/day (6000 lb/dav)
were produced at the expanded capacity when the second dryer was installed.
Testimony further confirms that production continued 24 hr a day, 7 days a
week (Senate Hearings, 1976). It is assumed that operations were at a
1800 kg/day (4000 lb/day) level for 11 months and at a 2700 kg/day (6000
lb/day) level for 5 months. One month of 1400 kg/dav (3000 lb/dav) produc-
tion was probably lost with installation of centifuges and the holding tank
during the spring of 1974, and into October when the baghouse was finally
installed.
Thus, total potential production at the Life Science Products Plant is
estimated at:
1800 kg/day (4000 lb/day) x 304 days = 550,000 kg (1,216,000 lb)
2700 kg/day (6000 lb/day) x 115 days = 311.000 kg (690,000 lb)
861,000 kg (1,906,000 lb)
Company records detail product output of 770,000 kg (1,700,000 lb)
(Ferguson, 1975) sold to Allied Chemical during that period. If the dif-
ference is assumed to represent Kepone losses, there was a total potential
discharge of:
867,000 kg (1,910,000 lb) Potential Production
-772,000 kg (1,700,000 lb) Sales to Allied
95,000 kg (210,000 lb)
Therefore, maximum potential losses from the Life Science Products opera-
tion are estimated at 90,000 kg (200,000 lb).
Losses From the Allied Semi-Works Plant
It is even more difficult to quantify the discharges of Kepone during
the period that Allied Chemical Corporation was producing the chemical from
1966 to 1974. Indications are that Allied's production was more efficient
and clean with respect to worker safety and workroom exposure. Reasons for
this include reduced production and a drying process that created fewer atmo-
spheric releases relative to the Life Science Products process. According
to Epstein (1978) there is little basis to substantiate inferences as to
alleged better production practices at Allied. Environmental samples taken
prior to 1974 reveal Kepone contamination in the James River before the
III-15

-------
start-up of the Life Science Products Company plant. Nichols and Traanen
(1977) report sediment samples collected in May 1967 from the Jamestown
Dancing Point reach contained 0.038 and 0.018 ug/g (ppm) Kepone. Kepone con-
centrations in preserved samples of fish and oyster tissue are presented in
Table III.3. These confirm contamination prior to 1974. The bluefish levels
are of particular interest since they indicate as high a contamination in
1973 as any of the data taken in 1977. Similarly, data presented in Table IV.4
on Kepone levels in avian predators reveal contamination in James River eagles
as early as 1970.
RESIDUAL KEPONE DISPOSITION DURING
THE LIFE SCIENCE PRODUCTION PERIOD
Atmospheric Releases
Production at the Life Science Products plant resulted in significant
releases of particulate Kepone into the atmosphere. During the period of
operation, March to October 1974, complaints were received on these particu-
late emissions. Local citizens stated that on a windy day drivers needed to
turn their car lights on to proceed through the white cloud at the plant
site. The ensuing complaints led to State action requiring installation of a
bag-house filter in October. Subsequent analysis of preserved filters from
State-operated air sampling stations revealed contamination of the particles
at levels of up to 40% Kepone with detectable levels measured at distances of
up to 25 km (16 mi) from Hopewell. Calculations have shown levels of 0.2 to
50 yg Kepone/m3 of air during the period March 1974 to April 1975.
Discharges to the Sewer Svstem
Daily wastewater discharges from Life Science Products passed through
the Station Street pumphouse, then to the sewage treatment plant where they
were subjected to primary treatment and finally discharged to Bailey Creek..
Analysis of the few samples available revealed wastewater discharges from the
Life Science Products plant contained from less than 1 to 36.9 mg/2, (ppm).
Samples of the treatment plant effluent and sludge also contained Kepone.
Analysis of one of the digesters revealed a level of 68 mg/2. (ppm) in
digester sludge (Senate Hearings, 1976).
Initially, the sludge was disposed in Hopewell's landfill. However,
after concern developed over the contamination of the sludge it was decided
to contain the sludge to prevent the leaching of Kepone. In May 1975 the
Kepone lagoon was completed on the grounds of the sewage treatment plant and
the sludge from the digester was placed in it. The lagoon is a 33.5-m
(110-ft) by 58-m (190-ft) rectangular holding pond formed by earthen dikes
placed at a maximum 1:1 grade with gentler slopes in the southern corner.
Ill- 16

-------
TABLE III.3. KEPONE CONCENTRATIONS IN FISH AND OYSTER TISSUES*
Species
Number
of Samples Date
Fish
Menhaden
Soot
Blueflsh
Blueflsh
Blueflsh
Blueflsh
Shellfish
Oyster
Oyster
Oyster
0y3ter
Oyster
Oyster
Oyster
Oyster
Oyster
Oyster
1
1
2
4
8
21
11
3
4
4
4
5
4
11
4
4
6/2/73
6/2/73
6/2/73
6/10/73
6/9/76
6/18/77
6/2/67
8/8/68
10/28/68
12/20/68
2/28/69
3/18/69
6/12/69
8/27/69
7/20/70
7/20/70
Location
Zone G
Zone G
Zone G
Zone A
Zone A
Zone A
Deep Water Shoals
Nansemond Ridge
Deep Water Shoals
Nansemond Ridge
Deep Water Shoals
Nansemond Ridge
Average Kepone	Standard
Concentration (ppm) Deviation
0.49
0.036
0.437
0.62
0.23
0.41
0.10
0.015
0.074
0.12
0.10
0.025
0.026
0.21
0.12
0.022
0.57
0.44
0.11
0.27
0.03
0.003
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.005
0.007
0.005
0.01
0.003
* Fish data from information on file at the Virginia State Water Control Board. Oyster daca from
letter to Dr. R. J. Huggett, Virginia Institute of Marine Science from Or. E. O. Oswald,
U.S. EPA Research Triangle Park, April 27, 1976.
It has a maximum depth of 2.13 tn (7 ft) and is reportedly lined with a layer
of clay and two layers of gravel impregnated with asphaltic tar (Koerner
et al., 1976). Conversations with city staff and observations indicate that
the liners may actually be something less than designed. Several areas dis-
play loose gravel where tar was not applied or quickly lost its integrity. In
addition, sludge and soil deposits have sponsored plant life which now abounds
in the south end of the lagoon and has decreased depth in that zone to 3 ft.
Initial analyses concluded that the lagoon held 5700 (1.5 million gal) of
sludge containing 3 to 5% solids. The liquid contained approximately 2 mg/l
(ppm) Kepone, the solids 200 to 600 ug/g (ppm) (Sterrett and Boss, 1977). The
relative location of these sites and State ground-water monitoring wells is
illustrated in Figure III.6.
Ill-17

-------
MONITORING
WELL #5
LINED
SLUDGE
PIT
m
¦jst


m
MONITORING
WELL §8
\
KEPONE
LAGOON
MONITORING
WELL #6
FIGURE III.6. The Kepone Lagoon Area
111-18

-------
Bulk Discharges
Accidental releases and intentional batch dumps of Kepone followed one of
several routes: (1) flow into the sewer with daily discharges; (2) transport
and disposal on land (3) discharge down manholes; and (4) transport out on
workers' clothes and persons. The first method appears to have occurred
during the early production history of Life Science Products. Trucking to
dump sites began after scrutiny of wastewater discharges by the SWCB. Two
areas were identified as the main land disposal sites for dumping Kepone
residuals by Life Science Products. These are the Hopewell landfill (Fig-
ure III.7) which reportedly received contaminated solid waste as well as an
off-spec batch that did not meet Allied Chemical's specifications, and the
former Allied Pebbled Ammonium Nitrate (PAN) plant south of State Highway 10,
west of Bailey Creek (Figure III.2).
The PAN site was used for contaminated wastewater disposal following
investigations by officials into the problem of Kepone in the city sewer
system in late 1974. Wastewater was regularly trucked to the PAN site and
discharged into a 1.2-m (4-ft) deep trench, where it percolated into the soil.
No data exist that quantify the actual amount of water discharged nor its con-
centration of Kepone.
DISTRIBUTION OF KEPONE RESIDUALS FOLLOWING CESSATION OF PRODUCTION
The Atmospheric Compartment
Continued monitoring of air in the Hopewell area after Life Science
Products facility was closed revealed a decline in ambient Kepone concentra-
tions to nondetectable levels. Consequently, the atmospheric compartment
probably held Kepone for a transient period only and should not be considered
as a major sink for residuals. Recurring levels may occur if weather condi-
tions stimulate resuspension but no such data have been reported.
The Water Compartment
Water has also been considered a transient sink for Kepone. Kepone
partitions in water/sediment systems with a strong affinity for particulates.
Elutriate data from laboratory tests (described in Chapter IV) and sorption-
desorption evaluations suggest a partition coefficient on the order of 10"^
(concentration in water to concentration in sediment). Hence, only a small
fraction of total residual Kepone will be present in water in systems with
high solid levels. Early environmental sampling revealed levels of 1 to
4 ug/J, (ppb) in Bailey Creek, 0.1 Ug/2. (ppb) in the Appomattox River, and
0.3 ug/Jl (ppb) in the James River near the mouth of Bailey Creek (Smith,
1976). More recent data suggest that Kepone levels in most of the James River
are below detectable levels of 0.01 Mgh (ppb) (Huggetc et al., 1077).
111-19

-------
ALLIED BARREL
STORAGE PAD
HOPEWELL SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANT
(STP)
ACTIVE
LANDFILL
AREA
/
FORMER
LANDFILL
AREAS
// I \
CATTAIL
CREEK
7

BAILEY
CREEK
/
FORMER
STP EFFLUENT
DISCHARGE
POINT
CONFLUENCE
OF BAILEY
AND CATTAIL
CREEKS
STP
EFFLUENT
PIPELINE
KEPONE
LAGOON
FIGURE III.7.
The Hopewell Landfill and Sewage Treatment
Plant
111-20

-------
Kepone has been found in ground-water systems periodically. Historical
data for monitoring wells are reviewed in Table III.4. The locations of
these wells can be found in Table III.5 and Figure III.8. The fluctuations
noted in Table III.4 support the contention that water acts as a transient
sink for Kepone during its movement between solid substrates. However,
caution is warranted in that most of the monitoring wells were not perforated
over their depth and therefore only draw water from the screened bottom of
the casing. In many locations, this situation may represent a low aquifer
isolated by clay layers from the uppermost aquifer, which is likely to be
the most Kepone-contaminated.
Sewage Treatment Plant Effluent
Effluent levels of Kepone from the sewage treatment plant have been moni-
tored at Hopewell since 1976, first on a weekly basis (through March 1977) and
then on a monthly basis. Results taken from files at the Hopewell sewage
treatment plant are given in Table III.6. The levels have ranged from 0.04 to
5.26 yg/& (ppb). In April 1977, dry weather Kepone levels increased to
0.56 yg/2, (ppb) and consistently stayed above 0.5 Ug/2 (ppb) through September.
The significance of these levels must be reviewed in comparison to the tenta-
tive guideline set by the State Water Control Board in 1974 of 0.4 yg/2.
(ppb) Kepone in effluents (Senate Hearings, 1976).
Samples taken from portions of the sewer system reveal contamination
along the route from the Life Science Products site to the sewage treatment
plant. Solids collected from the main pump station contained 68 ug/g (ppm)
Kepone, while residual material from the grit chamber held 37 ug/g (ppm)
Kepone (Annapolis, 1976).
Soils and Sediment
Following the closure of the Life Science plant, the soil and sediments
in the area held the bulk of the Kepone residuals. In the immediate vicinity
of the plant, Kepone was measured at levels as high as 1 to 2% (10,000 to
20,000 ppm). These declined to 300 ppm at sites due east of the plant and
2 to 6 ppm at 1000 m (3300 ft) (EPA, 1975). It has been estimated that as
much as 1 metric ton may have been deposited in an area around the plant
within a radius of 1000 m (3300 ft) (Blanchard, 1976). This estimate is
based on seven samples in the area. The bulk of contributing residues were
on the plant site itself.
Surface and subsurface soil samples were collected when the State Water
Control Board drilled monitoring wells in early 1975. The results of Kepone
measurements in the surface samples are displayed in Figure III.9. Most of
the surface samples contained detectable levels of Kepone, with a general
pattern of decreased concentration with increased distance from the Life
Science site.
Ill-21

-------
TAilLE Til.4. HISTORICAL DATA ON REPORTED K.EPONE CONCENTRATIONS IN MONITORING WELL
WATER (pg/H-ppb)
Date (laboratory) [lays
i.
O 
t— c
01	«|
-* _|
Well No. 2
Kepone Disposal Pit
in
c
o
o
CO CJ)
-J
0
Z 0>
c
r- O
r— tx
01	a>
M ^
U">
O t—
z *-
V-
r- TJ
r— C
41 «
3 -1
« !
u
o
as >»
V
5 £
&
— t-
% "
3 i?
^ r—
0	¦»-
1	S
V)
M
3 o
».
o
-a
"cj
¦o
o
s
o
Qi
U.
a
«j -a
X 3
U
a> «j
o en
c o
« Ui
O to
fiO
t-
Of
o >
to ¦»-
•"9 0£
01
c
t-
2
c
to M
TJ -C
k. u
o «
o >-
>\
c
a
^ 3
Oi Oi
«j o
f Q>
+J (J)
14
i f
o S
J. Vaughn Well
Turkey Island
wt
. 1
»— Z
O *—
; i
«t o
M X
D
e
o
<
o
z
c
o
o
U) Oi
•
—1
a
Z fti
cr>
r- XI
a
OI #-
3 O
H-
*D
C C
o 
:= | 1
o 5 o
3 a. x
1976

















January (SWf.B) 7, 9



0.07



0.05

0.09
0.04






February (SWCB) 17, 19.

















25
0.04
0.04

0.02







NO

NO



March (SMCU) 4. 23-2i



NO

ND

0.10

NO


0.04




April (iWCU) 12. 13, 21
0.06
0.02
NO
NO
ND
0.01







NO

ND
ND
May (S'-JCB) IB. 19
3.0
0.04
NO
3.40













JuDC (sueB) 1, a. 18.

















23
NO
0.07
IID
ND
ND
ND
IIO
NO




NO
NO
NO


July (SWCB) 20, 21, 27.

















2U
o.oa
0.06
ND
NO
NO
0.03
NO
ND

NO


0.03
ND
ND

i;d
1211

















February (SWCB) 3
0.05
NO
NO

NO
ND
NO






NO



March (SWCB) II
NO
III)
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND






NO



June (SWCU) 2
NO
NO
IID
NO
ND
ND
NO










July (SUCB) U
NO
HU
IID
ND

NO
NO










iuCb - Virginu State Water Control Board - Source Kepooe DdU bulletins 10, Id, 29, 35, 5!>, 67, 69, and addenda.

-------
TABLE III.5. LOCATION OF MONITORING WELLS
Well No.
Location
2
Kepone Disposal Pit
3
Bailey Creek
4
PAN Site
5
Landfill North
6
Sludge Lagoon North
7
Landfill Northwest
8
Sludge Lagoon South
9
Hopewell Landfill
10
Nitrogen Park
11
Hopewell News
12
N&W Railroad
Quick
J. W. Quick Well Across

Bailey Creek
Jordan
Jordan Point Yacht Marina
Only two corings showed Kepone at depth: (1) Well 10 at Nitrogen Park,
and (2) Well 6 at the Kepone lagoon. At Nitrogen Park, the 15 iig/g (ppm)
surface soil Kepone level was followed by 0.21 Ug/g (ppm) and 0.19 Ug/g (ppm)
at 4.9 m (15 ft) and 6.5 m (20 ft), respectively. At the lagoon well,-the
0.18 Ug/g (ppm) Kepone content on the surface was underlain by a measured
concentration of 0.26 Ug/g (ppm) Kepone at 3.3 ni (10 ft).
Limited samples were also taken by State field staff. Three composites
from the PAN site below the site of the covered-over disposal trench were
found to contain 0.20 Ug/g (ppm) (12 in. composite), 1.40 ug/g (ppm) (3-ft
composite), and 71 ug/g (ppm) (5-ft composite), respectively (SWCB Bulletins,
1976). A 5-ft composite sample taken from the vicinity of the trench in
July 1976 contained 27,000 ug/g (ppm) Kepone.
Ill- 23

-------
I
JO
4>

ill! II
• 10
u, uni»«r
n«
,\\1
fs\7
im Quick
FIGURE 111.8. Location of Monitoring Welis in Hopewell Area

-------
TABLE III.6. CONCENTRATION OF nEPONE IN THE
HOPEWELL STP EFFLUENT AS REPORTED
BY THE CITY OF HOPEWELL
1976
7/14
0.24
7/20
0.24
7/27
0.24
8/3
0.23
8/10
0.16
8/17
0.14
9/7
0.14
9/14
0.12
9/21
0.11
9/30
0.20
10/12
0.18
10/19
0.07
10/20
3.31
10/26
0.96
11/2
0.07
11/9
0.26
11/16
3.02
11/23
1.68
11/30
1.09
12/7
0.93
12/14
0.26
12/21
0.36
12/28
0.33
1977	
1/4	0.16 ppb
1/11	0.81
1/18	0.49
1/25	0.13
2/1	0.04
2/8	0.57
2/15	4.54
2/22	0.38
3/1	0.12
3/8	0.10
3/15	0.07
4/5	0.56
5/3	0.65
6/7	0.59
7/5	5.26
8/2	0.49
9/6	1.15
III-
25

-------
lb.O
IH "
Ci «vcl |y Mull
ND
'.16
FIGUKli III.'J. Kepone Levels in SoLl - 1975-1976 as Noted in SWCB Bulletins and Files
(I'g/g-ppni) (Compos!le Soil Samples were Collected at PAN Plants)

-------
Data on sediment concentrations are more prevalent. Composite (top
12 in.) sample values range up to 10 ppm in Bailey Bay. A graphic display of
concentration zones reported for 1976 can be found in Figures -III.10 through
III.12. The Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) has extrapolated
these data to estimate that a total of 47,000 kg (103,000 lb) lies at the
bottom of the James R.ivar (Chigges, 1977). A similar display of data includ-
ing later sampling points can be found in Figures III.13 through III.15.
These data have been generated from detectable levels reported by the State
Water Control Board, VIMS, and other sources catalogued in Appendix B.
Shading was added to connect points of similar Kepone concentration. Samples
where Kepone was nondetectable were not mapped. Hence, the maps represent a
worst case estimate. It appears from these that contamination from upstream
sediments has moved downstream. The extent of this movement and its implica-
tions is of vital importance in assessing the current situation and the need
for remedial action. Caution is necessary in interpreting differences in the
maps, however, since the later data reflect heavier sampling frequencies and
new sampling sites not reflected in the earlier work, as well as the omission
of intermediate points where Kepone was nondetectable.
Ill- 27

-------
Turkey
stand
SWCB Sampling Station
10.0
1.0 to 9.99
0.1 to 0.99
0.02 to 0.09
None Detected

North

L\\\\\Vl
Y//////A
aa
AppoiiiattSx River
mj
DaHey Way
11
llopewel 1
m m
1	1

FIGURE III.10. Janies River SedimenL Kepone Concentrations in the Vicinity of Hopewell,
Virginia Based on Data Collected in 1976 by the State Water Control
Board (Chigges, 1977)

-------
Richmond
Q SUCB Sampling Station
trasgooq	1.0 to 9.99
kWWWI	0.1 lo 0.99
Y77777*	0.02 to 0.09
I	|	None Detected
North
Char.
liopewel 1
Windinil 1
Point
O
FIGURE III.11. James River Sediment Kepone Concentrations from Richmond, Virginia to the Month
of the Chickahominy River Based on Data Collected in 1976 liy the State Water
Control Board (Chigges, 1977)

-------
\\V^e>
m
North
IB
|) SWCB Sampling Station
03
& <&£>
10.0
1.0 to 9.99
0.1 to 0.99
0.02 to 0.09
None Detected
POWWJI
N\\\\\N
Y/////A
I

Portsmouth
FIGURE 111.12. James River Sediment Kepone Concentrations from Williamsburg, Virginia
Newport News based on Data Collected in 1976 by the State Water Control
Uoard (Cliigges, 1977)

-------
Turkey
J siand
ttWXVxN 1.0 to 9.99
KVWWS 0.1 to 0.99
V/////A 002 t0 009
i	1 None Detected
North
Eppes Island
iley Ba
Hopewel1
FlGURli III. 13. James River Sediment Kepone Concentrations from Richmond, Virginia to tin: Mouth
of the Chlckahominy River based on Data from 1976 and ftarly 1977

-------
.Richmond
i
l-o
North
|. i-.T: >10.0
Lwooooa 1.0 to 9.99
IWXWXM 0.1 to 0.99
V/////A 0.02 to 0.09
1	1 None Detected
CharLes City
Windml11
Point
K1CUKE 111.14. James River Sediment Kepone Concentrations In the Vicinity of Hopewell,
Vtrginia Based on Data from 1976 and Early 1977

-------
WW 1 Niinsbur
>10.0
IWWWI 1.0 to 9.99
k\\\\\\J 0.1 to 0.99
V/////A 0.02 to 0.09
I None Detected
North
Portsmouth
r
FICURli ITT.15. James River Sediment Kepone Concentrations from Williamsburg, Virginia
to Newport News Based on Data from 1976 and liarly 1977

-------
REFERENCES
1.	Ameen, J., 1966. "Research Information Memorandum 884." Operating
Manual for Production of Kepone (OM-1 Keoone). Allied Chemical Corp.
Hopewell, VA.
2.	Annapolis Field Office Laboratory. 1976. Hazardous Materials Report
76-120. U.S. EPA Region III. February 13, 1976.
3.	Blanchard, J. 1976. "Kepone Fact Sheet." Internal EPA memo.
September 13, 1976.
4.	Chigges, J. A. 1977. "Kepone Sediment Monitoring in the James River,
Virginia, During 1976." State Water Control Board Memorandum to File,
July 6, 1977.
5.	Epstein, S. S. 1978. Kepone - Hazard Evaluation. The Science of the
Total Environment. 9_:l-62.
6.	Ferguson, W. S. 1975. Letter of September 12, 1975 to R. S. Wasserug,
Enforcement Division, U.S. EPA Region III. Philadelphia, PA.
7.	Huggett, R., D. Haven and M. Nichols. 1977. "Kepone Sediment Relation-
ships in the James River." (Abstract) Interim Report to U.S. EPA Gulf
Breeze Laboratory.
8.	Koerner, R. M., A. E. Lord and W. M. McCabe. 1976. "Acoustic Emission
Monitoring to Determine Earth Dam Stability and its Use at a Kepone
Storage Site in Hopewell, VA." Letter Report to John Brugger, U.S. EPA.
9.	Nichols, M. M., and R. C. Tratman. 1977. Kepone in James River Sedi-
ments ¦ Annual Progress Report to EPA Gulf Breeze Environmental Research
Laboratory.
10.	Ser.ate Hearings on Kepone Contamination. 1976. Senate Subcommittee on
Agricultural Research and General Legislation, 94th Congress. January 22-
27, 1976.
11.	Smith, W. C. 1976. "Kepone Discharges from Allied Chemical Company,
Hopewell, Virginia." Internal EPA Memorandum, National Field Investiga-
tion Center, U.S. EPA, Denver, CO.
12.	Sterret, F. S., and C. A. Boss. 1977. "Careless Keoone." Environment.
19(2).
13.	U.S. Environmental Procection Agency. 1975. Preliminary Report on
Kepone Levels Found in Environmental Samples from Hooewell, Virginia
Area. Health Effects Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle
Park, NC.
14.	Virginia State Water Control Board. 1976. "Kepone Data Bulletin 57."
July 21, 1976.
Ill-34

-------
CHAPTER IV - PROPERTIES OF KEPONE
SUMMARY
Content
Chapter IV begins with a discussion of the chemical properties of Kepone,
and leads to an appraisal of the movement ana persistence of the chemical
in the natural environment. The pathways of Kepone movement, including
volatilization and sorption/desorption, are examined, followed by analysis
of biological translocation. This section includes Kepone uptake in aquatic
organisms, avian predators, and plants. Finally, degradation of Kepone
through biochemical and photochemical mechanisms is discussed.
Findings
•	Kepone is strongly sorbed onto soil and sediment particles such that
at equilibrium in the environment, concentrations on particulate matter
are 10^ to 10^ times those in the surrounding water.
•	Laboratory and field observations indicate that Kepone does not volatilize
to any significant extent.
•	Kepone's solubility is a direct function of solution pH. Kepone levels
in leachate from sediments with 1 ug/g (ppm) Kepone increased from
0.031 yg/2. (ppb) at a pH of 7.2 to 6.84 yg/2. (ppb) at pH 12.0.
•	Algae from the James River have been found to contain Kepone concentrations
above-the level required to adversely affect productivity (C.35 to
1.0 ug/g).
•	Kepone was bioconcentrated by laboratory oysters, mysids, and spot from
sea water containing less than 0.03 yg11 (ppb) Kepone.
•	Bird species in which Kepone residuals have been detected include the
great blue herron, mallard duck, coot, black duck, wood duck, herring
gull, Canadian goose, hooded merSanger, and bald eagle.
•	Experiments indicate that plants sorb Kepone in their roots but do not
transport it upward through the stem and leaf compartments.
•	There is no evidence to date of Kepone degradation in the natural
environment.
IV-1

-------
INTRODUCTION
In order to investigate the ultimate fate of Kepone in the environment,
it is first necessary to understand the nature of the chemical and the
mechanisms which move it through the environment. Mechanisms include natural
pathways, biological translocation, and degradation.
BASIC CHEMISTRY OF KEPONE
Kepone is a representative of the family of cyclodiene insecticides
(which includes Mirex, aldrin, dieldrin, heptachlor, etc.) synthesized from
hexachlorocyclopentadiene. It is the ketone analog of Mirex. Both are
moderately soluble in organic solvents, and have low solubilities in water,
that of Kepone being (1 to 2 mg/£) when solution pH is less than 6.
Kepone is a white to light-gray or light-brown colored granular solid.
Its carbonyl bond and less fully chlorinated structure render it less resis-
tant to chemical and thermal degradation than the related pesticide Mirex.
Thermal decomposition begins at about 350°C, becoming rapid at 450 to 500°C.
In addition to hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorocyclopentadiene, a third
degradation product, which may be octachloroindene (C9CI8), has been observed.
When Kepone is exposed to 900°C for approximately 1 sec, decomposition is
essentially complete (Carnes, 1977).
Kepone is readily soluble in acetone, lower aliphatic alcohols and some
other organic solvents, and somewhat soluble in benzene, toluene and hexane.
It is soluble in aqueous sodium hydroxide. Allied Chemical Company data
indicate that the solubility is in the range of 1.5 to 2 mg11 (ppm) over the
pH range of 4 to 6. In the 9 to 10 pH range, solubility increases to 5
to 70 mg/Z. (ppm). In 0.001M NaOH (pH 10.9), solubility is 176 tng/2. (ppm).
Upon exposure to ordinary temperatures and humidities, the anhydrous
compound readily takes up water, and each molecule may contain as much as
three water molecules of hydration. The trihydrate, Cj_qC1j_q0 . 3H2O (9.92%
water), appears to be the stable form. However, while the anhydrous form was
unsatisfactory in producing dust bases and water dispersible powders because
it has a tendency to take up moisture during mixing and milling steps, the
trihydrate was considered unsuitable for producing emulsifiable concentrates.
The monohydrate (3.54% water) through the dihydrate (6.84% water) were
regarded as satisfactory for both uses. The total water specifications for
technical Kepone were thus established at 3.5 to 6.0%.
NATURAL PATHWAYS FOR KEPONE MOVEMENT
It has been observed and reported that Kepone resides in the soil,
sediments, water and biota of Hopewell and the James River Basin. Much of
this contamination has moved from where it was originally deposited. Such
translocation appears to continue at the present time and is an important
factor in determining the long-term implications of Kepone contamination as
well as the ultimate distribution of the pesticide. Consequently, the
IV-2

-------
various pathways by which Kepone moves through the environment must be quan-
tified. These pathways include physical and biological mechanisms functioning
in the air and water media as diagrammed in Figure IV.1. Prospective path-
ways responsible for current Kepone movement patterns are believed to be
volatilization, sorption-desorption, plant uptake, bioconcentration and
physical movement of Kepone-laden suspended solids. These are discussed
individually. Movement of suspended solids is the subject of the sediment
transport modeling effort described in Chapter VII.
Solubilization
Uesorotion

c\
FIGURE IV.1. Pathways by which Kepone Moves in the Environment
Volatilization
It has been suggested that codistillation of Kepone with water will lead
to volatilization of significant portions of the contamination in the James
River over time. This projection, based in part on mathematical models which
simulate the vaporization process, has been verified in the laboratory for
DDT in natural waters (Singmaster and Crosby, 1977). To investigate the
potential importance of this mechanism, theoretical calculations based on
these models were complemented with laboratory investigations. Laboratory
IV-3

-------
results reveal no significant losses of Kepone by volatilization. However,
the theoretical calculations and considerations are discussed because of the
importance of this issue. Details are provided in Appendix A.
Results of theoretical calculations suggest losses of 1.34 to 4.92 x
10~5 g/hr/m2 0f water surface. Some sense of the magnitude of these rates
can be gained by applying them to Bailey Bay.
Bailey Bay encompasses approximately 3.2 x 10^ m^ (800 acres). This
would extrapolate to losses of:
L = (3.2 x 10^) x (2.5 x 10 g/hr =» 80 g/hr
That is a large amount of Kepone to be leaving Bailey Bay through the atmo-
sphere. If verified, it suggests that Kepone may be far shorter lived in the
river than estimated. The loss ratio is also of sufficient magnitude that it
should be measurable in laboratory apparatus if accurate.
Empirical studies have been conducted to substantiate or deny this
potential loss mechanism. The first series was conducted at the U.S. EPA
Research Laboratory at Gulf Breeze, Florida (Garnas et al., 1977). In both
static and continuous flow experiments, it was determined that volatilization
did not occur at detectable levels. Labeled l^C-Kepone sorbent traps
were employed to maintain low limits of detection. Hence, if volatilization
did occur, it was at extremely low levels and much less significant than
predicted by the theoretical calculations.
Additional studies at 3attelle supported findings of a lack of volatili-
zation. Plexiglas boxes of both dry Kepone-contaminated sediments and sedi-
ments under standing water were exposed to direct sunlight over a 12-week
period as described in Chapter X. Activated carbon and synthetic sorbent
traps (XAD-2) were placed on flow-through vents (see Figure X.2). After the
exposure period, the traps were regenerated with solvent and analyzed for
Kepone. In no case was Kepone detected.
There is clearly a conflict between the theoretical data and laboratory
observations. Continued persistence of Kepone in the sludge lagoon would
tend to support the empirical observation in the laboratory over those stem-
ming from the theory. The anomaly between the two may come from the strong
interaction noted between Kepone and particulate matter. Sorption onto
particulate matter in the water column is so strong that in most areas dis-
solved Kepone concentrations are below detectable limits. This could signi-
ficantly reduce the quantity of Kepone available for evaporation. Regardless
of the mechanism involved, data generated in this study suggest that volatili-
zation does not play a major role in the movement of Kepone between segments
of the environment.
IV-4

-------
Sorption - Desorption
Movement between water and soil/sediment systems is largely a function
of sorption-desorption mechanisms. Kepone, unlike many chlorinated pesti-
cides, is slightly polar because of the presence of the carbonyl group. This
leads to a higher solubility than other chlorinated hydrocarbons. On the
other hand, Kepone also has a high affinity for particulate matter as is
evidenced by comparison of total and dissolved Kepone levels in James
River water grab samples (Table IV.1). Sorption on particulate matter is
somewhat analogous to partitioning in an immiscible two-solvent system.
TABLE IV.1. RELATION OF KEPONE CONCENTRATIONS IN WATER AND SUSPENDED
SOLIDS IN JAMES RIVER AND BAILEY BAY GRAB SAMPLES (NOTE:
SAMPLES WERE HELD FOR TWO WEEKS BEFORE ANALYSIS AM) THERE-
FORE ARE ASSUMED TO HAVE BEEN IN EQUILIBRIUM)
Sample
Kepone Concentration
in Water, ug/2.-ppb
Kepone Concentration
in Suspended Solids,
yg/g-Dpm
Burwell Bay
<0.06
0.143
Hog Island
<0.006
0.076

<0.054
0.010
Swann Point
<0.006
0.088

<0.006
0.068

<0.006
0.175

<0.006
0.107

<0.006
0.060
Windmill Point
<0.006
0.133
Bailey Bay
0.016
0.074
City Point
0.042
0.094
Bailey Creek
0.031
0.46

0.053
0.077

0.24
1.38
IV-5

-------
The organic solute will divide itself between the two phases in a manner
reflecting its comparative affinity for each. Hence, a nonpolar organic will
accumulate in the lipid fraction of organic solids to a higher concentration
than its residual levels in the water column. This also occurs with Kepone.
As noted in the discussion of results from analysis of Bailey Bay, Kepone
concentrations are correlated with organic content, and always exceed con-
centrations of dissolved Kepone in the associated waters.
The quantitative aspects of sorption-desorption mechanisms can be pre-
dicted using a simple BET-isotherm equation assuming that: (1) only random
dispersive and hydrophobic interactions constitute the primary forces con-
trolling the distribution of Kepone between aqueous and suspended phases, and
(2) the system is equilibrated at low aqueous concentrations (<10% solution).
A detailed discussion of the development can be found in Appendix A. Results
obtained by utilizing this approach and available data on Kepone suggest a
K value of 0.57 to 1.1 x 10^ (partition coefficient 1 to 2 x 10~5). The
partition coefficient employed here is defined as the ratio of concentrations
of soluble Kepone in water to concentrations of Kepone on particulate matter.
When these values are modified to reflect the effect of particle size and
organic content on sorption characteristics, the relation illustrated in
Figure IV.2 is obtained.
To supplement theoretical considerations, a limited amount of empirical
data were collected on soluble Kepone concentrations and Kepone levels on the
particle matrix under equilibrium conditions. Since the results vary with
the quality of the water and the nature of the solids both parameters must
be selected to be as close to those found in the James River as possible.
This was accomplished by taking Kepone-contaminated sediments and equilibrat-
ing with James River water. The soluble and particulate Kepone levels were
determined as a measure of partitioning. From samples taken in Bailey Bay,'
Kepone concentrations were 0.074 yg/g (ppm) and 0.016 ug/l (ppb) in suspended
solids and water, respectively, yielding a partition coefficient of 2.2 x 10"^.
At City Point on the James River the values were 0.094 ug/g (ppm) in sus-
pended solids and 0.042 ug/i (ppb) in water. The associated partition coeffi-
cient was 4.5 x 10"^. In Bailey Creek, three partition coefficients were
determined: 6.8 x 10"^, 6.9 x 10~4, and 1.7 x 10"^. Similar data for samples
in the area of the Chickahominy (see Chapter VI) yield a partition coefficient
nearly one order of magnitude smaller. This change roughly parallels a trend
to smaller average particle size of sediments in that zone (higher clay
content) and hence corresponds to predictions based on Figure IV.2 and data
given in Appendix A. For the purposes of mathematical modeling described in
Chapter VI, a value of 1 x 10~5 was found to be representative of phenomena
observed in the James River proper.
Desorption can be influenced by various water quality parameters in the
surrounding waters. However, investigations at VIMS (Huggett et al., 1977)
have revealed that salinity and temperature have no apparent effect on Kepone
partitioning, while the pH of the solutions does. Subsequent investigations
at Battelle yielded the leachate levels reported in Table IV.2. The effect
of elevated pH levels is quite prominent utilizing the standard elutriate test
as described in Chapter X.
IV-6

-------
-1
o
u
'J
u
"J
—1
a
¦j
u
u
-4
10
Percent Carbon
FIGURE IV.2. Plots of K as a Function of Percent Carbon and Particle
Diameter
TABLE IV.2. EFFECT OF pH ON KEPONE CONCENTRATIONS IN LEACHATE
FROM SEDIMENTS WITH 1 yg/g (ppm) KEPONE
Kepone Concentration
	EM		(pg/£-ppb) in Leachate
Normal Range for James River
7.2	0.031
8.5	0.041
Levels Observed in Bailey Creek
10.5	0.17
12.0	6.84
IV-7

-------
Researchers at the U.S. EPA Gulf Breeze Laboratory have reported that
salinity and aerobicity have no effect on desorption from sediments. Addi-
tionally, use of direct light failed to stimulate desorption (Garnas et al.,
1977). They have also reported that a given fraction of sorbed Kepone (1 to
5%) does not desorb when contacted with organic solvents, suggesting a frac-
tion of unavailable Kepone in the sediments.
These considerations are very important with respect to Kepone movement
in the James River. Due to the marked preference for solids, Kepone will
rapidly sorb onto particulate matter in the water and either settle to the
bed or move with the suspended solids. Consequently, the key to understand-
ing Kepone movement will rest with understanding the sediment transport
mechanisms. This topic is addressed in detail in subsequent sections
describing the use of a mathematical model to predict sediment movement
in the James River. For the purposes of the model projections, the empiri-
cal average value of 1 x 10"^ (Kepone in water to Kepone in sediment) was
employed. This is greater partitioning than that calculated from washout
studies at Gulf Breeze (relative partition coefficient 10~3). However, the
sediment used in these studies averaged only 1.4 to 4.4% organic loss on
ignition compared to 6 to 52% loss on ignition noted in Bailey Bay sediments..
These lower levels of organic content may dictate a larger partition fraction
as is predicted by the theoretical construct. Therefore, the value employed
here (1 x 10-4) reflects sediments with a greater organic content.
Sorption-desorption mechanisms are also important with respect to move-
ment in soils. Storm water percolating through the soil may take up Kepone
by dissolving particulate deposits or desorbing Kepone from soil particles.
Solutions of Kepone may lose the pesticide through sorption onto soil parti-
cles. Hence migration can be attenuated by the soil column. Samples of sur-
face and subsurface soil from the Hopewell area were collected and subjected
to a batch sorption test to determine Kepone partitioning. Results are
presented in Figure IV.3. The loam soil displayed a higher affinity for
Kepone than did the clay loam with a partition coefficient (the ratio of con-
centration of Kepone in water to concentration of Kepone on soil) of roughly
3 x 10~3 compared to 6 x 10" ^ for the clay loam. The loam and clay loam
displayed loss on ignition of 4.9 and 3.9%, respectively. These empirical
data correspond with a trend to higher partition coefficients with increased
organic content. These values are also quite close to the values predicted
by the theoretical construct.
IV-8

-------
• i	i	• :
Kepone pom
FIGURE IV.3. Relative Partitioning of Kepone in Soil-Water System
BIOLOGICAL TRANSLOCATION
Aquatic Organisms
One means of biological translocation of Kepone involves bioconcentr3-
tion in aquatic organisms. This topic is discussed in some detail in the
section on biological effects (Chapter VIII) and is the subject of comprehen-
sive study at the Gulf Breeze Laboratory.
IV-9

-------
For reference, Che following definitions taken from Kneip and Lauer
(1973) are applied:
3ioconcentration refers to the process by which an organism or a popula-
tion of many organisms of the same trophic level concentrates a sub-
stance directly from the water medium.
Bioaccumulation refers to the process by which an organism concentrates
a substance and continues to concentrate it essentially throughout its
active metabolic lifetime, such that the "concentration factor," if
calculated, would be continuously increasing during its lifetime. Bio-
accumulation here is also used to imply concentration through intake of
food as opposed to bioconcentration from water and/or sediments.
At the lowest level of the aquatic food chain, algae concentrate Kepone
from water, in which Kepone has low solubility. This uptake of Kepone by
algae can result in bioaccumulation at higher trophic levels. Recent data
from Huggett et al. (1977) reveal average phytoplankton levels in the James
River of 1.3 ug/g (ppm) Kepone. Yet Kepone concentrations of 0.35 to 1.0 ug/g
(ppm) are also considered sufficient to disrupt or destroy algae, directly
affecting productivity at higher food chain levels (Walsh et al., 1977).
At the next trophic level, aquatic invertebrates are capable of biocon-
centrating Kepone to high levels. Bahner et al. (1977) reported high bio-
concentration factors for the opossum shrimp (mysid), grass shrimp and oyster
from Kepone concentrations as low as 0.023 yg/£ (ppb) in sea water. Depura-
tion of Kepone from oysters in Kepone-free water was rapid (35% in 24 hr).
Laboratory exposures of fish species to Kepone showed the insecticide to
be bioconcentrative and persistent. Sheepshead minnows bioconcentrated
Kepone to excessively high levels. Juvenile progeny, hatched and grown in
Kepone-free water from contaminated adult fish, contained Kepone. Spot, a
commercially important food fish, bioconcentrated Kepone from seawater con-
taining 0.029 ug/2. (ppb) to a level of approximately 0.21 mg/Z (ppm). One of
the largest Kepone reserves (22%) in absolute weight was found in the edible
portion of the contaminated fish. Fish have slow depuration rates compared
to oysters with only 30 to 50% of the accumulated Kepone lost after 3 or more
weeks in Kepone-free water (Bahner et al., 1977).
Accumulation, transfer and loss of Kepone in estuarine food chains have
been studied in laboratory bioassays (see Table IV.3). Kepone was found to
be bioconcentrated from concentrations as low as 0.023 yg/2. (ppb) in sea water
by oysters, mysids, grass shrimp, sheepshead minnows and spot. Bioaccumula-
tion also occurs and is relatively important for species such as the blue
crab. In general, uptake is believed to include all three routes: food,
water, and sediments. At this time it is not known which is the predominant
route for species in the river. In laboratory studies, the water route is
predominant for fin and most shell fishes. The food route predominated for
blue crab and spot. Sediments were most important for polychaete worms ana
fiddler crabs (food was also important for the crabs) (Bahner et al., 1977).
IV-10

-------
TABLE IV.3. BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS REPORTED FOR VARIOUS
SPECIES*

Algae
Crass Shrimp
My sid
Ovscer
31ue Crab
Adult
Juvenilis
Spot
Bioaccumulation
Kepor.e Concentration
3ioconcencracion	in Water,
Factor
cvcle-opfa
30 - 520
698
5.12J-- 11,425
5,962 - 13,473
9,354 - 9,278
3.1
Sheepshead Minnow 1,548
7,115
5,200
7,200
1,221
3,217 - 2,340
100
12 - 121
0.023 - 0.4
0.025 - 0.41
0.03 - 0.39
110 - 210
7.1 - 78.5
0.05
0.05 - 24.
0.08 - 33
1.15 - 15.9
0.029 - 0.40
Reference
Walsh, 197 7
Schimmel and
Wilson, 1977
Bahner ec al.,
1977
Bahner et al.,
1977
3ahner et al.,
1977
Schimmel and
«ilson, 1977
Schimmel and
Wilson 1977
Bahr.er ec al.,
1977
Hansen ec al.,
1977
Hansen ec al.,
1977
Schimmel and
Wilson, 1977
3ahner ec al.,
19 77
Food Chain
Algae-Oyscer
Water-Algae~Oyseer
Brine Shrimp-Myrids
Mysid-*Spoc
Brine Shriaip-Mysid-Spoc
3ioaccumulacion
Factor	
2.1
0.007
0.53
0.85
10.5
Reference
Bahner ec al.,
1977
3ahner ec al.,
1977
Bahner ec al.,
1977
3ahner ec al.,
1977
3ahner ec al.,
1977
* Additional details and data can be found in Chapter VIII.
IV-11

-------
Oysters chat were fed the green alga Chlorococcum, containing an average
of 34 ug/g (ppm) Kepone, bioaccumulated 0.21 yg/g (ppm) Kepone (wet tissue)
in 14 days. In Kepone-free water, they depurated Kepone to below detectable
concentrations within 10 days. Thus, the transfer and retention of Kepone
from algae by oysters is relatively inefficient (Bahner et al., 1977).
Spot accumulated Kepone when fed live mysids that had grazed on Kepone-
laden brine shrimp. The efficiency of the transfer of Kepone between fish
food organisms and fish results in a potential transfer of the pesticide to
humans via the consumption of fish, particularly spot (Bahner et al., 1977).
Extensive studies on bioconcentration and accumulation have been con-
ducted by the Gulf Breeze Laboratory. More complete and detailed coverage of
the topics briefly mentioned above may be found in the Gulf Breeze Laboratory
reports. A summary of reported bioconcentration values can be found in
Table IV.3.
Avian Organisms
Little work has been directed to delineation of subsequent bioaccumula-
tion in avian predators. However, a memo from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Services, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center discusses preliminary findings
from random samples, which suggest that accumulation is occurring, as out-
lined in the following quote:
"Following the receipt of information on contamination of the James River
in Virginia by Kepone, the chemists in the Environmental Residue Chemis-
try Project at Patuxent Wildlife Research Center began to develop a
suitable analytical method for Kepone in wildlife samples. After the
development of the method they began to analyze liver and/or carcass
samples from 17 bald eagles that were found dead in Maryland and
Virginia between 1966 and 1976. Tissues of bald eagles were selected
because these birds are at the top of aquatic and terrestrial food
chains and would be expected to be exposed to Kepone in areas where it
has contaminated the environment.
The results of the Kepone analyses of bald eagle tissues are presented
in [Table IV.4a]. Three birds appear to have experienced high environ-
mental exposure co Kepone: an immature eagle from Warsaw, Virginia, an
adult from Spotsylvania County, Virginia, and an adult from Richmond
County, Virginia. Most birds from Maryland, at greater distances from
the source of contamination, contained relatively low levels of Kepone
in their tissues. Single eagles from Oklahoma and Minnesota contained
no detectable Kepone in their livers or carcasses.
Three bald eagle eggs from different nests on the Virginia shore of the
estuarine portion of the Potomac River, collected in 1976, contained
0.14 to 0.19 ppm (wet weight) of Kepone.
IV-12

-------
TABLE IV.4a. KEPONE IN MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA BALD EAGLES
Age and ppm Kepone, wet weight
Source
Date
Sex
Liver
Carcass
Calvert County, MD
10/66
I -*
na1
nd^
Allegany County, MD
12/68
I F
na
nd
Newport News, VA
1/70
I M
12.
nd
Winchester, VA
9/72
I F
nd
nd
Virginia Beach, VA
10/74
I F
0.02
nd
Warsaw, VA
3/75
I M
130.
44.
V ienna, MD
2/68
A F
0.2
nd
Accokeek, MD
5/70
A F
16.
2.2
Spotsylvania County, VA
3/72
A F
83.
• 21.
Templeman's,
Westmoreland County, VA
1/73
A F
0.13
nd
Deale, MD
7/73
A M
1.3
0.1
Queen Anne County, MD
1/74
A M
1.3
nd
Phillips Landing,
Richmond County, VA
4/74
A M
50.
19.
Beach Creek,
Rapahannock River, VA
9/74
A M
3.4
0.24
Chestertown, MD
1/75
A F
0.76
nd
Springfield, VA
3/74
- -
1.3
nd
Solomons Island, MD
1/76
- -
1.6
0.24
* - = unknown
t na = not analyzed
f nd = not detected
I = immature
A = adult

IV-13



-------
A series of osprey eggs from 16 nests in Virginia were collected during
the 1976 reproductive season by Dr. Mitchell Byrd of the College of
William and Mary. Ospreys almost exclusively prey on fish and therefore
would be expected to be exposed to Kepone in areas where it has contamin-
ated the aquatic environment. These eggs were analyzed for Kepone.
Data are presented in [Table IV.4b]. Although there was no clear rela-
tionship between residue levels of Kepone in these eggs and the distance
of their source nests from the mouth of the James River, there was a
slight tendency toward lower levels in the eggs from nests at greater
distances. Eggs from one nest in New York, two nests in Maine and three
in Montana contained no detectable residues of Kepone.
No statements can be made at this time on the possible biological
significance of these residue levels of Kepone on reproductive success
or survival. Published information on experimental studies showing the
effects of Kepone on birds has provided little useful information for
the interpretation of residue levels. "
TABLE IV.4b. KEPONE RESIDUES IN OSPREY EGGS AT	INCREASING DISTANCES
FROM THE MOUTH OF THE JAMES RIVER, VIRGINIA
ppm' Kepone	(wet weight)
	Collection Area	 n	X	Range
York River 1	1.1	—
Mockhorn Bay, Atlantic Coast,
Eastern Shore 1	0.49	—
Mouth of Rappahannock River
and adjacent areas 5	0.69	0.06-1.5
Fleets 3ay 3	0.37	0.05-0.90
Great Wicomico River 3	0.37	0.23-0.57
Rappahannock River, upstream
from mouth 3	0.20	0.09-0.27
Data from Kepone content in other avian species have been reported by
Huggett. These are summarized in Table IV.5 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
1977).
IV-14

-------
TABLE IV.5.
KEPONE RESIDUALS IN AVIAN
WILDLIFE SERVICE, 1977)
SPECIES 19 76'
-1977 (U.S. FISH
AND
Soecles
Location
Orxan
Number Average Kepone
of Samples Concentration (ppm)
Standard
Deviation
Pir.cail
Upper Srandor.
"at and liver
1
< 0.02
	
Mallard
Upper 3randon
Fac
2
0.16
	


Liver
2
1.28
0.45
Mallard
Hog Island
Liver
7
0.36
0.24
Mallard
Presquile
Liver
6
0.15
0.15
Mallard
Near Brandon
Gizzard
4
< 0.02
~
Black Duck
Hog Island
Liver
4
1.25
0.55
3lack Duck
Presquile
Liver
6
0.12*
0.10
Wood Duck
Presquile
Liver
6
0.04t
0.10
Hooded Merganser
Hog Island
Liver
2
2.70
0.28
Red Head (found dead) York River
Liver
?
0.043*
0.06
Coot
Hog Island
Liver
4
0.53
0.49
Coot
Presquile
Liver
6
0.32
0.15
Herring Cull
Hog Island
Liver
1
X
3.7
	
Herring Gull
Presquile
Liver
2
1.38
0.60
Great Blue Herron
Hog Island
Liver
4
13.23
15.34
Great Blue Herron
Eastern Shore
Liver
1
1.3
	
Canada Goose
Hog Island
Liver
6
0.003*"
0.01
Canada Goose
Presquile
Liver
6
0.02
0.02
* One Sample <0.02 ppm, calculated as 0
t Five Samples <0.02 ppm, calculated as 0
f Two Samples <0.02 ppm, calculated as 0
Although the above data are far from comprehensive or complete, they
point out several key findings. First, it is important that Kepone was found
in eagles taken from Newport News, Spotsylvania County and Templemans
(Westmoreland County) prior to the start up of the Life Science Products
Company facility. Hence, while little is known of Allied Chemical's contri-
butions to environmental Kepone levels compared to those of Life Science
Products, they were detectable and significant. This is especially true in
light of the Kepone concentration in the liver of the Spotsylvania County
eagle (83 ug/g-ppm).
IV-15

-------
Secondly, since some avian predators have accumulated high concentra-
tions of Kepone, it is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of this
has been taken in through consumption of contaminated fish. Hence, bioaccumu-
lation of Kepone is a factor with birds. Furthermore, osprey egg data would
tend to indicate subsequent transfer to offspring.
Uptake in Plants
Persistent contaminants move through the environment via a number of
physical, chemical and biological mechanisms depending both on their intrin-
sic properties and the extrinsic characteristics of the system. These mecha-
nisms may serve both to disperse the contaminant to safer levels or to concen-
trate it in such a way that it poses a greater threat to organisms. The
concentration is true of materials such as heavy metals which can be trans-
located from the soil or water and accumulated in plants. Consequently, when
considering the fate and effects of contaminants the degree to which they
are picked up by plants and concentrated in the edible portions must be
evaluated. This is particularly true of contaminants known to reside in
sediments.
The question of uptake and concentration of Kepone therefore concerns
two factors. First, large quantities of Kepone were spread about the Hopewell
area and may subsequently be available for uptake by plants grown for human
or livestock consumption. Secondly, much of the Kepone currently resides in
sediments which, if dredged, may be placed in large spoil banks where growth
of plants is inevitable and often encouraged.
Little has been reported on the interactions of Kepone ana plants. The
scarce data that do exist were generated during work with the related com-
pound Mirex. Mirex was found to cause significant growth reduction as con-
centrations approached 0.15 ug/g (ppm) in soil for Johnson and annual rye
grass, 0.3 ug/g (ppm) for tall fescue and alfalfa, and 0.70 ug/g (ppm) for
alsike clover. Uptake and accumulation was directly related to the concen-
tration of Mirex in the rooting medium. Similar uptake preferences were
found in soybean, garden bean, sorghum, and wheat seedlings (de La Cruz and
Raj anna, 1975).
In studies with peas and beans, the plants were found to extract Mirex
from contaminated water. Resulting concentrations in roots exceeded those
in water by factors of 6 to 10. However, concentrations in shoots were
always less than those in the original water (Mehendale et al., 1972). No
further data were given to determine if uptake was part of the plants' metabo-
lism or a function of adsorption on the roots' surface.
To provide sufficient data to determine if uptake by plants will play a
significant role in the fate and effects of Kepone residuals in Che Hopewell
area, a laboratory study was conducted using Kepone-spiked and naturally
contaminated soils and sediments.
IV-16

-------
A modified Neubauer Technique (Bear, 1948) was employed for the study
using 200 gram samples of Ritzville sandy loam soil. One sample set was
spiked with Kepone and a second with Kepone-contaminated sediments. Spiking
was accomplished by dissolving technical-grade Kepone in 90% ethanol. The
resulting solution was pipetted onto the soil samples to yield batches con-
taining 0.1 yg Kepone/g soil (ppm), 1.0 ug Kepone/g soil (ppm), and 10.0 vig
Kepone/g soil (ppm). Oven-dried (105°, 24 hr) sediments from Bailey Bay
containing approximately 1 ug Kepone/g (ppm) were mixed at a ratio of 1:10
with soil to form a fourth set of media. Samples were placed in an oven set
at 60°C and dried for 16 hr prior to potting.
Each of the four sets of media was divided into five replicates and
placed in 473 ml (1 pint) cartons lined with plastic. Soil was watered with
50 ml of water per pot, planted with 100 barley seeds, and the surface
covered with 45 g (0.099 lb) of coarse sand. All pots were placed in a
controlled environmental growth chamber set at 16 hr of light and 8 hr of
darkness per day. Temperature was maintained at 25°C during the day and 19°C
at night. After germination, pots were watered daily until harvested after
14 days. When harvested, plants were clipped just above the soil surface,
placed in glass beakers, and oven dried at 50°C for 48 hr. A regrowth crop
was then grown under the same conditions.
Results of the two cycles of barley growth in contaminated soils are
presented in Table IV.6. In general, all plants grew normally and no toxic-
ity symptoms were observed. All samples were below detectable levels for
Kepone except the second cutting on pot numbers 4 and 15. These were
believed to have experienced contamination from the soil media after the
first cutting and not to reflect uptake. With or without these two values,
no apparent uptake pattern was evidenced. It would appear that plants will
not translocate Kepone into their shoots, stems or leafy parts. The high
yield in pots 16 to 20 for the second cutting is believed to reflect nitrogen
and other nutrients in the sediments not present in the spiked soil samples
since Bailey Bay sediments are high in organic nitrogen content.
The above finding agrees with other ongoing work. Dr. Robert Huggett at
the Virginia Institute of Marine Science notes that work with rooted aquatic
plants shows no uptake to the stem or leafy parts. Similarly, Mr. Paul
Griffen with General Electric finds no uptake of another polychlorinated hydro-
carbon, PCBs, in terrestrial plants. Some PCB content is found in root
tissues, but this is believed to reflect physical sorption and not systemic
uptake.
Based on limited literature reports and ongoing studies, it is concluded
that Kepone is not amenable to plant uptake from soil or sediments. Hence,
it is unlikely that man or other species are threatened by Kepone as a result
of consumption of crops or wild fauna from the Hopewell area. Some residues
may be consumed as a result of foliar depositions or sorption cn root stocks,
but potential for deposition diminishes with time and sorption is unlikely
unless high concentrations of Kepone in soil are found below the soils sur-
face. This could be of some concern if root crops were grown in contaminated
dredge spoils.
IV-17

-------
<
I

TABLE
IV.6. GROWTH OF
BAKLEY IN KEPONE CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS






Mint Cutting
Kepoiie Content
Second CultIng
Kepone Content






Oven DrUd
Flrut Cuitlus,
Oven Dried
Second Cutting,
SaibjJ I e
Ho.

('oa.l 11 loan


Hoc b« U'l.C . II
ph/k (pp*)	
Hoi Weight. ft
t'H/g (ppa)
1


U.I pg t.upoiie/g noil


1.044
<0.04
0.66B
<0.04



0.1 |ig hepoue/g HOll


0.91 4
<0.04
0. 770
<0.05
1


0.1 |ig Keponu/g uoll


i.i n
<0.01
1.0)4
<0.02
4


0. 1 |Jg heponc/g soil


l.jii
<0.01
0.8B6
0.17
5


l). 1 Kepono/g dull


1.299
<0.01
0.590
<0.01
KiUul lul
Ave



1.210
<0.01
0.790
<0.06
6


1.0 |ig Kepone/g boll


u.i77*
<0.01
0. 711
<0.05
7


1.0 pg hepone/g uoll


1.411
<0.01
l.lJb
<0.01
6


1.0 |ig Kuj)i)iiu/|{ doll


i. joa
<0.0J
o. say
<0.06
9


l.U Kepoiti./g boll


0. 752
<0.05
0. 707
<0.06
10


1 0 |ig Ke|iO||«:/g bull


1.417
<0.02
0.691
<0.06
Hoi cm lul
Ave



1.242*
<0.03
0. 76b
<0.05
II


IU (ig Kiponc/^ boll


1. 150
<0.03
0.970
<0.02
12


10 |
-------
These findings do not address the question of Kepone pickup from con-
taminated water. Recent work by numerous investigators has shown that
plants such as water hyacinths and bullrushes are capable of taking up organic
material like PCBs from contaminated water. This is believed to involve a
surface sorption mechanism rac'ner than uptake and therefore differs signifi-
cantly from uptake from soil or sediments.
3iological Transport
As Kepone is concentrated in mobile biota, it physically moves in the
water system along with the nose. Kepone is transported via two biological
pathways in the James River. One pathway for the removal of Kepone is via
the fish biomass taken by the sport and commercial fisheries. A second
pathway for removal is rapresented by the migration of juvenile and adult
organisms out of the James River. The magnitude of the amount of Kepone
transported via these mechanisms must be determined to fully assess the many
proposed actions for mitigating the Kepone contamination of the James River
system.
An accurate determination of the amount of Kepone that is removed via
these pathways would require detailed information and estimates on the many
biological and chemical components of the James River system. The two criti-
cal parameters for each pathway are the organism biomass and its level of
Kepone contamination. Additional measurements of uptake and depuration rates
are needed for those species that are transient with the James River.
Although many of these data are currently unavailable, it is possible to
evaluate the relative magnitude of the biologically transported Kepone.
Of the many biological components, the best available data are for the
commercial catch pathways. The application and interpretation of these data
depends on several qualitative assumptions and limitations. However, since
the river has been closed to the taking of several of the most important
species (those with the high Kepone body burdens), this mechanism of removal
does not currently function to any significant extent.
Partial data are available for the second pathway, the migration of
adult and juvenile fish out of the James River and the associated transport
of Kepone. A quantitative assessment of this Kepone transport pathway would
require population biomass estimates and Kepone concentrations when these
organisms leave the estuary. Little of this information exists nor is it
likely to become available in the foreseeable future. The data that are
available are based on relative indices of population size and therefore can
only be utilized in a qualitative manner.
Two approaches to estimating population biomass are reported in this
chapter. The first is based on the catch-per-unit-effort fishing data and
the second on an extrapolation from the commercial catch data. While the
results are qualitative, they can be used to indicate the order of magnitude
of Kepone potentially transported via this pathway.
IV-19

-------
The catch-per-unit-effort approach is taken from the work of VIMS and
the data were supplied by Dr. Michael Bender for summer and winter surveys.
The application of these data to estimating the Kepone transport requires the
following assumptions: (1) all of the migratory fish populations that were
present during the survey leave the system, and (2) these fish are in the
James River long enough to accumulate equilibrium levels of Kepone where
depuration just cancels further uptake. The estimates of the biomass and
Kepone transported in the major species is present in Table IV.7. As can be
seen from the total, the magnitude of the Kepone transported is small. The
average estimate is 72 kg (158 lb) and the maximum estimate is 225 kg (494 lb).
When an estimate is made based on the total summer biomass and an average of
1 ug/g (ppn) Kepone, the total is only 165 kg (363 lb). These estimates may
be low in that they assume 100% efficiency in the trawl operation.
The result of the efforts to evaluate the biological transport of Kepone
is the highly qualitative conclusion that at most only a few hundred pounds
can be expected to be removed annually. As discussed in previous chapters,
the maTffTmim tissue concentration that has been observed in living organisms
is in the range of 1 to 8 ug/g (ppm). Despite the acknowledged limitations
of the population biomass estimates within the various components, it appears
reasonable to conclude that the total biomass does not exceed a few hundreds
of millions of kilograms. Thus, it is projected that the total amount of
Kepone in the James River will decrease by no more than 100 kg per year as
a result of biological transport.
DEGRADATION PROCESSES
Biochemical Oxidation
Little has been reported on the possible degradation of Kepone in the
environment by microorganisms. Data submitted by Allied Chemical Company
showed essentially no decline in soil concentration after 154 days (EPA,
1976).
Garnas et al. (1977) have reported no degradation in model ecosystems
investigations using James River sediments and artificially contaminated
sediments from unaffected areas. Similarly, natural cores from Bailey Bay
and artificially contaminated cores from above Richmond have shown no measur-
able Kepone degradation in Battelle laboratory studies. These efforts are
described in Appendix L.
Photochemical Degradation
Little published work is available on photodegradation of Kepone.
Garnas et al. (1977) have reported no measurable effects of irradiation on
Kepone losses from water-sediment systems. More quantitative data have been
reported on Mirex by Gibson et al. (1972), and Alley et al. (1973) and (1974).
IV-2 C

-------
TABLE IV.7. POTENTIAL EXPORT OF KEPONE FROM THE JAMES RIVER VIA
MIGRATING STOCKS
Concentration,
ng/g-pom*		j.	Keg one. kg
Soecies
Maxiaun
Average
CPUE.
k1
Source
Catch'
Average
Maxiaun
Summer Flounder
1.53
1.40
7.4
3.5
X
X
106
104
VIMS-Summer
VEiS-Winter

10.3
11.3
Atlantic Croaker
2.95
0.58
2.5
1.4
X
X
107
105
VIMS-Suimaer
VIMS-Winter

14.5
74.3
Blueback Herring
1.20
0.08
5.9
4.3
X
X
104
103
VIMS-Summer
VIMS-Winter

-
-
Hickory Shad
0.19
0.14
5.7
X
102
VIMS-Winter

-
-
American Shad
0.6
0.05
4.6
X
103
VIMS-Winter

-
-
Striped Bass
3.8
0.36
5.4
4.0
X
X
104
102
VIMS-Summer
VIMS-Winter

-
0.2
White Perch
8.0
2.07
2.2
4.5
X
X
106
103
VIMS-Summer
VIMS-Winter

4.5
17.6
Spot
1.5
0.47
6.3
5.3
X
X
107
104
VIMS-Summer
VIMS-Winter

29.7
95.4
Atlantic Menhaden

0.16
1.2
1.6
X
X
105
105
VIMS-Summer
VIMS-Winter

-
-
Gizzard Shad
1.25
0.65
5.0
X
103
VIMS-Winter

-
-
American Eel
6.1
1.50
9.2
2.6
X
X
105
104
VdS-Summer
VIMS-Winter

1.4
5.6
Bay Anchovy
0.59
0.25
1.9
2.8
X
X
O O
-J
VIMS-Summer
VIMS-Winter

4.75
11.2
Grey Trout
0.31
0.24
10.3
X
106
VIMS-Summer

2.5
3.2
Bluefish
2.44
0.86
1.5
X
106
VIMS-Summer

1.3
3.66
Bluecrab

0.50*




5.3 x 106
2.7
2.7







Total
72
225
Total Species

1
1.65
X
108
VIMS-Summer

165

* Concentrations based on (VIMS computer printout reference)
t Assumed that catch represented 10Z of total population source
f Average of male and female (sex ratio 1:1)
IV-21

-------
UV radiation from sunlight or sunlamp caused rapid decomposition of
Mirex in amines, but no reaction could be detected under similar conditions
when the solvent was cyclohexane. The enhancement is attributed to a charge
transfer complex between the amine and Mirex. A series of 12-wk exposure
tests with Kepone at Battelle produced no measurable photodecomposition except
for cases where amine solutions were introduced to the system. Details can be
found in Chapter X.
APPRAISAL OF KEPONE MOVEMENT AND PERSISTENCE
From the data in the preceding sections on movement and degradation of
Kepone, several conclusions can be drawn with respect to its persistence in
the various environmental sectors. In general, Kepone levels in water and
soil will not decrease to any great extent as a result of volatilization.
The tendency to tightly bond to soil-sediment particles through sorption
overrides co-distillation mechanisms otherwise active in aqueous solutions.
While no quantitative data have been developed to identify appropriate modifi-
cations for theoretical models on vapor losses, it would appear that the
affinity between Kepone and particulate matter acts like an effective increase
in solubility. In this manner, the Kepone does not display the aversion for
water that its actual solubility would suggest.
Sorption-desorption mechanisms play a major role in determining the move-
ment of Kepone in the environment. For example, the vast majority of all
environmental Kepone residuals are attached to soil or sediment surfaces as
sorbates. An extensive effort to project the distribution and movement of
Kepone-laden suspended sediments and bed load in the James River is described
in detail in Chapter VII.
Movement of Kepone into the biological segments of the environment is
largely a function of bioconcentration from water and bioaccumulation in food
webs. Translocation from soil and sediments by plants has not been demon-
strated. Animals take up Kepone from water, food, and sediments depending on
species and environmental conditions. Blue crabs and avian predators are the
most notable species to take up Kepone from sediments and food. It is the
bioconcentration pathway from water that has caused the major economic dis-
location on the James River—closure of commercial fisheries because Kepone
concentrations are in excess of the FDA action levels. Bioconcentration
followed by migration to the ocean with subsequent depuration is a pathway
for the elimination of Kepone from the James River. It is estimated that
total amounts of Kepone involved may be as much as 100 kg (220 lb) Kepone.
It has also been observed that no significant degradation, either bio-
chemical or photochemical, occurs over the short term. Consequently, total
Kepone residuals in the environment can be expected to remain relatively
constant while their disposition will reflect the natural movement of soil and
sediment particles upon which the Kepone is sorbed. Any measures directed to
mitigation of the contamination must therefore address the soils and sediments
of affected areas.
IV-2 2

-------
REFERENCES
1.	Alley, E. G. , D. A. Dollar, B. R. Layton, and J. P. Minyard, Jr. 1973.
Photochemistry of Mirex. J. Agr. Food Chem. 21(1):138-139.
2.	Alley, E. G., B. R. Layton, and J. P. Minyard, Jr. 1974. "Identifica-
tion of the Photoproducts of the Insecticides Mirex and Kepone."
J. Agr. Food Chem. 22 (3):442-445.
3.	Androde, P. Jr. and W. B. Wheeler. 1974. "Biodegradation of Mirex by
Sewage Sludge Organisms." Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology. 11(5):415-416.
4.	Androde, P., Jr., W. B. Wheeler and D. A. Carlson. 1975. "Identifica-
tion of a Mirex Metabolite." Bulletin Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology. 14(4):473-479.
5.	Bahner, L. H., A. S. Wilson, Jr., J. M. Sheppard, J. M. Patrick,
L. R. Goodman, and G. E. Walsh. 1977. "Kepone Bioconcentration, Accumu-
lation, Loss and Transfer Through Estuarine Food Chains." Chesapeake
Science. 18(3):299-308.
6.	Bear, F. E. 1948. Diagnostic Techniques for Soils and Crops, Their
Value and Use in Estimating the Fertility Status of Soils and Nutri-
tional Requirements of Crops. H. B. Kitchen (ed.) American Potash,
Washington, D.C.
7.	Brown, L. R., E. G. Alley and D. W. Cook. 1975. The Effect of Mirex
and Carbofuran on Estuarine Microorganisms. National Environmental
Research Center, Office of Research and Development, U.S. EPA, Corvallis,
OR.
8.	Carnes, R. A. 1977. "Thermal Degradation of Kepone." News of Environ-
mental Research in Cincinnati. EPA-Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory.
9.	de La Cruz, A. A. and B. Raj anna. 1975. "Mirex Incorporation in the
Environment: Uptake and Distribution in Crop Seedlings." Bulletin of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 14(1):38-42.
10.	Garnas, R. L., A. W. Bourquin and P. H. Pritchard. 1977. "Fate and
Degradation of Kepone in Estuarine Microcosms." Kepone Seminar II.
Easton, MD. September 20-21, 1977.
11.	Gibson, J. R., G. W. Ivie and H. W. Dorough. 1972. "Fate of Mirex and
its Major Photodecomposition Product in Rats." J. Agr. Food Chem.
20(6):1246-1248.
IV-2 J

-------
12.	Gilbert, E. E., P. Lombardo, E. J. Runowski and G. L. Walker. 1966.
"Preparation and Insecticidal Evaluation of Alcoholic Analogs of Kepone.
J. Agr. Food Chem. 14(2):1114.
13.	Hansen, D. J., A. N. Wilson, D. R. Nimmo, S. C. Schmmel, L. H. Bahner.
1977. "Kepone: Hazard to Aquatic Organisms." Science. 193:528.
14.	Huggett, R., D. Haven and M. Nichols. 1977. "Kepone Sediment Relation-
ships in the James River." (abstract) Interim Report to U.S. EPA Gulf
Breeze Laboratory.
15.	Jones, A. S. and C. S. Hodges. 1974. "Persistence of Mirex and Its
Effects on Soil Microorganisms." J. Agr. Food Chem. 22(3):435-439.
16.	Kneip, T. J. and G. J. Lauer. 1973. Progress in Analytical Chemistry.
Galen Ewing (ed). Plenum Press, New York.
17.	Liss, P. S. and P. G. Slater. 1974. Nature. 247:181.
18.	Mackary, D. and A. W. Walkoff. 1973. "Rate of Evaporation of Low-
Solubility Contamination from Water Bodies to the Atmosphere."
Environmental Science and Technology. ]_{!).
19.	Mehendale, H. M., L. Fishbein, M. Fields and H. B. Mathews. 1972.
"Fate of Mirex-14c in Rats and Plants." Bulletin of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology. _8(4):200-207.
20.	Neely, W. B. 1976. "Predicting the Flux of Organics Across the Air/
Water Interface." Proceedings of the 1976 National Conference on
Control of Hazardous Material Spills. AICHE, EPA, New Orleans, LA.
21.	Schimmel, S. C. and A. J. Wilson, Jr. 1977. "Acute Toxicity of Kepone
to Four Estuarine Animals." Chesapeake Science. 18(2)223-224.
22.	Schooley, A. H. 1969. Journal of Marine Research. 27:335.
23.	Singmaster, J., Ill and D. G. Crosby. 1977. In: Proceedings of
American Chemical Society Meeting. New Orleans.
24.	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Kepone. Unpublished Report
Office of Pesticide Programs, Criteria and Evaluation Division.
U.S. EPA.
25.	U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "Environmental Description of Bailey
Creek, Bailey Bay and Gravelly Run." Presented to U.S. Corps of
Engineers, Norfolk District, December 13, 1977.
26.	Vind, H. P. 1976. "The Role of Microorganisms in the Transport of
Chlorinated Insecticides." J. M. Sharpley and A. M. Kaplan (eds).
Proceedings of the 3rd International Biodeterioration Symposium.
3:793-797.
IV-2 4

-------
Walsh, G. E., K. Ainsworth, A. J. Wilson. 1977. "Toxicity and Uptake
Kepone in Marine Unicellular Algae." Chesapeake Science. 18(2):222-2
IV- 2 5

-------
CHAPTER V - ANALYSIS OF CURRENT KEPONE DISTRIBUTION
SUMMARY
Content
Chapter V presents the results of sampling for Kepone residuals in the
Hopewell, Virginia area. More than 900 samples were collected in order to
establish the distribution of Kepone in the environment and to identify poten-
tial sources of continuing contamination to the James River system. The
first part of the chapter describes the field sampling techniques, as well
as the analytical methods utilized for Kepone detection in the lab. Next,
a description of the sampling program is given showing the location from
which the various types of environmental samples were collected. Finally,
the results of Kepone analysis of the samples are presented along with a
discussion of their implications.
Findings
•	Use of a toluene:ethyl acetate solvent system for Kepone analysis
eliminates extract cleanup steps for the majority of Hopewell environ-
mental samples.
•	An estimated 540 kg (1200 lb) of Kepone reside in the sediments under-
lying 3ailey Bay and Bailey Creek.
•	The most heavily contaminated bottom sediments of Bailey Bay display
Kepone concentrations peaking at depths of 10 to 20 cm.
•	Highest Kepone levels in Bailey Bay occur at the mouth of Bailey Creek,
with elevated levels continuing in conjunction with the flow pattern of
creek water through the Bay.
•	Surface soil samples from Hopewell contain Kepone concentrations ranging
from several hundred ug/g (ppm) in the area adjacent to the former Life
Science Products (LS?) plant to 0.1 ug/g (ppm) in the outskirts of town.
•	Sampling results show little downward movement of Kepone through the
soil column, with concentrations in the top 1-in. layer generally a full
order of magnitude (10-fold) greater than Kepone levels in the second
inch of soil.
•	The current inventory of Kepone in Hopewell soils resulting from atmo-
spheric fallout during production periods totals between 45 to 450 kg
(100 to 1000 lb).
•	Surface runoff translocates an estimated 60 to 70 g/day of Kepone from
Hopewell soils to the James River system during average periods of
rainfall.
V-l

-------
•	Highest levels of Kepone in surface runoff were detected in the vicinity
of the LSP site, ranging from 10 to 700 ug/2. (ppb).
•	No Kepone was detected in shallow ground-water samples from three wells
in the LSP neighborhood.
•	Detectable levels of Kepone were found in shallow ground-water wells at
the Hopewell landfill, at the site of the Kepone/sludge disposal lagoon,
and at a location east of the Hopewell sewage treatment plant. Measured
concentrations of Kepone at these wells were 0.24, 0.31, and 0.08 ug/2-
(ppb), respectively.
•	Over a 5-month sampling period, two ground-water seeps from the bank
below the Kepone/sludge disposal lagoon contained between 9.6 and
361 ugII (ppb) Kepone.
•	The concentration of Kepone in the Hopewell domestic water 3upply system
is below a detectable limit of 0.02 yg/£ (ppb).
•	The highest Kepone concentration in an environmental sample, 35,163 ug/g
(ppm), was found in marsh sediment adjacent to the southeastern portion
of the Hopewell landfill.
•	Kepone levels in the top 4 in. of this marsh average 12,200 ug/g (ppm)
and account for approximately 1,400 kg (3,100 lb) of the chemical in a
1000 m2 (0.25 acre) area.
•	Analysis of samples from the Pebbled Ammonium Nitrate plant site identi-
fied Kepone residuals to depths of 40 ft, comprising an estimated inven-
tory of 100 kg (220 lb) of Kepone.
® An average of 6 g/day of Kepone exit the Hopewell primary sewage
treatment plant (STP) in its effluent.
•	Continuing Kepone levels in the plant effluent are fed by storm runoff
originating in the Life Science neighborhood, by supernatant drawoff
from the STP holding tank, and by inflows from the residential sanitary
sewer lines.
•	The amount of Kepone residuals persisting in the Hopewell sewer system
and STP is estimated to be less than 23 kg (50 lb).
•	Approximately 100 kg (220 lb) of Kepone are present in the Kepone/sludge
disposal lagoon.
•	An estimated 9000 kg (20,000 lb) of Kepone reside in the top foot of
sediment underlying the James River.
V-2

-------
INTRODUCTION
In April 1977, the Environmental Protection Agency Kepone Migration
Feasibility Project initiated funded support studies with the Pacific North-
west Laboratory (operated by Battelle Memorial Institute), the Corps of Engi-
neers, the EPA Environmental Research Laboratory at Gulf Breeze, and the
Virginia Institute of Marine Science. One aspect of this research involved a
field sampling program designed to establish the extent of Kepcne deposition
in and around the city of Hopewell. Emphasis was placed on identifying
specific areas of high Kepone concentration which could potentially serve as
continuing sources of contamination to the James River system. Details of the
sampling program and subsequent evaluations are given in the following sections.
FIELD STUDY METHODS
The physical-chemical properties of Kepone suggest that the soil and-
sediment sectors of the environment contain the majority of Kepone residuals.
Water serves as the major medium of transfer through transport of contami-
nated particulates and dispersion of dissolved Kepone. Consequently, sam-
pling included water along with sediment and soils. Sample sites were divided
between two geographical zones: (1) Hopewell and the surrounding areas and
(2) Bailey Bay.
The Hopewell Area
Extensive sampling was undertaken within the city of Hopewell in order
to gather clues concerning the extent that atmospheric, hydrologic, chemical,
biological, and human transport mechanisms have dispersed the Kepone. A
variety of samples were collected to determine where significant deposits of
the chemical reside and how such deposits might find their way into the James
River system (Figure V.l). Samples collected include:
® ground water from wells and springs
•	streamflow and rainfall runoff
•	soils
•	water and solids from the city's sewer lines and sewage treatment
plant
•	sludge and supernatant from the Kepone lagoon
Ground water was collected from monitoring wells in Hopewell maintained
by the State Water Control Board, from nearby private wells, and from seeps
flowing from the bank below the area of the Kepone lagoon into Bailey Creek.
Surface water samples were drawn from several streams around Hopewell.
V-3

-------
SURFACE	SUBSURFACE
SOIL
SOIL
SURFACE
RUNOFF
STREAMFLOW
sz.
WASTEWATER AND
SEWER SLIMES
WELL
GROUNDWATER
GROUND-WATER
SEEPS
SEDIMENT
FIGURE V.J.. Schematic Summary of Environmental Sample Types

-------
Samples were generally collected downstream of suspected areas of con-
tamination as well as from upstream sites to serve as control points. When
possible, two samples were taken at each site, one during a dry period and
the other shortly after a significant rainfall. In addition, overland
runoff samples were collected around the city during and immediately follow-
ing rainstorms. Samples of soil were also taken from several locations
around Hopewell, with emphasis on the area around the Life Science Products
site. The Hopewell primary sewage treatment plant provided samples of sewage
influent and effluent. Following analysis of these samples, a program was
established to sample slime and sewage from pump stations and manholes as
well. Samples at the Pebbled Ammonium Nitrate plant site and landfill were
dictated by historical data on disposal sites and topography.
Bailey Bay and its Tributaries
The main component of the Bailey Bay sampling program was the collection
of core samples of bottom sediment. Cores were obtained from all parts of
the Bay and analyzed for Kepone content. These results were used to estab-
lish the present distribution of Kepone throughout the Bay, including its
vertical profile. Cores were also collected from Bailey Creek, Poythress
Run, Gravelly Run, Cattail Creek, and the western crescent of Tar Bay. In
addition, selected cores underwent heavy-metal detection and broad spectrum
organic analyses. The final component of the Bailey Bay sampling plan
involved collection of water samples, and particle size distribution evalua-
tions.
In the following sections, the procedures used in the overall sampling
and analysis program are explained. A detailed description of the actual
sampling program is also presented, followed by a presentation of the results
showing the amount of Kepone found in the environmental samples collected.
Sampling Procedures
The following procedures were used for the field sampling.
• Sediment Cores. Sediment core samples were collected using a 6-cm
(2.125 in.) diameter push tube coring device with a stainless steel cut-
ting head and 61 cm (24 in.) cellulose acetyl butyrate liner. Labora-
tory investigations revealed no significant uptake of Kepone on these
liners. Penetration of sediments was monitored to assure at least 2.5
to 6 cm (1 to 2 in.) of water above the sediment core when retrieved.
Caps were then placed on the liner and labeled. The sampling apparatus
is illustrated in Figure V.2. Detailed logs were kept on each core with
data on time, location, conditions, and visual observations. In
Bailey Bay, sites were located using sextant readings on landmarks with
specified coordinates. Completed cores were frozen and shipped for
analysis.
V-5

-------
Valve
"0" Ring-*
V
Corer Body 1/4"
Wall Steel Pipe
Corer Extension
Pipes, Up to 20'
WVN
jwvi
1/
I l
V
Valve Dropped Down
Tube After Corer is
Pushed into Sediment
Water
Sediment
Corer
Valve Seat
Set Screw
Polyethylene End Caps
for Storage of Core
Cellulose Acetyl 3utyrate
Core Tube Liner
Cutter Head
Stainless Steel
FIGURE V.2. Expanded View of Push Tube Coring Device Employed for
Samples from Bailey Bay
V-6

-------
•	Water. Samples of water were collected in clean glass bottles and
jars. Each container was first rinsed with the sample water, then
filled and capped. In all cases, aluminum lined caps were used to
prevent Kepone uptake by the cap.
•	Soils and Sewer Slime. Samples of soils and of sewer slimes were also
placed in glass jars and capped with aluminum coverings. In gathering
slime samples, a metal spoon was used to scrape the slime from the
inner walls of the sewer line. The spoon was thoroughly cleaned between
uses.
Standard soil samples were collected from undisturbed ground surfaces.
Several subsamples of the top 2.5 cm (1 in.) from a 1 m2 (11 ft2) were
composited to create each sample.
To collect subsurface samples, a steep sided hole was dug to a depth of
30.5 cm (12 in.), the side was marked off into 2.5 cm (1-in.) sections,
and a metal scoop used to collect soil from the desired depth. For deep
core sampling at the Pebble Ammonium Nitrate site, holes were, mechanically
augered and split spoon samples taken using the standard penetration
test method.
Analytical Methods Used for Kepone Detection
The methods and materials used in the experiments are as follows.
•	Equipment. All gas chromatographic analyses of Kepone were performed on
a Hewlett Packard, 5700A, gas chromatograph equipped with a °-%i elec-
tron capture detector operated in the dc pulsed mode. This gas chromato-
graph was also equipped with a Hewlett Packard automatic sampler, 7617A,
which allowed unattended operation. Kepone retention times and peak
areas were quantified with a Hewlett Packard 3370B Integrater. A
borosilicate glass column 1.85 m x 2 mm ID (72.8 x 0.079 in.) was packed
with 100/120 mesh Supelcoport which was coated with 1.5% SP-2250/1.95%
SP-2401. The column was operated at a constant temperature of 203cC
with a 45-65 ml/min flow rate of 5% methane:95% argon carrier gas. The
EC detector temperature and the injection port temperature were both
300°C.
•	Reagents and Materials. Florisil, PR grade, 60/100 mesh, specially
processed and activated by the supplier, was re-extracted with acetone,
reactivated for 2-1/2 hr at 650°C, and stored at 140°C prior to use.
Na2S04, reagent grade, was soxhlet extracted for 18 hr with 41:59 ace-
tone:hexane, dried, and stored at 140°C prior to use.
Standards of Kepone were obtained from the Environmental Protection
Agency Health Effects Laboratory at Research Triangle Park, North Caroline.
These reference materials were 86.6% Kepone and were from Lots No. 5778 and
6104. Sets of three to six different concentrations of Kepone standards were
run prior to, during, and after analysis of each batch of 25 to 30 samples.
V-7

-------
In addition, individual Kepone standards were interspersed during the sample
run after each 4 to 5 samples. The Kepone standards data were fit to a power
curve to correct for the nonlinear EC detector response in the range of
Kepone concentrations injected (2-1000 pg). All samples and standards con-
tained 2% methanol to enhance a stable response of the EC detector to Kepone.
All injections into the gas chromatograph were 2-yl volumes.
All solvents used during this investigation were distilled in glass,
pesticide quality or equivalent. All glassware other than soxhlet extraction
equipment was washed with 1 N KOH, distilled water and acetone prior to each
use. The soxhlet apparatus was rinsed with either 1:3 toluene:ethyl acetate
or 1:1 petroleum ether:ethyl ether and 41:59 acetone:hexane between sample
extractions.
•	Sample Preparation and Storage. Soil and sediment samples were dried
overnight in an oven at 103°C. These dried samples were then pulverized
by grinding with a mortar and pestle or with a mechanical blender.
After these steps, the samples were stored in glass jars prior to their
analysis. Water samples were collected and stored in glass bottles with
Teflon or aluminum-lined caps.
•	Preparation of Standard Reference Sediment. Approximately 4 kg (9 lb)
dry weight of a Bailey Bay sediment was prepared as a standard reference
material to be used throughout this investigation. This sample was
pulverized by mechanical blending and was tumbled continuously for 7 days
in a glass bottle to ensure exhaustive homogenization. All samples of
the "standard Bailey Bay sediment" were subsamples of this reference
sediment.
•	Sediment Extraction. All sediments and soil samples were extracted
with approximately 200 to 225 ml of solvent in a soxhlet extraction tube
fitted with an Allihn type condenser.
Two different solvent systems were used for extracting the solid samples
depending upon the anticipated levels of Kepone and Kepone interferences. A
discussion of the sample types extracted by each solvent system is pre-
sented later. Each of the solvent extraction methods and cleanup techniques,
where applicable, is presented below.
Method A. A 10.00 g (0.022 lb) aliquot of dried, pulverized sample of
soil sediment was mixed with 3.33 g (0.00734 lb) of anhydrous Na2S04,
placed into a Whatman cellulose extraction thimble, and soxhlet extracted
for 18 to 20 hr with 200 ml of 1:3 toluene:ethyl acetate. This extract
was concentrated in a rotary evaporator (water bath temperature: ^33°C)
and diluted to a final volume of 25 ml.
Method B. A 10.00 g (0.022 lb) aliquot of dried, pulverized sample of
soil or sediment was mixed with 3.33 g (0.00734 lb) of anhydrous Na->S04,
placed into a Whatman cellulose extraction thimble, and soxhlet extrac-
ted for 18 to 20 hr with 225 ml of 1:1 petroleum ether:ethyl ether.
V-8

-------
The sample was concentrated by rotary evaporation (water bath tempera-
ture: 38°C) to near dryness and was diluted to a 10-ml final volume with
petroleum ether.
•	Water Extraction. A 10-ml aliquot of water sample and 1 ml of organic
solvent were placed into a 15-ml, graduated, conical, centrifuge tube
with a Teflon-lined screwcap. Kepone was extracted from the water into
the organic solvent layer by vigorous shaking on a wrist action shaker
for 20 to 30 min. Samples were centrifuged at 3000 rpm for I to 2 min to
separate the phases. The organic solvent layer was drawn off and the
centrifuge tube washed with two 100 to 200-ul aliquots of solvent. These
washings were combined with the original solvent layer and diluted to a
1-ral volume. Unless otherwise specified, this analysis was performed on
a total water sample which included both soluble and particulate-attached
Kepone.
Two different organic solvents were used for this water extraction, a 1:3
toluene:ethyl acetate mixture and a 1:1 petroleum ether:ethyl ether
mixture. The petroleum ether:ethyl ether extracts were evaporated to
near dryness and diluted to a 1-ml volume with petroleum ether prior to
further processing.
•	Extract Cleanup. Sediments, soils, and waters extracted with the petro-
leum ether:ethyl ether solvent mixture were subjected to an extract
cleanup on 3 Florisil column to separate the Kepone fraction from poten-
tial PCB interferences. This cleanup was performed on microcolumns 4 mm
ID x 180 mm (0.16 x 7.1 in.). The column was plugged with a small amount
of glass wool and 0.8 g (0.002 lb) of Florisil was added while tapping;
0.8 g (0.002 lb) of anhydrous Na2S04 was added on top of the Florisil.
This column was then washed with 10 ml of petroleum ether. Immediately
after this washing 2-ml of soil or sediment extract or 1-ml of water
extract was placed on top of the column. The PCB containing fraction was
eluted with 9 ml of 2% methanol:4% benzene:94% hexane. The Kepone was
then eluted with 10 ml of 2% methanol:24.5% toluene:73.5% ethyl acetate
and adjusted to a 10-ml final volume.
Analytical Method Used for Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Detection
•	Sample Preparation and Storage. Soil samples from the Pebbled Ammonium
Nitrate site were stored in sealed containers. Subsamples of the moist
soil samples were taken for analysis.
•	Soil Extraction. A 1.00-g (0.0022-lb) aliquot of moist soil was placed
into a 15-ml, graduated, conical centrifuge tube with a Teflon-lined
screw cap. An 8-ml portion of 2% methanol:24.5% toluene:73.5% ethyl
acetate was added to the centrifuge tube; the tube was capped, and the
sample was shaken for 18 hr on a wrist-action shaker. Samples were
centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 1 to 2 min to separate the phases. The
organic solvent layer was drawn off and the centrifuge tube was rinsed
with two 1-ml aliquots of solvent. These washings were combined with the
original solvent and diluted to a 10-ml volume.
V-9

-------
•	Gas Chromatographic Analysis. All equipment was as described above for
Kepone analysis; however, operating conditions were as follows: injec-
tion port temperature, 250°C; EC detector temperature, 300°C; column
temperature, 105°Gr
•	Reagents and Materials. Sample of reagent grade hexachlorocyclopentadiene
for standardization was obtained from ICN-K&K Labs Division, Cat. No. 14522.
Results and Discussion
The solvent extraction techniques were evaluated for the recovery of
Kepone from soils, sediments and water.
•	Solvent Extraction of Soils and Sed^pnts. An evaluation was made of the
recovery of both native Kepone and Kepone added in the laboratory from
the standard Bailey Say sediment by both the toluene:ethyl acetate and
the petroleum ether:ethyl ether solvent mixtures. The data presented
in Table V.l, Part A, show the mean value for 19 replicates of the stan-
dard sediment and the recovery of added Kepone from seven additional
replicate analyses by the toluene:ethyl acetate solvent system. These
data verify that this mixed solvent system recovers essentially 100% of
the Kepone added to the sediment samples with a small standard deviation
of approximately 7%. The standard deviation from the mean of 19 repli-
cates was approximately 11%. Based upon the excellent recovery of the
added Kepone from these sediment samples and the good precision of repli-
cate analyses, the toluene:ethyl acetate solvent mixture was the solvent
system of choice for most of the solid samples analyzed during this
investigation.
The recovery of Kepone by soxhlet extraction with toluene:ethyl acetate
can be compared to the recovery by soxhlet extraction with a petroleum ether:
ethyl ether solvent mixture as is shown in Table V.l, Part B. These data, for
the recoveries of native Kepone and laboratory added Kepone, indicate that the
petroleum ether:ethyl ether solvent mixture followed by a micro-Florisil
column cleanup of the extract recovers a smaller proportion of the Kepone than
does the toluene:ethyl acetate solvent system. The Kepone concentration for
10 replicates of spiked Bailey Bay sediment samples was approximately 68% of
that found for replicates of the same sediment by the toluene:ethyl acetate
extraction. The recovery of added Kepone was approximately 77% as compared to
essentially 100% for the toluene:ethyl acetate solvent. Based upon the
behavior of standards (unpublished data), it is felt that the loss of the
Kepone during the petroleum ether:ethyl ether extraction and cleanup occurs
during the cleanup step on the micro-Florisil column. Because of the lower
Kepone recoveries resulting from the irreversible retention of Kepone by the
micro-Florisil columns, this solvent system was used for only those samples
which contained lower Kepone concentrations or concentrations similar to the
level of the PCB interferent compounds. Its use was necessary on these
samples since toluene:ethyl acetate solutions cannot be put through micro-
Florisil cleanup.
V-10

-------
TABLE V.l. RECOVERY OF KEPONE FROM BAILEY BAY SEDIMENT SAMPLES
Samoie V.o.
19 Replicates
Pare A
Kepone Concentration
		
Percent Recovery
of Added ".eoor.e
Range: 0.98 - 1.38		
J = 1.17 t 0.13
3B-TEA-S-1	3.05	94.0
BB-7EA-S-2	3.15	99.0
BB-TEA-S-3	3.01	92.0
BB-TEA-S-4	2.19	102.0
3B-TEA-S-5	2.17	100.0
3B-TEA-S-6	2.31	114.0
BB-TEA-S-7	2.12	95.0
y =	99.4 r 7.3
Extracting Solvent: 1:3/Toluene:Ethyl Acetate
Sample Size:
Kepone Added:
10 Replicates
BB-PE-S-1
3B-PE-S-2
BB-PE-S-3
BB-PE-S-4
BB-PE-S-5
10.0 g
1.00 ug/g or 2.00 ug/g
Part B
Range: 0.68 - 0.88
x =» 0.79 ± 0.05
1.62
1.57
1.78
1.61
1.24
83
78
99
82
45
Extracting Solvent:
Extract Cleanup:
Sample Size:
Kepone Added:
y = 77.4 ± 19.8
1:1/Petroleum Ether:Ethyl Ether
Microflorisil Column
10.0 g
1.00 ug/g
v-11

-------
To evaluate the effect of soxhlet extraction time on the recovery of
Kepone from sediment samples, replicates of the contaminated Bailey Bay
standard sediment were extracted for four different time intervals. The data
from this study are shown in Table V.2. The mean values of the Kepone con-
centrations in replicate samples are indistinguishable for each of these time
periods, suggesting that the toluene:ethyl acetate extracting solvent employed
is capable of removing essentially all of the Kepone from the sediments in
less than a 12-hr period. During this investigation, all of the soxhlet
extractions were run for 18 to 20 hr.
TABLE V.2. KEPONE EXTRACTION FROM BAILEY BAY
SEDIMENT SAMPLES
Extracting Tlme-hr Kepone Concentration-ug/g
12
1.26
+
0.08
18
1.15
+
0.16
24
1.09

0.04
36
1.19
+
0.35
All samples
1.17

0.07
Extracting Solvent: 1:3/Toluene:Ethyl Acetate
Sample size: 10.00 g
The majority of soil and sediment samples examined for Kepone content
were extracted using the toluene:ethyl acetate organic solvent extraction
system. These samples included those sediments which were obtained from
Bailey Creek and Bailey 3ay areas, other sediments known to contain elevated
Kepone concentrations, soil samples from the areas adjacent to the Life
Sciences plant and Allied Semi-Works plant, sewer pipe scrapings, and all
sediments and soils which were obtained from laboratory investigations.
Those soil and sediment samples which were extracted using the petroleum
ether:ethyl ether solvent extraction system include all sediment samples from
the main channel of the James River and all the terrestrial soil samples
obtained from any location other than that known to be wichin the immediate
sphere of influence of the Life Science plant or the Allied Chemical Semi-
Works plant.
The limit of detection for Kepone analysis in soils and sediments when
using the toluene:ethyl acetate solvent system depends to an extanc upon the
levels of other contaminants (especially PCBs and pesticides) in the samples
since this procedure does not include a step for removal of potential inter-
ferences. For soil and sediment samples with only small quantities of
V-12

-------
interfering compounds, the limit of detection is approximately 0.0005 ug/g-dry
weight. This concentration corresponds to an integrated Kepone peak area of
100 micro-volt-seconds. Samples having particularly low levels of interference
include most of the subsurface samples from soil cores collected from Nitrogen
Park, the Pebbled Ammonium Nitrate site, the sanitary landfill, Moody Creek
cores, and a few cores from Bailey Creek. Kepone concentrations which are
reported as "less than" numbers but are greater than the stated detection
limit are due to the presence of interfaring materials in the sample extracts.
The approximate limit of detection for Kepone in soil and sediments analyzed
by the petroleum ether:ethyl ether extraction-Florisil cleanup technique is
0.001 'Jg/g. This concentration corresponds to an integrated peak area of
100 micro-volt-seconds. For some of the samples of James River solids, the
use of peak height rather than peak area was necessary. The limit of detec-
tion for these samples was approximately 0.003 ug/g. A complete listing of
the individual soil and sediment samples extracted by the toluene:ethyl
acetate and the petroleum ether:ethyl ether systems is given in Appendix C.
Battelle, together with six other laboratories, participated in a round-
robin analysis of Kepone-contaminated sediments. The analysis was organized
by the Health Effects Research Laboratory of EPA-Research Triangle Park as
a part of the overall EPA Mitigation Feasibility Project to ensure comparabil-
ity of analytical data. The results of the Battelle analyses of the samples
spiked with Kepone indicated an average recovery of 93.3%. This recovery
compares extremely well with the 81.5% average recovery for all laboratories
participating. These data demonstrate that the toluene:ethyl acetate extrac-
tion technique developed for this research is a valid technique which pro-
vides recovery of Kepone from sediments that is equal to or greater than the
recovery achieved by any other analytical method normally employed for Kepone
analyses.
® Solvent Extraction of Natural Waters. An initial evaluation of several
solvents including 1:1 petroleum ether:ethyl ether, 1:3 toluene:ethyl
acetate, 41:59 acetone:hexane, and iso-octane revealed that the toluene:
ethyl acetate solvent mixture was a superior solvent system for recover-
ing Kepone spikes from artifical water samples. Therefore, this solvent
system was used nearly exclusively for analyses of all natural waters and
for water samples from laboratory investigations.
Three different contact times of water-solvent agitation during Kepone
extraction were examined to determine if a long contact time was required.
Twenty-, forty-, and sixty-mil extractions were performed on replicates
of one environmental sample. The data indicated that a constant concen-
tration of Kepone was found in the samples regardless of the contact
time. Therefore, all subsequent solvent extractions of natural water
samples were agitated for 20 to 25 min.
Many of the natural water samples were stored for a period up to 4 weeks
prior to their analysis. To determine if this storage had any adverse
effects on the quantification of the total Kepone content of the samples,
several of the bottles which had contained the stored samples were rinsed
V-13

-------
with a quantity of the toluene:ethyl acetate solvent. Aliquots of these
rinsings were then examined for their Kepone concentrations. In all
cases, less than 0.01% of the Kepone in the total water sample was found
associated with the glass walls of the storage container. These results
confirmed that, even at very low concentrations of Kepone, the storage of
samples for long periods of time did not adversely affect measurement of
the total Kepone concentrations in these natural water samples.
The efficiency of the toluene:ethyl acetate solvent in removing Kepone
from natural water samples is demonstrated by the data in Table V.3. The
overall recovery of 200 ppc (parts per trillion) of Kepone added to
replicates of a water sample from the James River was approximately 97.5%
for six replicates. The recovery of a 50 ppt Kepone spike added to
replicates of a Columbia River water sample was approximately 87.8% for
five replicates. In addition to this overall high efficiency of extrac-
tion that the toluene:ethyl acetate solvent provides, this solvent system
also yields good precision on replicate analyses of individual samples.
The data in Table V.4 show the Kepone concentrations in nine replicates
of an environmental water sample containing approximately 2.5 ppb of
Kepone. The standard deviation from the mean concentration for these
analyses was approximately 5%.
The recovery of Kepone from environmental water samples using the toluene:
ethyl acetate solvent can be compared to the recovery obtained when the 1:1
petroleum ether:ethyl ether solvent is used. The data in Table V.5 show the
recovery of 100 ppt of Kepone added to a James River sample when the petroleum
ether:ethyl ether system followed by a micro-Florisil extract cleanup is used.
In this case, the recovery of the added Kepone averaged approximately 70% for
four replicate samples. This recovery compares favorably with the average
recovery of Kepone from sediments when petroleum ether:ethyl ether is used as
the extracting solvent; this solvent system averages approximately a 77%
recovery of the added Kepone from sediments. The comparison of the toluene:
ethyl acetate solvent with the petroleum ether:ethyl ether solvent was neces-
sary since a few water samples were extracted with petroleum ether:ethyl ether
and subjected to the micro-Florisil cleanup prior to GC analysis. These
samples included approximately 25 filtered James River water samples from
which the particulate materials were analyzed separately, and samples obtained
from the Virginia American Water Company.
The data presented in Table V.6 compare two analysis techniques, toulene:
ethyl acetate extraction and petroleum ether:ethyl ether extraction followed
by Florisil cleanup, for recovery of ppt levels of Kepone from water samples
from the Hopewell area. On the basis of the data previously shown in Table V.3,
it is clear that the toluene:ethyl acetate solvent system recovers 85 to
100% of the Kepone spiked at the 50 to 200 ppt levels in natural water samples.
V-14

-------
TABLE V.3. RECOVERY OF KEPONE FROM JAMES RIVER WATER SAMPLES
Sample Kepone	Percent Recovery
NTo.	 Concentration u%/£ o£ Added Kepone
James River Water Samples
224-a	0.025
224-b	0.038
224-c	0.056
x = 0.040 ± 0.016
224-d	0.217	38.5
224-e	0.229	94.5
224-f	0.245	102.5
224-g	0.243	101.5
224-h	0.243	101.5
224-i	0.235	97.5
x = 0.235 ± 0.011	y = 97.7 ± 4.7
Columbia River Water Samples
2958-75-5	0.0333	66.6
2958-75-6	0.0492	98.4
2958-75-7	0.0435	87.0
2958-75-8	0.0490	98.0
2958-75-9	0.0446		89.2
x 0.0439 ± 0.0065	x - 87.8 ± 12.9
Extracting Solvent: l:3/Toluene:Ethyl Acetate
Sample Volume:	10 ml
Kepone Added:	0.200 ug/2, or 0.050 ug/2.
V-15

-------
TABLE V.4. PRECISION OF KEPONE ANALYSES FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL WATER SAMPLES
Kepone
Samples No.	Concentration ug/7-
Seep No. 1-a	2.47
1-b	2.49
1-c	2.43
1-d	2.77
1-e	2.57
1-f	2.50
I-g	2.70
1-h	2.66
1-i	2.75
x - 2.59 ± 0.13
Extracting Solvent: 1:3/Toluene:Ethyl Acetate
Sample Volume:	10 ml
The data in Tables V.5 and V.6 indicate that the water analysis method employ-
ing a petroleum ether:ethyl ether extraction followed by a Florisil cleanup
step for removal of interferences recovers 60 to 70% of Kepone in the water at
the low ppc levels. This comparison of recoveries is consistent with the
recoveries of Kepone from sediments by these two technqiues. Kepone recover-
ies by the toluene:ethyl acetate extraction technique are quite good at all
levels of contamination and the proportion of Kepone recovered by the petroleum
ether:ethyl ether extraction-Florisil cleanup technique appears to be relatively
constant at widely differing Kepone contamination levels. Consequently, it
is suggested that the recovery of natural levels of Kepone contamination from
James River water samples by the petroleum ether:ethyl ether extraction-
Florisil cleanup method yields recoveries of approximately 60%.
V-16

-------
TABLE V.5. RECOVERY OF KEPONE FROM JAMES RIVER WATER SAMPLES
Sample	Kepone
No.	Concentration ug/'l
213-a	0.017
213-b		0.007	
x = 0.012 ± 0.007
213-c	0.062
213-d	0.085
213-e	0.084
213-f	0.098
Percent Recovery
of Added IveDone
50.0
73.0
72.0
86.0
x = 0.082 ± 0.015	y = 70.3 ± 14.9
Extracting Solvent: 1:1/Petroleum Ether:Ethyl Ether
Extract Cleanup: Micro-Florisil column
Sample Volume:	10 ml
Kepone Added:	0.100 yg/2
TABLE V.6. EXTRACTION OF TRACE CONCENTRATIONS OF KEPONE FROM VIRGINIA
AMERICAN WATER COMPANY SAMPLES BY TWO SOLVENT SYSTEMS
Sample
Hopewell Domestic
Water 9/27/78 0900
Hopewell Domestic
Water 9/27/78 1205
Hopewell Domestic
Water 9/27/78 1515
Hopewell Industrial
Water 9/27/78 0900
Hopewell Raw Water
9/27/78 0900
Measured Kepone Concentration - ug/i	Petroleum Ether:Ethyl
Petroleum Ether:Ethyl	Ether Cone, as %
Toluene:Ethyl Ether Extraction	of Toluene:Ethyl
Acetate Extraction Plus Florlsll Cleanup	Acetate Concentration
0.0037	38.5
0.0018	75.0
0.011, 0.0081
0.0026, 0.0022
0.0070
0.015
0.025, 0.025
0.0044
0.012
0.014
62.9
80.0
56.0
62.4 ± 16.4
V-17

-------
In order to assess the efficiency of Kepone extraction by toluene:ethyl
acetate at higher Kepone concentrations, several samples containing elevated
Kepone concentrations were extracted sequentially with two separate aliquots
of toluene:ethyl acetate. The data for recovery of Kepone from these water
samples, which contained from 19 to 394 ug/S, (ppb) of Kepone, are presented in
Table V.7. It is apparent from these data that a single extraction with
toluene:ethyl acetate removes greater than 90% of the Kepone in the samples.
On the basis of these data, even at these high levels of Kepone contamination,
only a single extraction of all natural water samples was required.
TABLE V.7. SEQUENTIAL EXTRACTION OF KEPONE FROM NATURAL WATERS
Sample Number
Seep //5
0-19 RO-2
0-19 RO-3
0-19 RO-1
Kepone Concen-
tration in First
Extraction-ug/I
18.6
48.7
358.0
370.0
Kepone Concen-
tration in Second
Extraction-ug/£
0.71
1.5
35.8
17.4
Percent of Total
Recovered by
Single Extraction
96.3
97.0
90.9
95.5
The results of these procedural evaluations and determinations for the
toluene:ethyl acetate solvent system as an extracting medium for Kepone from
natural waters has shown it to be excellently suited for this purpose.
Precision of replicate analyses is very good, recovery of sub-ppb Kepone
spikes is essentially quantitative, and the extraction is neither time-
consuming nor difficult. This method is, of course, subject to PCB inter-
ferences; however, these interferences do not seem to be a major difficulty at
Kepone concentrations of 100 ppt or higher. In most cases, PCB concentrations
in the water samples examined were so low that insignificant interferences
occurred even at Kepone concentrations of less than 50 ppt.
The limit of detection for Kepone analysis of water samples when using
the toluene:ethyl acetate solvent extraction technique is partially dependent
upon the levels of some other contaminants in the samples (especially PC3s
and pesticides) since there is no removal of potential interferences in this
procedure. The limit of detection for Kepone in natural water samples with
low concentrations of interfering compounds is approximately 0.025 yg/Z . This
concentration corresponds to an integrated peak area of 100 micro-volt-seconds.
The majority of petroleum ether:ethyl ether extractions of natural water samples
was performed prior to obtaining the electronic peak integrator. Therefore,
the limit of detection for these samples is based upon a peak of two times
the baseline noise of the strip chart recorder at its most sensitive setting
V-13

-------
(0.1 millivolt full scale). This peak height corresponds to a Kepone concen-
tration of approximately 0.006 ug/5, but is sample dependent. The water
samples obtained from the Virginia American Water Company were large
volume samples which were concentrated by evaporation. The limit of detec-
tion for Kepone in these samples (based on an integrated peak area of 100 micro-
volt-seconds) is 0.0004 vig/S, .
Solvent Extraction of Soils for Hexachlorocvclopentadiene
The recovery of hexachlorocyclopentadiene (HCP) from two soil types by
the toluene:ethyl acetate extraction procedure developed was evaluated. The
data for the recovery of HCP from a sand sample and from a sample of Bailey
Creek sediment (demonstrated to contain no HCP) are given in Table V.8. The
recoveries were generally good and were consistent for each sample type. The
recovery of less than 100% of the added hexachlorocyclopentadiene is thought
to be due to the fact that the extractions are performed at room temperature
due to HCP volatility and potential for loss at elevated temperatures. HCP
analyses were performed only on soil samples from the Pebbled Ammonium titrate
site. Nearly all of these samples were very sandy and similar to the sand
used in this HCP recovery investigation. Therefore, the recovery that was
achieved for the HCP spiked into the sand samples quite likely approximates
the recovery of HCP from the PAN samples.
Related Analyses
The following heavy metals were run by atomic absorption using a graphite
furnace and hollow cathode lamps: arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr),
lead (Pb), and antimony (Sb). Analyses were performed by the method of known
additions. A deuterium background corrector was used in the analysis of As,
Cd, Pb, and Sb.
Total Mercury Concentration in Sediment—
The determination of total mercury was accomplished by flameless atomic
absorption (Windom, 1973; Kalb, 1970). Wet sediment was digested in nitric
acid, permanganate, and persulfate on a water bath at 60°C overnight. The
resultant solution was then treated with hydroxylamine hydrochloride to reduce
excess oxidizing reagents. Stannous chloride was added to reduce the mercury
to its elemental form. The mercury was next purged with nitrogen gas which
carried the volatile mercury through a silver foil trap. Mercury was captured
as an amalgam on the foil while organic and moisture vapors were vented. The
silver foil was then rapidly heated and mercury driven through a quartz absorp-
tion cell. The mercury absorption peak was measured with a strip chart
recorder receiving the spectrophotometer signal. Standard mercury solutions
were used to calibrate the instrumentation.
Sediment Size Fractionation—
Size fractionation was performed using the method of Jackson (1956) .
Samples were dispersed in distilled water overnight and sieved through a 200
mesh sieve. The material retained on the sieve, >74 y, was dried and weighed
as the sand fraction. The material which passed through the sieve was
V-19

-------
centrifuged at 750 rpm for 3.3 min and decanted. The settled material, 74 u
to 2 u, was dried and weighed as the silt fraction. The decant was centri-
fuged at 2400 rpm for 35 min, decanted, dried and weighed as the clay frac-
tion, <2 u.
TABLE V.8. RECOVERY OF HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE FROM SOIL AND
SEDIMENT SAMPLES
Samole Description and
No.
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Concentration us?/s
Z Recovery of
Added Hexachloro'
cyclopentadiene
Sand - 54-1

0.136
81.6
54-2

0.143
85.8
54-3

0.150
89.9
54-4

0.132
78.7



x + 84.0 ± 4.9
Bailey Creek Sediment -
54-7
0.123
73.3

54-8
0.110
65.5

54-9
0.114
68.4

54-10
0.116
69.4



x - 69.3 ± 3.4
Extracting Solvent: 1:3/Toluene:Ethyl Acetate
Sample Size:	1.00 g
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Added: 0.167 ug/g
GC/MS Identification of Organic Contaminants—
Approximately 20 g (0.044 lb) of wet sediment, (equivalent to approxi-
mately 8.5 g (0.019 lb) dry weight, were mixed with 20 g (0.044 lb) of dry
Na2S04 and extracted with 200 ml of acetone:hexane (41:59) for 18 hr in a
soxhlet extraction apparatus. The acetone:hexane extract was dried through 1
(0.033 lb) Na2304, concentrated by rotoevaporation at 37°C, and diluted to
a final 50 ml volume with hexane. In addition, 10.0 g (0.022 lb) aliquots
of dried and ground sediments were extracted with approximately 200 ml of
petroleum ether:ethyl ether (1:1), toluene:ethyl acetate (1:3), or acetone:
hexane (41:59). Each of these sediment extracts was reduced to a final
volume of 25 ml.
V-2C

-------
The organic compounds present in the concentrated extracts were identi-
fied by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry using a Hewlett Packard 5980A gas
chromatograph/mass spectrometer equipped with a 5934A data system. The instru-
ment was operated in the electron impact mode.
The separations were achieved on a 1.85 m x 2 mm ID (72.8 x 0.079 in.)
1.5% SP2250-1.95% SP2401 column on 100/120 Supelcoport. The temperature
program used was an initial temperature of 70°C held for 5 min followed by an
8°C/min program to 240°C. This final temperature held for the remainder of
the 40 min run- The GC injection port temperature was either 300°C or 350°C
and the temperature of the transfer line between the GC and the mass spec-
trometer was 250°C. A glass jet separator was used to prevent the helium
carrier gas from entering the mass spectrometer. Since the concentrations
of the compounds in the samples were low, a large volume (50 yl) of sample
was injected on column and a high mass spectrometer gain (G = 7L) was used.
Details of The Field Sampling Program
Bailey Bay—
The main thrust of the initial field sampling program was directed
at Bailey Bay. Various samples were taken from the Bay in order to provide
a better understanding of the transport of Kepone through the Bay. Samples
were taken at the mouth of Bailey Creek, mid-Bay, and the northeast corner
of the Bay near Jordan Point for determination of the particle size distri-
bution of the bottom sediments.
To establish sampling sites in the Bay, a grid network was overlayed with
the vertical axis on magnetic north and spacings to yield squares of 305 m
(1000 ft) on a side. Every other square (in a checkerboard fashion) was then
designated for core sampling as illustrated in Figure V.3. Thus, 31 sites
were identified for sampling. This is 37.5% greater than the minimum number
that would be necessary to evaluate contaminated sediments with the EPA Region
IX formula for aquatic sediments (EPA, 1974). Seven of these cores were divided
into 2.5 cm (1 in.) thick slices to yield a picture of how Kepone content
varies with depth.
Also in Figure V.3, four sampling locations are shown that were desig-
nated for heavy-metal and broad-spectrum GC/MS organic analysis. These samples
serve to determine the presence of other contaminants that could potentially
affect alternative Kepone cleanup actions.
The Hopewell Area—
A comprehensive sampling plan for Bailey Creek, Gravelly Run, the ter-
restrial areas of the town of Hopewell, the municipal sewage treatment
plant area, and the municipal landfill area was established to quantify
inflows of Kepone to Bailey Bay and the James River system.
V-21

-------
<
I
l
-------
Sample Locations—
Sediment, soil and water samples were obtained from several different
locations.
•	Sediment. Because it was hypothesized that significant amounts of Kepone
are associated with the sediments of creeks flowing into Bailey Bay,
sediment cores at 610-m (2000-ft) intervals beginning at the creek mouth
were taken in Bailey Creek, Cattail Creek, Gravelly Run, and' Poythress
Run. The upstream limit of sampling was State Highway 156 for Bailey
Creek, a point 305 m (1000 ft) above any possible influence of the land-
fill for Cattail Creek, the State Highway 10 bridge for Gravelly Run, and
Station Street for Poythress Run. For these locations, sediment samples
were a composite of three stations on a bank-to-bank cross section. The
map in Figure V.3 plots the location of sediment samples taken from
Hopewell area creeks.
•	Soil. Soil samples were taken at several locations in the Hopewell area
to determine the extent of Kepone contamination in the soils of the
area's watersheds. The sampling points were located so as to get a
approximate mapping of the distribution and magnitude of soil Kepone
levels, thereby giving insight into the possible significance of con-
tamination of the James River from terrestrial sources. Particular
attention was paid to the area around the former Life Science Products
plant. Other points were dispersed throughout the city of Hopewell and
the area immediately surrounding the city as illustrated in Figure V.4.
Site descriptions are given in Table V.9.
•	Water. Water samples were taken to measure inputs of Kepone from stream-
flow, runoff, ground water, and seeps. Streamflow samples were collected
from several locations on Bailey Creek, Cattail Creek, Gravelly Run,
Moody's Creek, Poythress Run, and Cabin Creek. When possible, each
station was sampled on two days: one during low flow; one during a
period of high runoff.
Samples of storm runoff were also taken from areas suspected to contain
high Kepone concentrations (Life Science Plant area, landfill area), as
well as from representative points throughout the city. Sample sites are
displayed in Figure V.5 and described in Table V.10. Ground-water
samples for Kepone analysis were taken from seven test wells bored by the
State Water Control Board and two private wells in the area. Water was
also sampled in the vicinity of the Kepone lagoon. Samples were col-
lected from within the lagoon, in a puddle outside the dike, and from
ground-water seeps flowing into Bailey Creek immediately below the lagoon.
V-23

-------
<
I
10

• 12
• 10
•a
,\W.
~ u
a u
Honewell Street
FIGURE V.4. Sites for Soil Samples in Hopewell

-------
TABLE V.9. SITE DESCRIPTIONS FOR SOILS SAMPLES
1.	Church, north corner of Boston and Sunnyside Streets.
2.	Baseball field behind James School.
3.	North side Cavalier Ice Plant.
4.	Nitrogen Park between State Well and Hopewell Streets.
5.	Off northeast corner of Life Sciences Plant Building.
6.	Park, corner of Burnside and Allen.
7.	Near main Pump Station.
8.	Grove of trees on LaPrade Street across from Industrial Piping
and Supply.
9.	Southwest corner of State Highway 10 and Point of Rocks Road.
10.	Apartments, southwest corner of 20th and Broadway.
11.	North side of State Highway 10 at Civic Clubs sign.
12.	Apartment, Corner of 2nd and Eppes.
13.	Park, 100' east of the Hopewell News Building.
14.	South side of State Highway 10 at FOP Lodge Road.
15.	Just off road between Shirley Plantation and Eppes Island.
16.	Nitrogen Park.
17.	Nitrogen Park.
18.	Nitrogen Park.
19.	Nitrogen Park.
20.	Life Science site next to the railroad track.
21.	20 feet north of Highway 10 across from the PAN site.
22.	DuPont School playground.
13.	Main Pump Station.
24.	Appomattox No. 2 Pump Station
25.	Sussex Drive Pump Station.
26.	Western Street Pump Station.
27.	Pebble"Ammonium Nitrate site.
28.	Black field where liquid waste from tankers was disposed of.
29.	Northwest corner of the Life Sciences site.
30.	North side of Semi-Works.
31.	West side of Semi-Works.
32.	Between Gravelly Run and State Highway 10 across from the first
Allied effluent.
V-25

-------

Pit)

l/»l
FIGURE V.5. Surface Water and Runoff Sample Locations

-------
TABLE V.10. SITE DESCRIPTION FOR RUNOFF AND CREEK WATER SAMPLES
1.	Bailey Creek at State Highway 156.
2.	Bailey Creek just above Cattail Creek.
3.	Cattail Creek at power line above Landfill.
4.	Cattail Creek just above Bailey Creek.
5.	Gravelly Run at Continental Can Road.
6.	Drainage ditch at Station Street east of crossing.
7.	Gravelly Run at State Highway 10.
8.	Gravelly Run at Continental Can Road.
9.	Bailey Creek at State Highway 10.
10.	Bailey Creek below confluence with Cattail Creek.
11.	Bailey Creek above confluence with Cattail Creek.
12.	Bailey Creek at State Highway 156.
13.	Bailey Creek at power line above Sewage Treatment Plant.
14.	Drainage ditch at Station Street easternmost crossing.
15.	Cattail Creek at State Highway 156.
16.	Cattail Creek at power lines.
17.	Cattail Creek at sewer line crossing.
18.	Corner of LaPrade and Highway 156.
19.	Corner of Arlington and Highway 156.
20.	Bailey Creek upstream of Sewage Treatment Plant effluent and
the seeps below the Kepone Lagoon.
21.	Corner of Locust and Dellrose.
22.	Dinwiddle Avenue 100 feet southeast of corner of Oaklawn.
23.	Corner of Smithfield and Cedar Level.
24.	Cabin Creek under Jackson Farm Road.
25.	End of West Broadway near the railroad tracks.
26.	Riverside Avenue across from the Hopewell Yacht Club.
27.	Corner of Brown and Burnside.
28.	The Life Sciences Plant site.
29.	Corner of 14th and City Point.
30.	Same location as Sample 20.
V-27

-------
•	The Sewer System. Initial sampling in the Hopewell sewer system focused
on the sewage treatment plant and on the sewer line connecting it with
the Life Science site. This included the Station Street and Main pump
stations through which the effluent and runoff from the Life Science plant
site were pumped. Samples were taken of the water, slimes, and sludges
in these facilities. In addition, raw sewage and slime samples were
taken from the 11 pump stations in the Hopewell municipal sewage system
through which Life Science effluent and runoff has not flowed. The pump
stations of the sewerage system are located in Figure V.6 and listed
in Table 7.11.
•	Follow-up Sampling. Following analysis of samples collected in the ini-
tial field study plan, it became apparent that additional sampling would
be beneficial. Certain significant findings warranted follow up field
sampling in order to establish the magnitude of potential Kepone prob-
lems. Additional field work was undertaken at the PAN plant site and
the southeast corner of the Hopewell Sanitary landfill.
At the PAN site, 14 shallow holes were drilled with a hand auger.
Samples were collected from the surface and at a depth of 5 ft. Next
3 deep holes were bored to depths between 35 and 50 ft, and samples
taken at 1 to 5-ft intervals. Several sediment cores were also col-
lected in the marshy areas around the PAN site. Four sediment cores
were taken from the site itself, and 9 cores collected from the Moody's
Creek marsh immediately down-flow. A series of runoff samples and
several subsurface soil samples using a 10-ft hand auger were also
taken.
Several series of samples were collected adjacent to the southeastern
edge of the Hopewell landfill in order to establish the magnitude ana
transport of highly concentrated Kepone residuals detected in this
area during previous sampling. Field work included collection of
several 1 to 2-ft cores and 4-in. grabs of sediment to calculate the
amount of Kepone residing in this area. Runoff and hand-augered soil
samples to depths of 10-ft were gathered to detect any possible trans-
port pattern.
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Bailev Bay and Tributary Streams
Distribution of Kepone—
The results of sediment Kepone analysis in 3ailey 3ay and the major
tributaries are presented in Figure V.7. Data given represent average con-
centration of homogenized cores from a depth of 30 cm (12 in.). Kepone was
found throughout most of the 3ay deposited in a "Y" or yoke shaped pattern.
V-28

-------
<
I
ro
Point
1^°^,
• a
•6
*4 .5
no^'MC 11
• 2
	•!
FIGURE V.6. Pump Station Solids and Wastewater Sample Locations

-------
TABLE V.ll. PUMP STATIONS LOCATED IN FIGURE V.6
1.
Western Street

2.
Sherwood Land

3.
Sussex Drive

4.
Cabin Creek

5.
Appomattox No.
1
6.
Appomattox No.
2
7.
Park Avenue

8.
Mansion Hills

9.
Sixth Avenue

10.
Water Street

11.
Station Street

12.
Main

13.
Bailey Creek

The tail of the yoke begins in Bailey Creek. The arms extend up the eastern
and western shoreline of the Bay. The mid-Bay area has a markedly lower
overall level of contamination. The deposition pattern coincides with the
path of the channel through which Bailey Creek water passes. This was con-
firmed both by infrared scan of the Bay and visual inspection performed by
personnel from NASA during a May 1977 pollutant transport study t>£ the James
River. Bailey Creek water is generally dark and easily distinguished from
other waters in the Bay. There appears to be little mixing during movement
through the Bay so that the line between the two is readily apparent. Under
normal outflow conditons the creek water flows along the eastern shore and
remains close to the bank as it rounds Jordan Point. MASA personnel observed
a reversal of this flow pattern on a calm day with a strong incoming tide. At
chat time, the creek water turned back at Jordan Point and proceeded to move
up the western shore of 3ailev Bay until it entered the river proper. * This
reversal can be seen in the photographs made from NASA remote imagery pre-
sented in Figures V.8, V.9 and V.10.
The data in Figure V.7 indicate that Kepone deposits trace the course of
movement of Bailey Creek water through the Bay. Cores were also taken from
Tar Bay where eddies back from Jordan Point would be expected to occur.
Results of the sampling confirmed deposition in this area.
V-30

-------

IIU	.
(// / // / / I i
.45
.06
Joi Ujii
^"".10
.26
.15
.29
0.019
<.02 -05
.25
<.02
<.05
.95
.26
y
.03
6b.14 <0.011
.37
.05
1.76
i' ii^ x
.31
2.49
.95
.307
12.6
Gi d VI* I I i Hull
10.4 .
5-76
0.005
2.56
*167 ug/g Kepone found at 4 in. below surface level
FIGURE V.7. Results of Kepone Analysis in Sediment Cores (pg/g-ppm)

-------
JMU^-WW W WPR*
£
rd5i-V£
FIGURE V.8. Ebb Flow Conditions Showing Downstream Movement of Bailey Bay Waters
(8:30-10:06 A.M. EDT - May 17, 1977)
Photo Courtesy of NASA

-------
J 3-04 S
FIGURE V.9. Flow Reversal Observed with the Incoming Tide
(2:45-4:37 P.M. EDT - May 17, 1977)
Photo Courtesy of NASA

-------

\, v><
FIGURE V.10. Reconstruction of Normal Downstream Flow Patterns with the Outgoing Tide
(5:16-5:37 P.M. EDT - May 17, 1977)
Photo Courtesy of NASA

-------
In comparing current results to early 1976 and late 1976 data from the
Virginia State Water Control Board illustrated in Figures III.10 and III.12
it would appear that the zones of high contamination have diminished. The
region with 1.0-9.99 Ug/g (ppm) Kepone is less than half of what it was in
1976. This is not necessarily borne out by specific data points, however.
Some values obtained in the current cores from homogenization of the top 30 cm
(12 in.) were higher than values obtained previously along the channel area.
The mid-Bay cores do show some reductions in Kepone levels. The implications
cannot be fully assessed, however, without first looking at Kepone distribu-
tion with depth in the cores.
Kepone concentrations in sediment cores from tributaries to the Bay are
also illustrated in Figure V.7. The values obtained in Bailey Creek are
relatively uniform except for the 4.31 yg/g (ppm) Kepone found just below the
sewage treatment outflow, and the elevated levels at its mouth.
Sediment cores from Gravelly Run which would have received wastewater
flows from the Allied Semi-Works plant do not show the elevated levels found
in Bailey Creek. The cores from Poythress Run were taken in the path of flow
from the region northeast of the Life Science Products plant and from the
marsh which receives runoff from Nitrogen Park. No outlets exist at this
marsh, and hence the 66.14 ug/g (ppm) Kepone concentration reflects accumula-
tion over time from contaminated runoff as well as possible atmospheric deposi-
tion from the production period.
Vertical Distribution in Sediment Cores—
Some insight into scouring and deposition can be gained through review of
results from analysis of vertical slices of representative cores. These are
presented in Table V.12. The cores from Bailey Creek, the western shore, and
Jordan Point display a bell-like distribution presumably reflecting increasing
Kepone deposition rates during maximum production and subsequent declines
since the closure of the Life Science Products plant. The cores from mid-Bay
and Tar Bay, areas of low deposition, have high surface contamination levels
which rapidly decline with depth. Consequently, newer, less contaminated
sediments have not yet accumulated to a sufficient extent to cover over the
older ones. If it is maintained that the bell distribution is derived solely
from new deposition, it would constitute an excessive rate of deposition which
could not be sustained. On the other hand, if the area is subject to periodic
scour and deposition with uncontaminated sediments, a similar dilution could
occur with no net change in overall sediment depths. The distribution could
also reflect losses of Kepone through desorption. The flowing water would in
effect be extracting Kepone and carrying it downstream. Such a bell-like curve
can be indicative of this type of loss mechanism and corresponds well with
data in Chapter VII on the James River when 65 to 70% of all Kepone movement
was found to result from soluble Kepone. This would also explain the relative
absence of Kepone in Gravelly Run which has contained high flows of uncon-
taminated water since Kepone production ceased at the Allied Semi-Works plant.
When the values in Figure V.6 are extrapolated across the bed of Bailey Creek
and Bailey Bay, they suggest a current Kepone burden of 540 kg (1200 lb)
based on mean concentrations.
V-35

-------
TAULE V.12. KEPONE DISTRIBUTION IN SEDIMENT CORES WITH DEPTH (ppm) (NOTE: DETECTION LIMTTS
IN SEDIMENTS VARIES WITH SAMPLE SIZE AND THE PRESENCE OF OTHER MATERIALS)
Midway
DupLli trow balluy Cluck Above Bailey Creek Balluy Creek Gravelly Run I'oythreus and	Bailey Bay Tar Bar
S»rtace (In.) Home 10 Brldne	Mouth tfl	Minilli 02	Mouth	flrawelly Runs. Mid Bay Jordan I't. Jordan Pi.
J	0.81 1.36	9.44 <0.34 0.11 0.19	0.95	1.09
2	0.59	1.6b	10.55 <0.10 0.13 0.03	0.86	1.27
3	1.30	2. 54	46.53 <0.05 <0.08 0.03	0.87	0.42
4	0.78	3.88	167.0 <0.09 0.15 0.01	0.87	0.03
5	16.46	14.07	102.0 <0.09 0.92 0.01	1.25	0.02
6	2.91	40.74	18.34 <0.10 0.80 0.03	3.63	<0.01
<
I 7	65.14 42.29	5.12 <0.06 0.10 <0.01	17.80	<0.01
UJ
(X*
a	19.17 13.87	0.55 <0.06 <0.04 <0.01	0.17	<0.02
9	0.90 4.34	0.41 <0.03 <0.01	0.16	<0.01
10	0.45	0.86	0.37 <0.03 <0.01	0.14	<0.02
11	<0.51	0.31
12	<0.42	0.36
13	<0.19	0.38
14	<0.10	0.14
15	<0.14
16	<0.04

-------
Desorption is a slow process. The affinity of Kepone for sediments over
water will dictate that only a minor fraction of the total inventory can be
released at any one time. However, this process may be accelerated in Bailey
Bay by high pH waters from industrial discharges. Sampling in Bailey Creek
revealed stream flow pH levels of 8.5 to 11 at various times during the day
(see Chapter VI). As noted earlier, Kepone solubility increases greatly with
elevated pH and desorption is accelerated. Hence, the chemical quality of
Bailey Creek water may well have stimulated rapid desorption which yielded the
bell distribution found in vertical cores. Routing of industrial wastes to
the regional treatment plant will minimize the occurrence of high pH condi-
tions in the future. Hence, desorption is likely to slow down.
Organic Preference—
When selected sediments (for location see Figure V.3) were subjected to
grain size and Kepone analysis, they yielded the results presented in Table
V.13. From these, there is a general relation between Kepone concentration,
organic content, and particle size. Kepone is apparently preferentially
associated with the larger particles of organic origin in the sediment. This
observation coincides with those made by Allied Chemical (Williams, 1977) and
Virginia Institute of Marine Science (Huggett et al., 1977) and suggests that
detrital matter plays an important role in the binding and transport of Kepone.
The work reported by Huggett is of special interest since uncontaminated
particles of rooted aquatic plants were found to rapidly accumulate Kepone to
2.4 ug/g (ppm) when suspended in the James River at the Benjamin Harrison
Bridge where soluble Kepone concentrations were below the level of detection.
At first glance, the relation between Kepone and loss on ignition in
Table V.13 does not appear to be direct. However, it must be noted that with
loss on ignition there is also a loss of inorganic carbonates. If these are
accounted for, the relation between Kepone and organic content is approximately
linear. This also corresponds very well with theoretical and empirical
observations on partitioning between water and sediments discussed in
Chapter IV on Kepone properties.
Toxicant and Heavy Metal Content—
Results of heavy metal analysis of sediment cores (for location see
Figure V.3) are given in Table V.14. With reference to the sample from the
upriver station (above the confluence of the Appomattox) all Bailey Bay samples
show higher levels of inorganic contamination (except for the mid-Bay chromium
value which is slightly lower). The Jordan Point and upriver samples for
antimony are roughly equivalent. The antimony values are of interest since
antimony pentachloride was employed as a catalyst in the Kepone production
process. Previous analyses revealed up to 100 mg/2. (ppm) antimony in effluent
from the Life Science Products plant (Senate Hearings, 1976). The informa-
tion available on production chemistry reveals a use ratio of 25:7600 antimony
to Kepone. At this ratio, the sediment areas with 15 ug/g (ppm) Kepone would
hold only 0.049 ug/g (ppm) antimony, a level below the detection limit in the
analyses employed here. The data point for the mouth of Bailey Creek, there-
fore, constitutes a level in excess of what would be predicted solely on the
basis of reaction quantities. The high level of antimony at mid-Bay demon-
strates a lack of proportionality between Kepone and antimony concentrations
when sites are compared.
V-37

-------
TABLE V. 13. DELINEATION OF GRAIN SIZE AMD KliPOUE CONTENT IN BAILEY BAY SEDIMENTS
t>uiu|'t«- I I it.lit I'oi III
Mill ti-iy
HtMiih ttullcy
g
per k Oceanic
I. Jt>
2.4
0.9S
0.66
0.48
0.0)4
il
II

-------
TABLE V. 14. TOXICANT AND HEAVY METAL CONTENT OF BAILEY BAY
SEDIMENTS (pg/g-ppm)
Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury
Location	(Sb)	(As)	(Cd)	(Cr)	(Pb) (Hg)
Mouth of Bailey	13	<4.5	1.31	172	172	0.37
Creek
Mid-Bay	13	<1.7	0.66	83	57	0.19
Jordan Point 1.8	<2.0	1.08	82	71	0.34
James River	2.8	<1.6	0.52	69	20 0.12
upriver from
confluence of
Appomattox
The significant levels of chromium and lead in the Bailey Creek sediments
cannot be related directly to Kepone production. They are of interest, how-
ever, since they could potentially be toxic to aquatic life if released during
efforts to remove Kepone. They may also restrain recovery of Bailey Bay for
viable, diverse aquatic communities even after amelioration of the Kepone
contamination.
The reported values for mercury and cadmium compare closely to those
reported by the Corps of Engineers during the same period. The lead values
are higher. The Corps data reveal lead concentrations of 13 to 37 ug/g (ppm)
in the Bay. The Corps also reported copper in the range 2 to 25 ug/g (ppm)
and zinc at 130 to 716 ug/g (ppm) (Jennings, 1977). Should these metals be
biologically available, the removal of Kepone from the Bay may not restore its
viability as an aquatic habitat until this contamination is mitigated as well.
The spectra for the GC/MS analysis of the concentrated hexane extracts of
four wet sediment samples from Bailey Bay are shown in Figure V.ll. (No
additional organic materials were identified in the toluene:ethyl acetate,
the petroleum ether:ethyl ether, or the acetone:hexane extracts of the dried
and ground sediments.) The major components in all four samples were phthal-
ates. These included diethyl, dibutyl (the most abundant compound in each of
the samples), and two dioctyl phthalates. These identifications were made by
comparison of the experimental spectra with spectra published on the Mass
Spectrometry Data Center Eight Peak Index of Mass Spectra. Using this col-
lection of spectra, other compounds which were tentatively identified in the
samples were octadecanol or hexadecanol, octadecene and a C4 phenantnrene
which had a spectrum very similar to that of tetramethylphenanthrene. No
other phenanthrenes were found in the samples.
V-39

-------
IIMfc
SPECT
n T-r-•"» »«* T * * .*fi "T.ti tt "ttt-n rr 7-r .v—f-r-,T>-r-p-*rr * r> <4
*>AA 1AA Jll/l CAA CAA 1AA AflA	¦
100 200 300
/
Oleum PHIttAt AtE
(400 600 600 700 600
SAMrlE. VY-20
OlEltlYl
rtllHAlAlc
INJECTION PORT. 3b0
TRANSFER LINES. 260
OCIAOECANOI/
HEXAOECANOL
/
OIOCIVL PIIIHAIAIE
OCTADECtNE
I 1'°""
100 200 300 400 bOO 600 700 600	
1. .lames ULver above llopeweil.
tpcci
ioo " joo 400~ 600 60d ?6o I
/
Diaum f-HTHALAIf
XCTHAMCTnYL
CHtNANIHHEHf
N
oitiim
PlOHALAIE
r

w
SAMPLE K 26
INJECTION PORT. 300-
TftANSfER LINES. 260
OCTAOECANOL/
HEXAOECANOL I
OCTADECtNE

SPfcC?	1(J0 200 300 400 600 600 700
2. Mouth of UaiLey Creek.
<
I
-p-
o
1IME
SPECT
100 200 300 400 600 600 700 600
OlUUIYl I'MlMAlATt
nrVAf^CANDL/
HwXADtCANOL
SAMrl c N 31
INJECTION PORT. 300
TRANSFER LINES 260
IfcTHAMl IHYl
PHENANTHHENE s
DIOCTYL fHTMAIATE
1
DlfclltYL A
PlilHALAlE 1
too 200 300 400 600 600 700 600
3. Mid liaLiey Bay.
100 200 300
/
DIQUTVl PHTHALATt
400 COO 600 700 600
sample, o ia
INJECllON POHT. 260
TRANSFER LINES. 360
TETHAMETIIYL
PHtNANTrtlUNE
.	100 200 300 400 600 600 700 600
4. Jordan 1'oiut, bailey Bay.
l'lGlJKli V.ll. GC/MS Analyses of Bailey Bay Sediment Extracts

-------
The location of organic contaminants displayed varying patterns of
distribution depending on the compound. The diethyl and dioctyl phthalates
appear to come from a source upriver of Hopewell. The octadecene appears in
both the upriver and Bailey Creek samples but not in the Bay. Dibutyl phthal-
ate is relatively ubiquitous. Octadecanol/hexadecanol appears both upriver
and in Bailey Creek. Tetramethyl-phenanthrene is found only in Bailey Creek
and Bay. Hence, contaminants in the Bailey Bay area are not all attributed to
sources in Hopewell. Some could result from discharges upriver of Hopewell.
The data are not definitive, however, since tidal action may carry contaminants
from Hopewell back upriver. These compounds may produce environmental stress
as a result of their presence. In some isomeric forms they are characterized
by oral LD50 values of 4 to 140 mg/kg body weight to rats and LC50 values of 1
to 32 yg/l (ppm) to bluegill and fathead minnows.
The Hopewell Area
The Sewer System—
Analysis of samples taken from the city of Hopewell primary sewage treat-
ment plant in May and July are consistent with the results compiled by Hopewell
(see Chapter III). Influent Kepone levels were measured at 0.77 and 0.44 ug/£
(ppb) and the effluent contained 0.57 and 0.49 ygfl (ppb) Kepone. It
is clear that Kepone was either never completely cleaned from the system or is
still entering the Hopewell sewerage system and subsequently being discharged
in treatment plant effluent. Recent levels of 0.5 yg/£ (ppb) account for an
average Kepone effluent discharge of 0.5 ug/2. x 3 x 10^ gdp x 3.79 £/gal a
5.69 g/day. Higher Kepone concentrations are seen to occur periodically,
Table V.15, as a function of precipitation. During periods of high runoff,
daily Kepone discharges were found to be 37.6 g. This is over six times
the dry weather contribution. The effluent from the primary treatment plant
now flows to the new regional treatment plant where Kepone may well be
removed through sorption on sludge. Consequently, the above calculated
inputs of Kepone to the River may be reduced or eliminated.
Surveys of major sewer trunklines were conducted to determine the geo-
graphical distribution of Kepone inflow sources. Results of these investiga-
tions are presented in Figure V.12. Wastewater and slime from all pump
stations and manholes tested were found to have measurable Kepone concen-
trations. It should be noted that the Station Street area is the only sector
served by combined storm-sanitary sewers.
The July 28 sampling was performed during dry weather conditions. It is
noteworthy that Kepone occurs in all samples with the possible exception of
the Appomattox pump station where the reported value is at the limit of
detection. Secondly, the Life Science manhole is upstream of the Station
Street pump station. Therefore, the manhole data (1.73 ug/£-ppb) are
accounted for after dilution with the Station Street sample (0.22 yg/£).
V-41

-------
TABLE V.15. DAILY VARIATION IN KEPONE CONTENT OF SEWAGE AND PRECIPITATION
AT HOPEWELL PRIMARY TREATMENT PLANT
Kepone in Sewage Treatment Plant (ug/2-ppb)	
Flow
Date
Time
Influent
Effluent
Precipitation (in.)
(MGD)
8/2/77
1615
0.18
0.45


8/4/77
1130
0.15
0.68


8/5/77
1100
0.14
0.17


8/6/77
1600
0.15
0.73


8/7/77
1530
0.26
0.76


8/10/77
1200
0.25
0.46
0.0

9/7/77
1100
3.49
2.63
1.3
3.33
9/8/77
1100
4.88
2.32
0.4
3.71
9/16/77
1100
0.21
0.29
0.9
3.27
9/28/77
1100
0.11
0.30
0.0
2.90
2/3/78
1100
0.36
0.42


The dilution factor represented here coincides with data from May 19, 1977,
when effluent from the Life Science plant area registered 2.57 y3/2. (ppb)
Kepone and wastewater at the Station Street pump station was found to carry
0.38 ug11 (ppb) Kepone. That is an average dilution of 7.5:1. The sewage
from the Station Street pump house carried insufficient Kepone to account for
the levels during that period (July 18, 1977) at the Main pump station:
0.44 ugII (ppb) Kepone. Similarly, none of the four pump stations sampled
carried a high enough concentration of Kepone to account for the levels mea-
sured in the treatment plant influent. Clearly a more comprehensive sampling
was required including all pump stations.
A second survey was conducted on all pump stations on September 19, 1977.
These results are also illustrated in Figure V.12. From these data, the
apparent anomaly of the Main pump station is solved. Several tributary
trunklines were found to carry sufficient Kepone concentrations to account for
the levels in the composite flow at the Main pump station. In particular,
high values for Kepone were found in wastewater from the Western Street (#1),
Appomattox No. 1 (#5), Appomattox No. 2 (#6), and the Sixth Avenue (#9) pump
stations (see Figure V.6). Comparison of the July 28 and September 15 data
reveals little change in wastewater Kepone concentrations except for the
V-42

-------
<5
I
¦P-
u>
r~
\ 0.87 S
•\0. \i u 9/1!)
_<0.82 S
u •n.lW5 U 9/15
.0.875 U 9/15
<1.435 S
• 2.19 S
(W/ U 9/15
0 54 W 9/15
0U9 H
4 UtJ W 9/15
<0.75 S
118 S
0 iO U 9/15 u.«*
*5 w
• 3 605
0.12 U 9/15
0.090 U 9/15#]
S - Slmie ppiu - Sampled on 9/15/77
U - Water ppb - Sampled on 7/28/77
U 9/15 - Hater ppb - Samples on 9/15/77
0.5J S
2.09 U 9/15
	
FIGURE V.12. Kepone Concentration in Sewage Solids and Wastewater

-------
Appomattox No. 1 pump station where the sewer sampling reveals a level almost
2 orders of magnitude higher than the original sampling. No explanation for
this is readily apparent.
Some data pertinent to this are available. Solids were scraped from the
walls of the wet wells at the various pump stations, and the wet well at the
Main pump station. These were found to contain the values presented in Figure
V.12. Kepone is present in seven of the thirteen wet wells. A particularly
high level [118 yg/g (ppm) Kepone] was detected at the Main pump station. It
is hypothesized that the Kepone present was adsorbed or otherwise accumulated
by the slime from inflows during the production periods of 1974-1975. Currently,
these deposits help maintain the levels of Kepone found in wastewater. This
may occur when Kepone-contaminated growth breaks away from the walls and
enters the sewage as suspended solids or through desorption.
The high concentrations found in sewer solids suggest that Kepone move-
ment down the system is not directly responsive to fluctuations in Kepone
entry to the sewer system in the first place. Evidence suggests a buffer
action over the long term which smooths out erratic imputs to relatively
stable effluent levels. Anomalies are also likely to be associated with
difficulties in obtaining a "representative" sample of sewer solids at any
point in time.
The apparent continued contamination of most sewer lines and not just
those served by combined storm sewers raises the issue of where Kepone resi-
dues originated from. As noted in the preceding discussion, the Kepone in
wastewater is believed to derive from residuals in slime growths and solids in
the system. The solids are therefore thought to be acting as reservoirs which
collected Kepone during 1974-1975 and are now slowly releasing it. Some
lines may have been contaminated by batches of waste dumped into manholes.
It is further believed that an additional source of Kepone to these diverse
pump stations was physical transport of dust on workers' cloches and bodies.
The contamination was subsequently washed into the sewers and absorbed by
attached growths. While this mechanism of transport would appear insignifi-
cant some supportive data do exist. Former employees have noted that they
often returned from work covered with a fine layer of Kepone dust. In testi-
mony at the Senate Hearings on Kepone contamination, Mr. Thurman Dykes noted
that he would have Kepone dust all over his clothes and skin after an 8-iir
shift (Senate Hearing, 1976). While Mr. Dykes changed his clothes at che
plant, he like many employees took them home and washed them nightly. It
has subsequently been reported that Mrs. Dykes and the couples' daughter
developed a skin rash when their clothes were washed with the work clothes.
They both also have subsequently been found to have detectable levels of
Kepone in their blood.
During the Battelle studies, a former employee of Life Science Products
was contacted to determine the likelihood of Kepone transport in clothes and
subsequent uptake in pipeline slime. It was determined that work clothes had
been laundered at home, and that the washing facilities were served by a
separate drainline routed to a nearby drainage ditch. Analysis of slime
deposits in this pipe taken on September 28, 1977 revealed 21.4 ug/g (ppm).
Sediments in the drainage ditch contained 1.0™ ug/g (ppm) Kepone.
V-44

-------
While Kepone-contaminated slime and solids in the sewer lines appears to
account for much of the Kepone subsequently found in treatment plant effluent,
it does not constitute a major reservoir of Kepone residuals. For purposes of
quantifying Kepone levels in the sewer system, a preliminary design estimate
was made of the length and diameter of trunklines in the Hopewell area. (Pre-
cise data were lost in a fire, and no system design estimates are currently
available.) As a result of that estimation process, it was calculated that as
much as 13,000 m of 38-cm (18,700 ft of 15-in.) pipe, 550 m of 61-cm (1800 ft
of 24-in.) pipe, and 730 m of 81-cm (2400 ft of 32-in.) pipe may be included in
current trunklines. Based on this estimate and an assumed slime thickness of
0.64-cm (0.25 in.) the system contains some 117.5 ra^ (4143 ft3) of slime or
roughly 183,300 kg (414,800 lb)-. If the average Kepone concentration in these
lines is 1 yg/g (ppm), this would constitute a total inventory of only 0.11 kg
(0.24 lb) of Kepone in the trunklines. This is not sufficient Kepone to have
sustained effluent levels that have been observed with time, since daily dis-
charges in dry weather include 6 g of Kepone. At that rate, the sewers would
be depleted in 30 days. Therefore, much larger stores of Kepone must be
present in collector lines and/or additional Kepone must enter the sewer
system from runoff and leachate. It is estimated that these deposits will
account for less than 22.7 kg (50 lb) of Kepone. Without outside inputs,
these deposits should be depleted soon with a subsequent reduction in
Kepone concentrations in sewage plant influent.
Production Area Runoff—
Regardless of the mechanisms involved, Kepone continues to enter the
Hopewell sewerage system. As noted earlier, there is evidence that suggests
some of the inputs are tied to precipitation and resulting runoff. The
obvious site of such inputs would be the Life Science Products plant area
where soil contamination was heaviest and the only neighborhood where the
storm sewers are combined with domestic sewers. Sampling was conducted at
that site on May 4, 1977, when 5.8 cm (2.3 in.) of precipitation fell in
Hopewell. Location of runoff samples collected at the Life Science Products
plant site and resulting Kepone concentrations are reported in Figure V.13.
Both samples RO-1 and RO-3 were heavily contaminated and represented
runoff which moved directly to the storm sewer system. No data are available
with respect to the state of the Kepone, i.e., contaminated particulates or
dissolved. Hence, it is uncertain whether Kepone is present in runoff as a
function of soil suspension or leaching action. At a nominal pH of 4.5 for
rainwater (typical value for industrialized areas as reported by Esman and
Fergus, 1976), Kepone is soluble up to 1.75 mg/I (ppm). The presence of the
soil, however, will reduce soluble levels until an equilibrium is reached.
If the partition coefficient approaches 10"*^ (concentration in water to
concentration in soil), this suggests that maximum soluble levels over soil
could approach 400 yg/Z (ppb) only if soil concentrations approached 4 mg/g
(ppth) Kepone. As noted in subsequent sections, no soil samples have been
found with concentrations that high. Three soil samples in this area were
found to contain 9.51 (Life Science plant site), 86.9 (NW railroad yard), and
208 (Nitrogen Park) yg/g (ppm) Kepone. When these were allowed to reach
equilibrium in the presence of distilled water, the centrifuged supernatant
V-45

-------
contained 604, 145, and 112 ppb Kepone, respectively. This suggests that
much of the Kepone found is not sorbed to the soil but is present as Kepone
particles which can be dissolved by rainwater and transported during periods
of surface runoff. This coincides with the fact that deposition in these
areas was from atmospheric fallout of particulate Kepone.
Randolph Road
(Drop Inlet)
R0-3
Life Science
BuiIdi ng
(Orop Inlet)
R0-1
Standing Water
Approximate
Drainage divide
Power
Station
FIGURE V.13. Location of Runoff Samples at Life Science Company Plant
A second detailed sampling of overland runoff was conducted in the open
areas around the former Life Science Products plant site. Sample locations
and sites are indicated in Figure V.14. These data amplify the fact that high
levels of Kepone occur in runoff from the Life Science Plant area. They also
suggest that elevated Kepone runoff levels correspond with soil values
reported for the Station Street neighborhood.
V-46

-------
(1.66) (4.32) (1.08) (687)	(25.20) (11.83) (9.82) (7.33)
R13 R14 R13 R7	R6 R5 R3 R4
Rll R12 R17 R16 R9 R8 R2 RIO R1
(1.50)(20.78)(3.39) (96.6)(18.86)(14.77) (14.08) (2.68)	(6.73)
FIGURE V.14. Runoff Sampling Locations and Kepone Concentrations in
Open Areas Around the Life Science Site
November 29, 1977 (yg/JL-ppb)
V-47

-------
Runoff samples were also collected in the area of Che Allied Semi-Works
plant. On August 7, 1977, after a rainfall of 0.25 cm (0.1 in.) standing
water was found to contain 48.3 ug/fc (ppb) Kepone. The runoff water is not
carried off by storm sewers to the sewage treatment plant; rather, it flows
to Gravelly Run. A nearby drain pipe was found to carry 3.38 ug/I (ppb).
Overland Runoff—
Runoff will affect far more than Kepone levels in sewage. As noted
earlier, the majority of the land mass in and around Hopewell is not served by
combined storm and sanitary sewers. Hence, runoff in these areas will follow
storm lines and natural drainage routes and ultimately enter the creeks and
runs which feed the James. To estimate the effect of runoff on Kepone move-
ment, a series of water samples were taken along creeks in the area during low
flow (May 19, 1977) and runoff conditions (May 16, 1977 and October 3, 1977).
The results of subsequent Kepone analysis are presented in Figure V.15.
In all cases, runoff conditions increased the total Kepone concentration
over that observed during low flow with the possible exception of the mouth of
Gravelly Run where both samples were extremely low. The flow at the mouth is
predominantly made up of cooling water from the Allied plant (100 MGD) drawn
from the James River. The levels of Kepone are close to chose found in
the River and probably reflect the recycle of Kepone rather than new inputs,
hence, only the 0.28 ug/£ (ppb) noted above the Allied discharge is new Kepone
to the river system. The progression of Kepone concentrations with movement
downstream is also of interest. In Bailey Creek, Kepone levels increase from
the Highway 156 crossing to a point just upstream of the confluence of Cattail
Creek. Especially high Kepone concentrations were found in the area where
landfill runoff and seeps near the disposal lagoon enter Bailey Creek. The
same Increase in Kepone with movement downstream is true of Cattail Creek
itself.
A second set of Bailey Creek water samples was collected on January 12
and 13, 1978 to further delineate the circumstances surrounding transport
in that area. The results of subsequent analysis are compared with earlier
data and concomittant conditions in the Creek in Figure V.16. Once again,
highest Kepone concentrations occur on days when runoff is heavy. Ac che
mouth, the effect is most notable during slack tide. The 1/12/78 flood sample
at the mouth suggests carry back from Bailey Bay does affect Kepone concentra-
cions. The effect of pH level cannot be fully assessed. The high pH values
were all found near che mouth and consequently che high Kepone levels in thac
same area may reflect higher solubilities under these conditions and/or che
variables associated with nearness to che mouch.
As noted earlier, the apparent dilution in Gravelly Run can be attributed
co industrial cooling water discharges in the downstream reach. Values for
Poythress Run are considerably lower than the 8.61 ug/I (ppb) recorded in a
nearby seep on February 25, 1976 (SWCB, 18, 1976). However, flows here are
totally dependent upon recent weather events and therefore fluccuacions in
Kepone concent may not reflect decreases in Kepone residuals as much as dif-
ferences in precipitation patterns.
V-48

-------
City Point
• .17 low flow
.36 runoff
Ad runoff^ . 0U4 runoff
013 runoff
.28 runoff -021 runoff
14 runoff
.19 runoff
.28 runoff
IlitKII
.09 low flow\.c,ct"
.11 runoff
V|56) • 13 low flow'
V— .29 runoff ,
.40 runoff
-.51 jo)y flow
.98 runoff
.96 runoff
.13 low flow
.19 runoff
1''I CURE V.15. Effect of Runoff on Movement of Kepone in Hopewell Area Concentrations in Mg/fc (ppb)

-------
RELATIVE POSITION OF
SAMPLE IN BAILEY CREEK	DATE OF SAMPLE
5/16/77*	5/19/77	1/12/78	1/13/78*
MOUTH
l_n
O
HIGHWAY 10
BRIDGE
COItfLUENCE Willi
CAT1AIL CREEK
SLEEP AREA
LANDFILL
HOT SPOT
HIGHWAY 156
BRIDGE
0.28
0.40
0.98
0.51
0.96
0.19
0.13
0.16 E (pH 9.42)
0.32 E (pit 9. 79)
0.27 S IpH 9.62)
0.41 F (pit 7.64)
0.64 SlpH 11.57)
0.31 E (pli 11.75)
0.73 S (pli 11.63)
* -	PAYS Of HIGH RUNOIf
E -	SAMPIt COllEClED DURING EBBING IIDAl STAGE
E -	SAMPlE CWLECIEDDURINCEIOOOING IIDAl SIAGE
S	SAMPlE COllEClED DURING SIACK IIDAl SIACE
0.04 (pli 6. 73)
0.07 (pit 6.37)
0.04 (pli 6.5)
0.03 IpH 5.971
l-'KJUUK V.16. Relation of llaLley Creek Kepone Concentrations to Position and Conditions (pg/fe-ppb)

-------
An approximation of the total quantity of Kepone transported from streams
during low flow and runoff conditions was made using these data and data for
streamflow at the point of sampling. The results are presented in Table V.16.
They indicate that, based on the assumptions previously stated during high
flow periods there is approximately 20 times the Kepone discharged per day as
there is during dry weather flow. An observation which must temper this
conclusion is that there are many seeps and nonpoint sources which could add
to the total Kepone burden in the Bay. It is also important that these tribu-
taries are tidally influenced so some Kepone may be cycled back to the Creek
with incoming tides.
On September 7, 1977 a set of overland runoff samples was taken from
around Hopewell. Sample locations and results of Kepone analyses are pre-
sented in Figure V.17. In general, Kepone concentrations in runoff are high
near the Life Science Products plant site and decline outward. The high
values at that plant site (252 yg/£-ppm) are similar to the values reported on
May 4, 1977 (387-394 yg/£-ppb). The two values near the head of Cattail Creek
(1.14 and 0.26 yg/Jl-ppb Kepone) were taken at the same location: the first at
the start of the storm when runoff was rapid and turbid, the second later in
the storm when runoff was clear.
Soils—
The runoff data reveal that portions of the Hopewell area still con-
tribute Kepone to the James River via uptake from soil surfaces. Data
from a sampling of surface soils from around the Hopewell area are presented
in Figure V.18. Detectable levels of Kepone were found at all stations includ-
ing one on Eppes Island across the James River and one across the Appomattox
River. These two stations underscore the extent of airborne contamination
during operation of the Kepone production facilities. The relative levels of
Kepone in surface soil reflect the values reported in the previous section on
overland runoff as would be anticipated.
Kepone concentrations in soil were generally found to increase at sta-
tions located nearest the site of the Life Science Products plant as might be
expected. Samples taken in the vicinity of the plant itself held from 9 to
394 lag/g (ppm) Kepone. A single sample from the northwest corner of the plant
site was found to contain 1535 yg/g (ppm). This area was used for storage and
did not appear to have been cleaned up along with the rest of the site. At
that, these levels still demonstrate a considerable reduction from the 10,000
to 20,000 yg/g (ppm) reported in 1975 at the plant, but are comparable to
levels reported at a distance of 1000 m (3300 ft) (EPA, 1975). Several Nitro-
gen Park values are significantly higher than the 15 yg/g (ppm) reported by
the State in 1976 (SWCB, 14, 1976) (Figure V.19). The difference may reflect
deposition of Kepone from the plant site brought down by runoff or simply a
variation in the specific sampling site. As noted earlier, the Nitrogen Park
drainage is restricted so that contaminated runoff flows to a central marsh
area and stands until eliminated by percolation and evaporation. A sample of
standing water from the marsh was found to contain 29.32 yg11 (ppb) Kepone.
V-51

-------
TABLE V. 16. APPROXIMATE KEPONE CONTRIBUTION BY TRIBUTARY DURING LOW FLOW AND RUNOFF
Trlbutaiy (Location)
Bailey Creek
(tiuvclly Kiid (iiii)iilIi)
Poyihrcbb Run
(headend)
Cabin Cieek
Tola 1
£t>lluia(.ed Low
Klow (MCU)
2.Hi
O.IIS*
Flow Diked
Di ft
0.1.'
		 Low Flow - Hay 10	
Kepone Concent ral Ion Total Kcpoiiu
	 W>	 (C/DajJ	
0. JO
ucg
0. I /
o.uo/
3.3
ucg
ne|i
3. 3
£tfLltu.Ucd Kunoff
Flow (HCU)	
32
I
flow Diked Oil
6
Himofl - Hay 6
Kepone Concentration
		
0.50
0.2B
0. 36
0. 12
Total Kepone
(C/Day)
61
1.1
64
* Kunolt Mow above allied d1 st.liai ge. Low Mow Is negligible
i Hunol I Mow. On til t>w lb negligible.

-------
<
I
U1
CO
pui„i o( »o^> I""1.
City
Point
~—r^7ton R,N|i;r
frpP"i;"> —~\£
¦ 0 040
146]
.58
¦ 0.29
,0.002
B 0.18
FIGURE V.17. Runoff Sample Locations and Results of Kepone Analysis, September 7, 1977 (pg/fl,-ppb)

-------
c
I
u»
0 02 •

^""TtQ* *****
• 0 065
lb 4 #
0.U9
0 55
¦ 103
0 01) J
PIUUKE V.18. Results of Soil Analysis in llopewell Area (lig/g-ppm)

-------
J**-	j*
/
S2	SI S3	S4
(9.19)	(29.2) (104-bare surface) (30.2)
(770-grass covered
surface)
FIGURE v.lb. Nitrogen Park Sampling Sites (9/27/77) and Results
of Subsequent Kepone Analysis (vig/g-ppm)
V-55

-------
The cop 8 cm (3 in.) of soil at this sice contained 70 ug/g (ppm) Kepone.
Composite samples below this segment contained 23.9 (3-6 in.), 0.19 (6-9
in.), 0.037 (9-12 in.), 0.043 (12-15 in.), and 0.14 (15-18 in.) ug/g (ppm)
Kepone. This constitutes heavier contamination at depth than noted elsewhere
in Hopewell soils and reflects downward transport from percolation. While
cleanup action on the plant site reduced levels in the immediate area,
natural forces have not significantly depleted the other areas where soil
contamination occurred.
A vertical analysis at the SI sample site in Nitrogen Park revealed
Kepone concentration changes with depth as follows:
Depth Kepone Concentration
(in.) 	ug/g (ppm)	
1	29.2
2	0.76
3	0.35
4	0.31
5	0.097
6	0.060
7	0.038
8	0.091
9	0.23
10	0.80
In general, the residual levels reveal that downward movement has
occurred, but that attenuation in soil is also important. No explanation has
been found for the apparent increase in Kepone at the 8 to 10 in. level.
The results from site S3 reinforce observations chat plant cover retains
Kepone. Hence, revegetation of bare areas may in fact decrease subsequent
contaminated runoff by providing a mechanism for retaining Kepone.
Several other sites were sampled at depth to ascertain if percolation
of Kepone is widespread. Results are presented in Table V.17. These samples
are similar to those from Nitrogen Park in that Kepone concentrations drop an
order of magnitude between the first and second inch of surface soil.
Previous data reported by the Virginia State Water Control Board from
cores collected while drilling the monitoring well in Nitrogen Park had
indicated Kepone as low as 6.1 m (20 ft) below the surface. Consequently,
hand-augered cores were collected at sites SI and S3 to gain insight into
this distribution at depth. Results are presented in Table V.18. In neither
location were significant levels of Kepone found. Kepone was detectable co a
depth of 3.05 m (10 ft), however. At both locations concentrations were
found to increase measurably at the 1.8 to 2.5-tn (6 co 8-fc) zone. This
unequal distribution in the soil column may represent differences in sorption
by different soil strata, or may coincide with vertical plug flow movement of
Kepone from the surface.
V-56

-------
TABLE V.17. RESULTS OF KEPONE ANALYSIS AT DEPTH IN SURFACE SOILS
Sample Site #2
Highway 10
Across From	Sample Site #23 Sample Site If24 Sample Site #26
Depth Pebbled	Main Pump Appomattox #2 Western Street
(in.) Ammonium Nitrate	Station	 Pump Station	Pump Station
1	4.50	1.31 0.48	0.11
2	0.16	0.15 0.045	0.01
3	0.075	0.023
4	0.077	0.049
5	0.001	<0.007
6	<0.008
7	0.006
8	<0.008
9	<0.018	<0.013
10
TABLE V.18. VERTICAL KEPONE CONCENTRATION
PATTERNS IN NITROGEN PARK
Kepone Concentration
	(ug/g-ppm)	
Depth
(ft)
SI
S3
0
78.0
145.0
i
0.58
0.049
2
0.012
0.002
3
0.049
0.002
4
0.009
0.003
5
0.001
0.008
6
0.005
0.012
7
0.042
0.062
8
0.059
0.011
9
0.014
0.042
10
0.009
0.022
V-57

-------
Samples taken from the field where carbon treated wastewater residue
from Life Science Products closure cleanup activities was discharged were
found to contain 0.36, 0.40 and 0.12 ug/g (ppm) Kepone at 2.5, 5-10, and
18-ca (1, 2-4, and 7-in.) depths, respectively. These are not out of line
with other soils in the area, and therefore suggest that no significant con-
tamination resulted from the discharge activity.
An extensive soil sampling was also conducted in the area around Che
Life Science Products plant site. This sampling was similar to the runoff
sampling presented in Figure V.14. Sample site locations and results are
presented in Figure V.2Q. The highest concentrations of Kepone in surface
soils were found in the adjacent lots occupied by the Cavalier Ice plant
(447 ug/g-ppm) and a lot just North of the former site (122 and 938 ug/g-ppm).
The pattern of Kepone levels in soil continues the patterns noted previously
for runoff (Figure V.14). In general Kepone concentrations in runoff exceed
5 ygII (ppb) where surface soil concentrations exceed 5 ug/g (ppm) Kepone.
In order to determine current Kepone loading in surface soils, an esti-
mate was made based on:
Contamination Level
Acres	(yg/g-ppm Kepone)
10,000	0.1
1,000	1.0
1	100
0.1	1000
Only the top inch of soil was considered since vertical profile analysis
has revealed a drop of one or more orders of magnitude in Kepone concentra-
tions between surface soils and soils 1 in. below the surface. As a result,
it is estimated that Kepone residues do not exceed 45 to 450 kg (100 to 1000 lb)
in surface soils of the 11,000-acre area encompassing Hopewell. This is some-
what overstated because of the use of high acreage values for each concentra-
tion and the presence of paved and covered areas in Hopewell where Kepone
deposits have been swept away or otherwise dislodged.
Additional pockets of Kepone in the soil were not accounted for in this
sampling plan. In particular, it is known that disposal of Kepone residuals
took place at the Pebbled Ammonium Nitrate and the municipal landfill the
Life Science Products production period. These are discussed separately in
subsequent sections.
Ground water—
Given the widespread distribution of Kepone in soil and its apparent
mobility during runoff conditions, ground-water contamination would be
expected in areas where percolation occurs. Historical data from monitoring
wells confirm contamination in several areas. However, apparent trends in
Kepone contamination and the determination that several of the key wells have
never produced water prompted conduct of an independent analysis of well
water in May 1977. Results of that effort are given in Figure V.21.
V-58

-------
S27
(4.24)
(2.96) (4.53) (1.91) (56.6)
S26 S38 S39 S25
(44.7) (33.5) (7.45) (61.0) (6.30)
S37 S32 S33 S36 S31

S23 S24 S 28 S30 S22 S29 S21 S34 S20 S35
(8.87) (10.78) (8.67) (0.93) (10.33) (4.78) (122.0) (938.0) (30.9) (71.6)
FIGURE V.20. Soil Sampling Locations and Kepone Concentrations in Open
Areas Around the Life Science Site (2/4/78) (ug/g-ppm)
V-59

-------
Appomattox River
James River
I'JCUKE V.21. Results of Ground-water Analysis, May 17-18, 1977 (pg/H-ppb)

-------
Detectable levels of Kepone were restricted to three wells: a moni-
toring well at the landfill, one of the monitoring wells at the disposal
lagoon, and the J. W. Quick private well. Historical trends for these and
other monitoring wells can be found in Table III.3.
The Kepone Sludge Lagoon—
As noted earlier, a 5,700 m^ (1.5 million gal) lagoon was constructed to
hold contaminated sludge from the sewage treatment plant digesters. The
potential that this lagoon could contribute Kepone-contaminated leachate to
Bailey Creek led to a series of investigations throughout the spring of 1977.
Initially attention was paid to the monitoring of seeps discovered in the
area. Locations of these are illustrated in Figure V.22. Results of Kepone
analysis are presented in Table V.19. All seeps had detectable levels of
Kepone; B and E exceeded levels measured in the monitoring well on the south
corner of the lagoon. They are also much higher than the 0.05 ug/£ (ppb)
detected in the same seeps by State officials in 1976 (SWCB, 18, 1976).
Centrifuging did not reduce the Kepone levels and hence they appear to result
from the dissolved form rather than particulate Kepone or Kepone sorbed onto
particles. Desorption tests with contaminated soil in the area of the seep
produced no more than 0.72 ug/Jl (ppb) after 90 days contact.
A third set of water samples was taken on August 15 from the lagoon
itself, the marsh seep E, seep C, monitoring well No. 5 in the landfill just
upgradient from the lagoon and the monitoring well (No. 8) at the south end
of the lagoon. These were then subjected to a series of chemical analyses to
determine if further evidence could be surfaced linking water in the lagoon
to that discharged by the seeps. Results are given in Table V.20. Samples
were also taken in September for further Kepone analysis. These revealed
much higher levels of contamination including 77.3 ug/SL (ppb) Kepone in a
new seep (F) discovered at the base of the embankment below the lagoon and a
value of 361 yg/l (ppb) Kepone from the source of seep E. Historical values
for the Kepone concentration in the lagoon and various seeps are summarized
in Table V.20.
From the parameters measured, it is concluded that a link exists between
the two water sources: the lagoon and seep E. In addition to the previously
discussed correlation in Kepone values, there are significantly higher con-
centrations of phosphate, chloride, fluoride, conductivity, antimony, hard-
ness, pH, and alkalinity in these two samples than in any of the others.
Indeed, of the parameters tested, only sulfate and nitrate do not correspond.
All parameters would not be expected to reflect the same dilution ratios
since varying levels of interaction with the soil will occur. Hence, phos-
phate, which often precipitates out in soil, may appear to be more effec-
tively diluted than chloride which is quite mobile.
From the above it is probable that Kepone is leaking from the lagoon.
Kepone concentrations in seeps are markedly higher than reported in 1976,
and those for E exceed all levels in the creek, sewage treatment plant out-
fall, and other potential sources of Kepone except the lagoon. However, it
should be noted that clandestine dumping in the area could have occurred, thus
feeding leachate without input from the lagoon.
V-61

-------
sues
Wen =8
Puddle A
Kepone Sludge
Lagoon
u
Seep
Seep,
SWCB
Well =6
Seep F I
A - Mud Puddle in road - aoparent seepage into this puddle.
B - Seep into creek out of hill side, <0.1 cfz.
C - Small seep, wet ground, no noticeable above ground flow.
D - Seep into creek from hillside, 0.1-0.2 cfs.
E - Seep or flow from marsn, upstream from sewage outflow buz
could be influenced by it.
FIGURE V.22. Location of Sample Sices Around Kepone Sludge
Lagoon
Soil data also indicate potential leakage. The north lagoon well,
monitoring well No. 6, was dug in February 1976 or 7 months after construc-
tion of the lagoon. At that time soil analyses revealed a surface Kepone
level of 0.18 pg/g (ppm) and a level of 0.26 ug/g (ppm) Kepone at 3.3 m
(10 £t). Other than the well at Nitrogen Park (No. 10), this was the only
well where Kepone was found that deep; at Nitrogen Park, Kepone concentra-
tions decreased with depth. Since the Kepone concentration at 3.3 m (10 ft)
was greater than that at the surface, it i3 unlikely that the latter value
represents cross contamination.
V-62

-------
TABLE V.19. KEPONE LEVELS IN THE VICINITY OF THE SLUDGE LAGOON
		Kcpone Concentration		Centrate	Soli	Sept. 6 Septenher Nov. II
28 (t'E/t-pph) July 8 TTiK/t-ppb) July 8 (HR/t-pph) July 8 (ck/k-PP«) (l'R/t-ppb) (pg/t-ppb) (|'a/g-ppb)
A-l'iiddR* In Road	5.28 .17, .(19 - Dike
high, low
B-Srep Ntur Creek <0.1 eft*	0.8A 0.40 0.47 .03
C-Holbl l\»l«*li nt Uast of Hill	0.20 .01
< l)-Sc.:|> Jl b.isu, (1.1-0.2 tfs	it. 22 -M2 <.17
O-	„
CJ t-Su.'|. In ildiuli Aro.i, .5 l/aec.	17. '.<> 18. 38 18.4) 3.88	9.57	71.5 361
K-Scep beneath Bank	77.1*	26. 39
l.jgomi	9/.50 213 41.5*
« - S.no|i)eJ 9-15
•	- Sampled 9-16
*	¦ Sampled 9-28

-------
TABLE V.20. COMPARATIVE VALUES FOR COMPONENTS FOUND IN THE KEPONE SLUDGE
LACOON, SEEPS, AND NEARBY WATER

	 ju	
(tJUII
so&
|>|.0
I'iiA .lliLii
u _
|>|Ma
-J'"L
pi"'' .
afcru aliob/ca
Cuiidiic 11 v 11 y
PI'fr
Ant laitiiiy
MOj-M
ttpta
H«>| Jtutua
kiL
i'l'C*
Alkitl Iti

1. 1agoou
J. 75
11. 5
kl
1. 15
21)
1 ,2 M
57
5. i
1)6
/.«
Jbll

2. H.trtili Sru|) JJo. HI
2r»6
J. s
16. 5
.6B
It). 41
1 #08ll
n

tlB
7.7
114
<
1
Q\
1. H'ilii Sc'r|> No. C
no
. >6
5.0
.1/
<.17
6U0
¦ 16
6.4
114
6.6
40

4. 1 .iimI i 1 1 1 Ue 1 1
-i
. 5/
2 (1
.17

250
• 16
1.8
56
7 I


5. I'.m.l W< i I
v|
7 J
1.5
.17

2 All
• 16
. |
51
1 2
B4
D.ii.i J loin	ot .loly tt.

-------
The fluctuations in lagoon volume which are caused by intermittent inputs
and outflows are further reflected by fluctuations in results from Kepone analy-
sis over the period of 1975 to 1977. These are summarized for both super-
natant and solids in Table V.21. It would appear that the lagoon is not well
mixed. Dilution and evaporation or varying levels of solids in supernatant
samples as well as changing chemical parameters have caused periodic fluctua-
tions in Kepone concentrations.
TABLE V.21. RESULTS OF PERIODIC KEPONE ANALYSIS IN DISPOSAL LAGOON
Date
(organization)
(*)
Supernatant
(us/a-ppb)
NW End
SE End NW End
Solids
(yg/s-ppm)
SE End
December 4 (SWCB)
April 28 (PNL)
May 11 (PNL)
July 8 (PNL)
97.5
27.7
213
1450
550
828
95.9
(*) SWCB - Virginia State Water Control Board.
PNL - Pacific Northwest Laboratory (Battelle).
Pebbled Ammonium Nitrate Plant Site—
Little has been reported about the disposal of Kepone and related wastes
at the Pebbled Ammonium Nitrate (PAN) plant site. Knowledge that disposal
was performed there and the discovery of a 5-ft composite soil sample con-
taining 27,000 ug/g (ppm) Kepone focused attention on this location as a
priority for field sampling and evaluation. At the same time, an effort was
made to document the history of disposal operations at the site in order to
develop details for the sampling plan and gain insight for subsequent data
evaluation. The information gained from these efforts is summarized in the
following sections along with results of analysis on environmental samples.
Background—In the latter part of 1974, pressure was exerted on Life
Science Products Company to reduce the amount of Kepone discharged from its
facilities into the city sewer system. The State Water Control Board had
discovered that Kepone was interfering with the digesters at the sewage
treatment plant (Senate Hearings, 1976). As a result, Life Science Products
began to look for an alternative means for disposing of its contaminated
wastewater. In December of 1974, discharge of wastewater began at the site
of the Pebbled Ammonia Nitrate (PAN) plant.
V-65

-------
Site Description—The PAN site lies along the southern edge of the State
Highway 10, approximately one-half mile west of Bailey Creek as depicted in
Figures V.23 and V.24. It is in the outskirts of the city of Hopewell,
relatively isolated in an industrial area of town. In 1970, Allied Chemical
Corporation sold the deserted plant and site which was subsequently used by
Greenbank Services, Inc. for salvage, storage, office space, and sand quarry-
ing.
Kepone Disposal at the Site—In late 1974, Mr. Virgil Hundtofte, Plant
Manager of Life Science Products Company, approached Greenbank Services,
regarding use of the PAN site for disposal of Life Science Products plant
wastewater. With assurance from Mr. Hundtofte that the wastewater was
harmless, permission was granted and a trench dug to accept the waste.
The 6.1-m (20-ft) wide trench into which the wastewater was discharged
measured roughly 1.2 m (4 ft) deep by 11 m (35 ft) long. It lay above a
steep ravine where drainage flows outward through a culvert under Highway 10
into a flat marsh. Water flows in a northerly direction through the marsh
for approximately one quarter mile, then turns east and joins Bailey Creek
below the Highway 10 bridge.
There are no good estimates currently for either the amount of Life
Science Products wastewater discharged into the trench or the water's concen-
tration of Kepone. It is known that the trench received wastewater on a
regular basis, perhaps daily, from December 1974 into the summer of 1975.
Life Science Products employees would truck the material to the PAN site in
a pick-up mounted 250-gal tank and discharge it into the trench generally at
night. Documentation of one such incident occurred when- a Hopewell policeman
sighted this action taking place in the early morning .hours, questioned the
men involved, and filed a report. Testimony on file at the Virginia Attorney
General's office indicates incidents may have numbered in the hundreds.
Field Sample Analysis—On October 3, 1977, samples were collected at the
PAN site as part of a general sampling program of the Hopewell area. Two
surface samples were taken of the top inch of soil: one directly over the
filled-in disposal trench, and the second immediately below a small earthen
dam in the ravine. A subsurface sample was also taken 25 cm (10 in.) below
the sample from the trench area. In addition, a sample of seepage water
from the ravine was collected from the culvert under Highway 10. The level
of Kepone detected in these samples is presented in Table V.22.
A subsequent screening of the PAN site was conducted on November 22,
1977. Sample sites and results are presented in Figure V.25. From these
data it is apparent that Kepone-contaminated soil persists in the area of
the trench (T series). Apparent horizontal movement in the surface soil has
occurred in the natural drainage direction with surface samples downstream
reaching 34.3 yg/g (ppm) Kepone. Samples taken on the west face of the
quarry pit (Figure V.24) reveal very low Kepone levels with no real variation
with depth:
V-66

-------
City Point
North
Bailey Bay
Life Sciences
Site
Allied"s Semi-Works
q Plant
SWCB Station #3
ravelly Run
Highway 156
PAN Plant o
Trench^"^"^
ulvert
£orps of Engineers
Sampling Site
SWCB
Well
Ravine
Highway 10
Bridge
1 mile
FIGURE V.23. Location of Key Features in Hopewell, Virginia
V-67

-------
PAN PLANT
TOWER
\
EARTHEN DAM
/

&
/
AREA OF
FORMER DISPOSAL
TRENCH
QUARRY
PIT
CONFLUENCE OF
RAVINE DRAINAGE
WITH MOODY'S CREEK
FIGURE V.24. The Pebbled Ammonium Nitrate Plant Site
V-68

-------
PAN 4^
(0.63-Surface)
(0.021-5')
PAN 3 -
(84.3 Surface)
(0.14-5')
PAN 2 -
(0.22-Surface)
(0.001-5')
PAN 9
(0.35-Surface)
(0.002-5')

m-
r
- PAN 5
(0.36-Surface)
(0.013-5')
<-PAN 7
(0.28-Surface)
(0.17-5')
^ PAN 8
(69.2-Surface)
(3.07-5')
(0.32-5')
\ \
T4 PAN 1 T3 T1 T2
(1.06- (483-fly (1863-4')(0.143-4.5')
(0.48-5 ) Surface) ash com- n ci\ /n qqc cm
(.002-5') posite -	) lU.uyb-b )
1-4')
(6.08-5')
PAN 6
(2.46-Surface)
(0.19-51)
FIGURE V.25. Auger Sampling Locations and Results November 23, 1977
(lig/g-ppm) (Depth in feet of sample follows results.)
V-69

-------
Kepone Concentration
Depth in Feet		(ug/g-ppm)	
3	0.002
3	0.002
15	0.002
18	0.007
Coarse sand layer	0.007
below clay strata
at IS ft
TABLE V.22. KEPONE CONCENTRATION AT PAN SITE
	Sample	 Kepone Concentration
Surface soil on top	104.4 ppm
of disposal trench
Subsurface soil (10 in.)	0.16 ppm
from disposal trench
Surface soil below	2.99 ppm
earthen dam
Water from culvert	1.55 ppb
After review of data, auger samples were supplemented with deep core
drilling and hand core sampling. Locations of these samples and subsequent
results are presented in Figures V.26 and V.27. Augured samples illustrated in
Figure V.26 were analyzed as composites at depth intervals. Results are
given in Table V.23. A variability of nearly three orders of magnitude was
found at the sites, but all levels were low in Kepone content. Extrapolation
of the values found account for no more than 100 kg (220 lb) of Kepone.
Strata from cores A, B, G, and H (Figure V.26) were also analyzed for
hexachlorocyclopentadiene. Results are given in Table 7.24. Hexachloro-
cyclopentadiene (HCP) residuals are roughly comparable to those for Kepone
except for the area of core A where up to 192 ug/g (ppm) HC? were found at
5.3 to 6.1 m (19 to 20 ft). This is in the disposal trench area and if it
represents an area of 37 m^ (400 ft^) it accounts for up to 23 kg (50 lb)
of HCP. Both Kepone and HCP in core A show marked concentration decreases
at the water level, 8.1 m (26.6 ft), suggesting horizontal movement within the
aquifer. Kepone and HC? values also increase in most cores with a substrata
of sand and gravel roughly 10.4 to 10.7 m (34 to 35 ft) below the trench level.
This highly pervious zone may represent the layer of maximum lateral transport.
V-70

-------
FIGURE V.26. Deep Core Drilling Locations and Results of Kepone Analysis
December 5, 6, 7 & 8, 1977 (yg/g-ppm)
V-71

-------

-• yt. *r«r-..*v srJF*' *•'v • -




4*
C3
0.26 (0-10 in.)
0.012 (10-20 in.
23.0
0.92
(0-17 in.) (6 in.)
91.0
(17-20 in.)
C2
0.65 (8-16 in.)
FIGURE V.27. Hand-core Sampling Locations and Results of Kepone Analysis
December 7, 1977 (ug/g-ppm)
V-72

-------
TABLE V.23. VERTICAL KEPONE PAN DISTRIBUTION IN DEEP CORES FROM THE
PAN SITE (ug/g)
Composite
Interval
(ft)	
0-1.5	0.041	0.028*
<4-5	0.19 0.30 0.082+ 0.16 0.020 6.13 0.24
6-6.5	0.74	0.023+
9-10	0.026	0.37 0.028 0.047 0.31* 0.002 0.026 0.058
14-15	0.018	0.018 0.005 0.015** 0.004 0.007 0.004
0.20
19-20	0.76 0.025 0.033 0.004 0.009 0.019 0.043 0.004
24-25	0.031	0.007 0.008 0.003 0.014 0.001
25-26	<0.13	0.16
29-30	<0.17 0.15	0.025 0.007 0.005 0.13 0.002
31-32	0.015
34-35	0.073 0.034 0.013	0.013 0.027 0.027
3. 82"h"
4.24°°
39-40	0.88	0.012	0.032 0.002
44-45	0.002
49-50	0.020	0.003
* 4-6 ft
+ 2-3 ft
t 7-8 ft
t 10-11 ft
** 13-14 ft
o 16-17 ft
oo 35-37 ft
++ 37-39 ft
V-73

-------
TABLE V.24. DISTRIBUTION OF HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE IN THE PAN
SITE (ug/g-ppm)
Composite
Interval (ft)	A B G H
4-5	0.014 <0.028 0.096
6-6.5	0.18
9-10	0.008 0.041
14-15	<0.004 0.014
19-20	192 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004
24-25	112 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004
29-30	0.40 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004
34-35	89	0.007 <0.004 <0.004
35-40	<0.004
39-40	0.066 0.017
44-45	<0.015 <0.004
49-50	<0.004 <0.004
On February 1, 1978, a more extensive sampling was conducted in the
area behind the earthen dam (Figure V.24) where samples PAN 3 and PAN 3
(Figure V.25) and core C4 (Figure V.27) had revealed high Kepone contamina-
tion relative to surrounding areas. Sample sites and results of core and
auger analysis are presented in Figure V.28. An augered sample from the
southwestern border of the site (Figure V.29) was found to contain: 0.21,
0.013, 0.41, and 0.18 ug/g (ppm) at 0.3, 1.3, 1.8, and 2.1 m (1, 4, 6, and
7 ft), respectively.
Cores were also taken in the marsh and bed of Moody's Creek which
receives runoff from the PAN site. Sampling sites and results of analyses
are presented in Figure V.30. Results do not indicate the presence of any
major zone of Kepone in the Moody's Creek drainage.
V- 74

-------
APPROXIMATE
BOUNDARY OF
RESERVOIR
PAN8
PA2 •
50 ft
WELL C
PC6
• PA4
• •
PA3PC5 #C4*
PC7 •
• PAN2
"SAMPLES PREVIOUSLY
TAKEN - SEE FIGURES
V.23 AND V.25
50 ft
DEPTH
AUGER SAMPLES (ug/g-ppm)

CORE SAMPLES (pg/g-ppm>
(FEET)
PA2
PA3
PA4
SEGMENT
PC5 PC6
PC 7
1


74.5
TOP 7 IN.
44.3 63.3
37.9
2

54.7

MID 7 IN.
78.5 145
56.6
3
4
L9
164(2.5')
39.0
17.2
BOTTOM 7 IN.
116 57.3
39.7
5

81
(136



6
L43
144
(124



6.5
a 15
a 14,2.72




7
0l58
126
L04



8
0.36
0.20
a 13



9

a 13
a 35



10
143





+AUGER HIT IMPENETRABLE OBJECT,
MOVE SAMPLE 2 FEET OVER
FIGURE V.28. Kepone Residuals in the PAN Reservoir Area
V-75

-------
(3.46)
PR7
(89.35)
PR1
(5.50)
PR4
(7.04)
PR3
(0.13)
PR8
(3.19)
PR2
(4.16)
PR5
(0.23)
MC3
(4.44)
PR6
FIGURE V.29.
Kepone Concentrations in Water from the PAN Site,
January 13, 1978 (yg/£-ppb)
V-76

-------
1.97 (1/5)




0.047 (2/5)
4.39
(1/4)


0.044 (3/5)
0.18
(2/4)


0.010 (4/5)
0.022
(3/4)


0.004 (5/5) 1.59 1.95
0.002
(4/4) 7.31
2.43
1 .81
C9 C7* C8*
C6
C5*
C4*
C3*
1.59 (1/b)
0.038 (2/5)
0.039 (3/5)
0.012 (4/5)
I




aaaare
iJiViJ JiVA

r


*¦ S&tiB&f:

jjfi*. aSs# iv»~
•><•?> v. v*>ri/
uasWWt. . .»
FIGURE V.30. Results of Coring in Moody's Creek Marsh December 1, 1977
(Kepone in yg/g-ppm) Position X/5 indicates the serial
7.5 cm 3 in. segments, i.e., 1/5 = top 3 in., 3/5 =
next 3 in., etc.)
* Data represent 15 cm (6 in.) composite from the top of the core
v-77

-------
Water samples were collected from several locations at the PAN site
during a rainstorm. Results of the sampling are shown in Figure V.29. The
runoff with the highest level of Kepone (89.35 ug/£) originated from the dis-
posal trench area and flowed into the small reservoir behind the dam. All
other runoff also contained elevated Kepone levels relative to general Hopewell
area runoff.
Samples PR5 and PR8 represented ground-water seeps rather than overland
runoff. PR5 flowed from below the dam with 4.16 ug1% Kepone. PR8 had a pH
of 4.3, which was the lowest pH of all the water samples collected that day
and represents a particularly low value for ground water. Subsequent analyses
of this seep have shown Kepone levels of 70 ug/4 in February 1978 and 0.25 ug/t
in March 1978. Ground-water seeps sampled due east of the site towards Bailey
Creek contained less than 0.1 ug/& Kepone and had a pH of approximately 6.5.
Runoff samples were also collected from Moody's Creek. Sample MC3,
containing 0.23 ug/fc (ppb) Kepone, was taken directly above the Creek's con-
fluence with the PAN ravine drainage. MC2 was collected a quarter mile down-
stream in the marsh, while sample MCI was drawn from the Creek's mouth as it
discharged into Bailey Creek. These samples contained levels of Kepone of
0.61 and 2.01 yg/Z (ppb), respectively. Water samples taken simultaneously
at the adjacent reach of Bailey Creek showed Kepone concentration of approxi-
mately 0.7 ug11 (ppb).
Landfill
Records and statements by former Life Science Products Company employees
have revealed that Kepone-contaminated residues were also discharged at the
Hopewell landfill. While some disposal locations are well known, little has
been reported on their contents, and no single authority has accumulated a
composite picture of where all the sites were within the landfill, when they
were in use, and what they received. The information that could be gathered
has been reviewed and summarized in Figure V.31.
The Life Science Products plant burial pit is the site where 2100 m3
(2300 yd3) of rubble from dismantling the facility were buried and marked
with a permanent plaque. The miscellaneous waste disposal site was utilized
during 1974 for plant wastes from Life Science Products. This included
refuse and it is unknown what amounts of Kepone, if any, were deposited there.
The bulk discharge area is a general zone thought to have received a bulk
discharge of Kepone. Testimony on file at the State Attorney General's office
indicates that in late October 1974, oil entered the quench tank at Life
Science Products. Two septic tank cleaning trucks were brought in to pump
out several loads apiece. These were discharged at the head of the embank-
ment and were allowed to run down into the marsh. It is estimated that a
total of 4000 lb of Kepone was released at this location. The remaining two
sites were utilized by the sewage treatment plant to dispose of contaminated
sewage sludge. One site was lined, and the other site was not. These received
contaminated sludge prior to construction of the lagoon.
V-78

-------
MISCELLANEOUS WASTE
LANDFILL	LIFE SCIENCE	DISPOSAL FROM LIFE
BOUNDARY	PLANT BURIAL PIT SCIENCE (1974)
LIFE SCIENCE UNCONFINED	LINED
BULK DISCHARGE AREA CONTAMINATED	CONTAMINATED
SEWAGE SLUDGE	SEWAGE SLUDGE PIT
DISPOSAL
FIGURE V.31. Known and Suspected Deposits of Kepone in the Hopewell Landfill
V-79

-------
On November 30, 1977 a series of water samples and cores were collected
in an attempt to identify significant Kepone outflows from the landfill. Run-
off samples (samples labeled W in Figure V.32) revealed elevated Kepone
concentrations below the bulk discharge disposal site. Samples from other
suspected or known disposal sites have measurable Kepone levels, but these
are comparable to values detected throughout the Hopewell area and therefore
do not display surface contamination different from that of nondisposal
areas. Of the remaining sites, only two had runoff with Kepone in excess of
1 ug/I (ppb): one below the miscellaneous waste disposal area, and one from
the lined sewage sludge disposal pit. No runoff sample was taken in the area
around the unconfined sewage sludge disposal site.
. The soil sample taken in the bulk discharge area contained 0.004 ug/g
(ppm) Kepone. Results of Kepone analysis for 30 cm (12 in.) cores from the
landfill site are presented in Table V.25. The bulk of the contamination
occurs in the cop 10 cm (4 in.) of soil. One sample, the C2 site, exceeded 1%
Kepone. This site corresponds with the high runoff values identified and
reflects an area of major discharge. The CS sample near the miscellaneous
disposal area indicates a much lower level of contamination.
A detailed perspective on the location of the affected site is given
in Figure V.33. Additional sampling was performed to determine the extent
of contamination in the marsh area. Samples included sediment cores, hand-
augered soil cores, and grab samples of mud and runoff. The site of each
sample is located in Figure V.34.
Concentrations of Kepone found in the surface sediments of these
samples are presented in Figure V.35. These ranged from a low of 2.2 ug/g
(ppm) to a high of 35,163 yg/g (ppm). A pentagonal section (Figure V.35)
approximately 1000 m2 (0.25 acre) in area contains sediments averaging
12,200 ug/g (ppm) or 1.2% Kepone in the top 4 in. Variations in Kepone
concentrations with depth can be seen from Tables V.26 and V.27. Kepone
concentrations below an average of a 4-in. depth are roughly an order of
magnitude less and quickly drop to levels in the tens of parts per million
range. Based on 1000 m^ (0.25 acre) of sediments (1122 kg/m^, 70 lb/ft3 dry)
contaminated to an average level of 12,200 ug/g (ppm) in the cop 10 cm
(4 in.), it is estimated that 1400 kg (3100 lb) of Kepone currently lie in
the marsh. This is 78% of the estimated 1800 kg (4000 lb) chac were dis-
charged .
Runoff samples contained Kepone at concentrations of up to 53.04 yg/i
(ppb):
LFR1 - 1.02 yg/i (ppb)
LFR2 - 0.36 yg/2. (ppb)
LFR3 - 0.17 ug/i (ppb)
LFR.4 - 53.04 yg/l (ppb)
LFR5 - 14.75 ug/i (ppb)
V-80

-------
(0.004)
SI (0.50)
(0.10) (78.62) (43.84) (0.94) | (2.23)(2.42) (0.94) (0.13)
W5 W4 W3 W2 W6 W1 W9 W10 W7
£
3#

/ /
C3 C2 C4 CI
(5.41) (4.38)
(10,160) (0.33)
C5
(2.63)
W - Water samples in yg/1 (ppb) Kepone
S - Soil sample in ug/g (ppm) Kepone
C - Core samples in ug/g (ppm) Kepone
FIGURE V.32. Landfill Sampling Locations and Results of Kepone Analysis
November 30, 1977
V-81

-------
TABLE V.25. KEPONE CONCENTRATIONS IN LANDFILL
SOIL CORES (pg/g-ppm)
Core	Kepone
Location 	Depth	 Concentration
CI Top 4 in.	0.33
Top Mid 4 in.	0.10
Bottom Mid 4 in.	1.75
Bottom 4 in.	2.16
C2 Top 4 in.	10,160
Mid 4 in.	14.58
Bottom 4 in.	1.46
C3 Top 4 in.	5.41
Mid 4 in.	1.37
Bottom 4 in.	1.45
C4 Top 4 in.	4.38
Mid 4 in.	0.23
Bottom 4 in.	0.02
C5 Top 4 in.	_2.63
Mid 4 in.	0.63
Bottom 4 in.	0.58
V-82

-------
KEPONE	BULK DISCHARGE
LAGOON PUMP STATION SAMPLING AREA
HOPEWELL
SEWAGE
TREATMENT
PLANT
FORMER
LANDFILL AREAS
ACTIVE
LANDFILL
AREA
FIGURE V.33. Location of Marsh Contaminated by Bulk Discharge
V-83

-------
BAILEY CREEK
SECONDARY
CHANNEL
BOUNDARY
MARSH
PUMP
STATION
OlfR2
p#i%ilsi||
LANDF|LL EMB ANKMENT
MARSH
LLC - SEDIMENT CORES (LFC1LFC4 COLLECTED	|	1
11/30/77, REMAINDER COLLECTED 1/14/78)	(APPROXIMATE!
LFAg - HAND AUGERED SOIL (COLLECTED 1/14/781
LEW - WATER SAMPLES (COLLECTED 11/30/77)
LFR - RUNOFF SAMPLES (COLLECTED 1/14/78)
M - GRAB SAMPLES OF MUD (COLLECTED 1/14/781
FLCUKE V.34. Location of Sample Sites In the Marsh Below the Bulk Discharge Area

-------
SECONDARY
CHANNEL
BOUNDARY
MARSH
11.127
3.485
30 4
~ 10.662
•19.827 |5 W,
~ 32. 328 D
PUMP
STATION
• >0.160
13.448
106 •
4,278
~ 65
MARSH

Q.
				
LANDFILL EMBANKMENT
100 FEET
(APPROXIMATE)
FIGURE V.35. Kepone Levels in Surface Sediment of Marsh and Approximate Boundary of Heavy Contamination

-------
TABLE V.26. KEPONE CONCENTRATION IN AUGER SAMPLES
Kepone
Concentration
(ug/g-ppm)
Depth
(ft)	LFAG1 LFAG2
0
1	11.23
2	3.25
3	2.17
4	0.32	0.69
5	1.27
6	2.22	0.66
7	1.55
1.72
8	0.93
9	0.72	0.93
1.29
10	0.51 0.39
The elevated values are associated with the embankment itself. These
samples were taken on January 14, 1978 after a rainstorm on January 13. Com-
parison of runoff values suggests that additional Kepone residues remain in
the embankment and that they are less tightly bound in the soil there than
in the highly organic sediments of the marsh.
WATER WITHDRAWALS
In evaluating the environmental impacts of Kepone in the Hopewell area
it is necessary to establish the uses of affected river water. Also, by
knowing the amount and purpose of water withdrawals, potential problems
associated with Kepone mitigation alternatives can be identified. Therefore,
Tables V.28 and V.29 have been compiled to provide a summary of water diver-
sions from the upper tidal portion of the James River from data on file in
the Virginia State Water Control Board files. The location of listed with-
drawal facilities is given in Figure V.36.
V-86

-------
TABLE V.27. KEPONE CONCENTRATION IN MARSH AREA SEDIMENT CORE SAMPLES
Kepone
Core Segment	Segment	Concentration
Number Number Length (in.)	(yg/g-ppm)
LFC6 1	2.5	12,939
2	3.5	253
3	4.5	9.9
LFC7 1	3.0	18,244
2	4.0	90.6
3	3.0	59.8
4	3.0	17.8
LFC8 1	3.0	15.3
2	3.0	106
3	4.5	4.3
4	5.5	19.9
LFC9 1	4.5	19,827
2	3.0	237
3	6.5	16.4
4	5.5	15.1
LFC10 1	1.0	0.7
2	4.0	4.6
3	1.5	435
4	4.0	7.5
5	3.5	1.5
LFC11 1	2.0	1.2
2	3.0	12,850
3	6.0	1,254
LFC12 1	3.0	4,278
2	2.5	26.1
3	2.0	3.6
4	4.5	13.2
LFC13 1	2.0	7,059
2	1.0	11,127
3	2.0	98.1
4	2.5	35.4
5	2.5	5.5
6	7.0	34.9
V-87

-------
TABLE V.27. (continued)
Kepone
Core	Segment	Segment	Concentration
Number Number	Length (in.)	(^g/g-pom)
LFC14
1
2
3
4
6.0
4.5
2.5
2.0
3,441
53.2
17.3
2.0
LFC15
1
2
3
4
2.5
3.0
2.5
3.0
13,448
955
194
143
LFC16
1
2
3
4.0
3.0
4.0
35,163
1,067
15.1
Initial screening of the uses associated with these withdrawals has shown
ao areas of concern for human or product contamination. Most of the water
withdrawn is used for industrial purposes where water quality is not an impor-
tant factor. Where the water is used for human consumption or comes in con-
tact with products that are consumed, the water is pretreated to remove
contaminants.
One such area where contaminated water is withdrawn for potable use is
the water supply system for Hopewell itself. The Virginia American Water
Company withdraws an average of 38 MGD from the Appomattox River to
serve both industrial and domestic uses in Hopewell. The raw river water
is settled and processed through filters. Water is then split with that
destined for industrial use going directly to distribution lines while that
for domestic use is processed through virgin activated carbon. The flow
pattern is illustrated in Figure V.37 along with values obtained for Kepone
in each segment using large volume supplies. The solids removal segment
of the plant provides for removal of 40% of the Kepone present in raw water.
The activated carbon removes on additional 24 to 50%. The Kepone in Che
backflush water reflects contaminated particulate matter trapped by the carbon.
The concentrations of Kepone found here are extremely low. With even exces-
sive human water consumption they would be associated with less Kepone intake
by individuals than allowed by current FDA limits for fish.
V-38

-------
TABLE V.28. SURFACE WATER WITHDRAWALS WITHIN THE PIEDMONT REGION
OF THE JAMES RIVER (BASED ON VIRGINIA STATE WATER
CONTROL BOARD'S UNPUBLISHED DATA 1972-1974)
Name of Plant/Industry
1.	Lone Star Industries, Inc.
(Kingsland Plant)
2.	VEPCO (Dutch Gap)
3.	Lone Star Industries, Inc.
(Jones Neck Island Plant)
4.	Lone Star Industries, Inc.
(Varina Farms Plant and
Curies Neck Plant)
5.	American Tobacco Co.
(Hamner Div.)
6.	Allied Chemical Corp.
7. Allied Chemical Corp.
8. Continental Can Co.
Average
Withdrawal Rate
	(*Pd)
2,000,000
1,330,500,000
1,200,000
3,400,000
3,000,000
32,660,000
144,000,000
20,000,000
Use
2,000,000 - Processing
(20,000 consumptive loss)
Cooling
1,200,000 - Processing
(60,000 consumptive loss)
2,680,000
100,000
100,000
520,000
Processing
Evaporation
Consumption
Direct Contact
Processing
A majority for Processing
(Proprietary information)
31,812,000 - Cooling
750,000 - Processing
- 98,000 - Sanitary
Approximately
130,000,000 - Cooling
20,900,000 - Cooling
19,780,000 - Processing
2,000,000 - Boiler Feed
12,000 - Sanitary
(Cooling water is re-used
for processing)
9. VEPCO (Surry)
2,593,100,000
Cooling
V-89

-------
TABLE V.29. SURFACE WATER WITHDRAWALS (PUBLIC USE) WITHIN
PIEDMONT REOION ON JAMES RIVER BASIN
<
I
vO
o
(i)
NalftC ot
Syt>tciu
City oI
K IciiuionJ
Wa lei
F1 1 i r ii—
I Jljii
Pi jiiI
Va.
Atiur r I r
Ua (cr
Corp.
St . Joint
V I j.iutry
Sew I ii.ii v
(2)
Ultlidrawal
Slllll L t'
Juuict>
Klvui
(i)	u>
l.ocul Ion
Ol 1.41 . /	Tut d I I
		i:uiuiclt lond
HIcIiibuiiJ !>J)i I UuBiuullc
4200 Couiuircldl
32 7 1 iidiibt r J j I
27t>0 Surioundlng
CoUllt lub
65600 Total
Average
Withdrawal
(to)
Peak
UlIhdrawal
Hjtc (kpJ)
(>>	(0)
Eutinaivii	Unit Uae
Populac ion	Cue I f .
Served	(kpcJ)
(9)
Siuragc
Capacity
(10)
Trutttuiiiii
(kj!) 	hequj red
45 ,1100,000 6S.OUO.OOO i90,000
lib
57, 100,000
A|t|iuu»at (ox
K 1 vi.r
.l.ifbcS
Hi vec
>7 10
7/ Itt
/BJ5 DoUebtlC
aJ ) Comaeic1 a I
	16 Induct t lal
8674 Total
.'0,000,000 10.000,000 22,000
4,250,000
1/ U i-'
7/ 40 IB
10,500
Id,750
ISO
(ID	(12)
Projected
Year ot Deuaud for
Dam Base 2020 (upd)
(ID
7-day,
1/10 Year
Low flow
	iHiiii.	
Act atloa
Preclilor I -
nat Ion
CoagulatIon
SeJluuntatIon
F1ItratIon
laatc i Odor
Auauonldt Ion
tluor1Jc AJ-
)u»tincnt
DltilnCuctIon
PreiMor Ina-
t Ion
CoagulatIon
SeJlaentatIon
Kii|iU Sand
Filter
Clilorlnat Ion
Pruehlorlna-
t Ion
CoagulatIon
SicJlnunidt Ion
Filtration
UldlnfuutIon
1974
(I)
63,000,000 440,000,000
1974
(1)
37,100,000 44,500,000
1974
(2)
407,000,000
(1)	Uai d obtained via pcrooiul iliiuuiili I k ul 1 oit with |>lant re|ti c^clil a I 1 v
(2)	Data obLalued t i ooi tPA pillitoitl
or sunlclpal ofllclalb

-------
<
I
vo
j; turori J
L,-

Llulcli H 5j
bj
FIGURE V.36 Plant/Industry Locations Within the Piedmont Region of the James River
(Scale 1:200,000)

-------
Raw Water
0.0248 ug/i
Sett!ing
F i1tra
tion


t
Activated
Caroon
Industrial Water
3ackflush
0.0153 ug/%
Sackflusn
0.34 ug/£
Domestic Water
(Note procedures which,
allowed lower levels of
sensitivity for these
samples)
Time of Qav <2pone Concentration
(9/27/77)'	(uq/Q	
0900
1205
151 5
0.0091
0.0C24
0.0070
FIGURE V.37. Flow Pattern and Kepone Content
of Hopewell Water Supply
V-92

-------
COMPOSITE PROFILE OF KEPONE - HOPEWELL
The description of Kepone residuals in the Hopewell area and the deline-
ation of their movement is a very complex undertaking. From the data provided
in preceding sections, it is difficult to select a single consistent set of
observations to support a comprehensive problem statement. Evidence, however,
does support a most probable scenario.
Sewage Treatment Plant
It appears that residuals in the surface soils currently form the greatest
continuing source of Kepone to the river. Periodically Kepone is dissolved
and joins particulate sorbed Kepone washed from the soil in storm runoff.
Some of this enters the sewage system. Such pulse inputs stimulate peak
outflows of Kepone from the treatment plant but also are stored by the bacterial
growths in the sewers. Hence, the sorptive capacity of these solids tends to
smooth the peaks and valleys in Kepone concentration. The treatment plant
itself also smooths the absolute discharge levels by sorption on sludge and
recycle through digester supernatant. In effect then, the sewer and sewage
treatment plant function as a large, mixed reactor into which chronic low
level inputs flow spiked by periodic pulses. Kepone appears in wastewater
from all segments of the sewer system as a result of buildup formed during
the 1974-1975 production period. The importance of stormwater runoff to
inflows of Kepone to the sewer system is demonstrated by the data from the
Life Science Products plant on May 4, 1977.
Soil
Kepone enters Bailey Creek from desorption of Kepone associated with
contaminated soil and sediments as well as contaminated ground water affected
by leachate from the landfill area and the disposal lagoon. These levels are
augmented sharply during periods of high precipitation and subsequent runoff.
Though subject to tidal influence, the contaminated Bailey Creek water pro-
vides a continuous input of Kepone to Bailey Bay. Desorption stimulated by
high pH wastewater has slowly depleted surface sediment concentration. The
released Kepone is carried to the River where buffering action and dilution
creates an environment conducive to readsorption on suspended and fixed sedi-
ments. The total load of Kepone transferred in this manner will decline with
use of the new regional treatment plant since secondary treatment will sponsor
uptake solids which will subsequently be removed. Even with this reduction,
it will take many years (>50) for Bailey Bay to be cleansed by natural forces.
Pebbled Ammonium Nitrate Site and Landfill
Three specific sources of Kepone were identified for particular atten-
tion: the Kepone sludge lagoon, the Pebbled Ammonium Nitrate (PAN) site,
and the landfill. The lagoon does not contain significant quantities of
Kepone. It does appear to be leaking, however, and therefore may provide
continuing inputs to Bailey Creek. Large deposits of Kepone were suspected
V-93

-------
at che PAN sice but analyses have not confirmed their presence. Over
1350 kg (3000 lb) of Kepone have been identified in a marsh below che Hopewell
landfill. Analysis reveals chat this Kepone is mobilized in leachate.
The landfill is the only site located co dace wich potential quantities of
Kepone which are significant when compared to existing residuals in the James
River.
James River
To put the Hopewell area data in perspective an estimate has been made
of total current Kepone deposits in James River sediments. They amount to an
average estimate of 9600 kg (21,000 lb) and a maximum estimate of 19,000 kg
(42,000 lb). Calculations are based on data provided in Appendix B. These
total quantities compare favorably with an independent estimate of 11,000 to
18,000 kg (25,000 to 40,000 lb) developed by VIMS (1977). A synopsis of per-
tinent inputs to the calculations is provided in Table V.30.
A summary of estimated Kepone residuals is provided in Table V.31.
V-94

-------
TABLE V.30.	BASIS FOR ESTIMATE OF KEPONE DEPOSITS IN JAMES RIVER SEDIMENTS
Jordan Point to Jamestown to Newport News to Hampton
Bailey Bay	Turkey Island Jordan Point Jamestown Island Roads	Total
Area	800 acres	3.3 mi2	44.9 mi2	132.7 mi2	60.9 mi2 243.1 mi2
Mean concentration
|Jg/g-ppm	0.91	0.07	0.15	0.08	0.023
Mean + one standard
deviation |ig/g-ppm	3.31	0.21	0.28	0.15	0.0375
Volume (ft3)
assumes 1 ft depth	3.5 x 10	9.2 x 10	1.25 x 10	3.7 x 10	1.7 x 10 6.8 x 10
Mass of dry sediments _
(lb)(assumes 70 lb/ft )	1.3 x HT	3.48 x UT	4.7 x 101	1.4 x 10	6.4 x 10 2.5 x 10*
Mean total Kepone (kg)	537	110	3,204	5,091	670 9,612
(lb)	1,183	243	7,050	11,200	1,472 21,148
Maximum total Kepone (kg)	1,956	332	6,000	9,545	1,091 18,924
[mean + std. deviation](1b)	4,303	730	13,160	21,000	2,400 41,593
Number of sample sites	25	9	66	66	39 205
Number of points with
<0.02 pg/g Kepone	3	3	5	13	21 45
Sampling density (points/mi2) 20	2.7	1.5	0.5	0.64
Assumes 12 in. depth at mean even though some samples were analyzed to dcplhs less than 12 in. Since concentration
decline witli depth, estimate here is conservative.

-------
TABLE V.31. ESTIMATE OF KEPONE RESIDUALS INCLUDING MATERIAL
DRUMMED AT THE LIFE SCIENCE PRODUCTS PLANT AFTER
CLOSURE (DECEMBER 1977)
Estimated Quantity of Kepone
	Residing In			kg			lb	
Sewer System	23	50
Surface Soil (1 in.)	45-450	100-1,000
Kepone Sludge Lagoon	100	220
Bailey Bay Sediments*	540-2,000	1,200-4,300
James River Sediments*	9,000-17,000	20,000-38,000
Drums at Hopewell	9,400	20,700
Drums at Portsmouth	13,000	28,800
Landfill7	1,400	3,100
Pebbled Ammonium Nitrate
Plant Site	100	220
Rounded total*	33,700-43,600	73,500-95,500
* Low value reflects estimate extrapolated from mean concen-
trations, high value reflects estimates based on mean plus
one standard deviation,
t Includes identified deposits only.
V-96

-------
REFERENCES
1.	Annapolis Field Office Laboratory. 1976. Hazardous Materials Report
76-120. U.S. EPA Region III. February 13, 1976.
2.	Bender, M.E. 1977. Letter to Gary Gardner, Toxic Substance Coordinator,
U.S. EPA Region III. October 18, 1977.
3.	Chigges, J.A. 1977. "Kepone Sediment Monitoring in the James River,
Virginia During 1976." State Water Cor.trol Board Memorandum to File,
July 6, 1977.
4.	Esmen, N.A. and R.B. Fergus. 1976. "Rain Acidity: pH Spectrum of
Industrial Drops." The Science of the Total Environment. 6^:223-226.
5.	Huggett, R., D. Haven and M. Nichols. 1977. "Kepone Sediment Rela-
tionships in the James River." (abstract) Interim Report to U.S.
EPA Gulf Breeze Laboratory.
6.	Jackson, M.J. 1956. Soil Chemical Analysis. Professor of Soils,
University of Wisconsin.
7.	Jennings, M.H. 1977. Report of Analysis. Jennings Laboratory, Inc.
to U.S. Army Engineers District, Norfolk, May 31, 1977.
8.	Kalb, G.W. 1970. "The Determination of Mercury in Water and Sediment
Samples by Flameless Atomic Absorption." Atomic Adsorption News. 9_(4): 84-87.
9.	Senate Hearings on Kepone Contamination. 1976. Senate Subcommittee
on Agricultural Research and General Legislation, 94th Congress.
January 22-27, 1976.
10.	SWCB, 14. 1976. "Kepone Data Bulletin 14." Virginia State Water
Control Board. March 24, 1976.
11.	SWCB, 18. 1976. "Kepone Data Bulletin 18." Virginia State Water
Control Board. March 30, 1976.
12.	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Criteria for Dredge
Spoil Disposal. U.S. EPA Region IX, San Francisco, CA.
13.	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Preliminary Report on
Kepone Levels Found in Environmental Samples from Hopewell, Virginia
Area. Health Effects Research Laboratory. U.S. EPA, Research Triangle
Worth Carolina.
14.	Williams, R.J. 1977. Kepone Bound to James River Sediment. Infor-
mal Report 77-1. Allied Chemical, Project 0946.
15.	Windom, H.L. 1973. Transport Fate and Geochemical Interactions of
Mercury, Cadmium and Other Inorganic Pollutants in the Coastal
Littoral-Salt Marsh Environment of the Southeastern United States.
EPA Report, NTIS PB 227-035.
V-97

-------
CHAPTER VI - ECOLOGICAL PROFILE OF THE JAMES RIVER
SUMMARY
Content
Chapter VI provides an overview of the aquatic ecology of the James River
system. It begins with a description of the river system including salinity
distribution, temperature, and turbidity levels. This is followed by a
discussion of the ecosystem in each of four zones of the James extending
from Turkey Island (slightly upstream of Hopewell) to its mouth at Chesapeake
Bay. Descriptions are given of the significant elements of the food chain,
as well as of commercially important species. The chapter concludes with an
estimate of summer and winter biomass levels for various finfish species in
the James River as developed by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science.
Findings
•	James River species and their distribution through the tidal portion of
the River are summarized in Appendices D and K.
•	The Virginia Institute of Marine Science estimates total summer biomass
of finfish in the James River (RM 0-45) to be 1.65 x 10^ kg (3.4 x 10^ lb).
VI-1

-------
GENERAL FEATURES
The James River is the largest of Virginia's four major river systems.
It flows for more than 680 km (420 mi) from its headwater to the Chesapeake
Bay. Its drainage basin covers approximately 26,000 km2 (10,000 mi^) in
Virginia and West Virginia, with the majority in Virginia. The tidal reach
extends to Richmond, about 180 km (110 mi) upstream from its mouth at Hampton
Roads. The River discharges past Richmond at an average rate of 212 m-Vsec
(7,500 cfs).
In view of the scope and objectives of this study the area covered in
this report is restricted to the tidal portion of the River from Turkey Island
near Hopewell to the mouth at Chesapeake Bay, a distance of approximately
131 km (80 mi) (Figure VI.1). Three main tributaries, the Appomattox,
Chickahominy and Nansemond Rivers, are not included in this study.
The study area (Figure VI.2) can be divided into four salinity regimes as
follows (Boesch, 1973; Diaz, 1977):
Lower Tidal Fresh water:
Oligohaline:
River Mile (RM) 40 - 80
Average Salinity 0-0.5 g/2. (ppth)
RM 25 - 40,
Average Salinity 0.5 - 5 g/1 (ppch)
Mesohaline:
RM 12-25,
Average Salinity 5
15 g/Z (ppth)
Polyhaline:
BM 0 - 12,
Average Salinity >15 g/Z (ppth)
The tidal James River has long been utilized for commercial and sport
fishing (Figures VI.3 and VI.4). Fishery resources are very diverse and
productive as the river abounds in fresh-water and marine fish. The commercial
fishing grounds extend to near the Hopewell area. The fresh-water and upper
portion of brackish water zones are extensively utilized by anadromous fish
as spawning and nursery grounds. The lower estuary is a very productive
shellfish zone. Due to Kepone contamination, the River was closed to the har-
vesting of finfish and shellfish in December 1975. As of Septemper 16,
1977 the closure exempted female hard crabs seaward of the James River Bridge,
but closed off taking of all male crabs in the southern portions of Chesapeake Bay
near the mouth of the James River (See Appendix J).
This constitutes the lower segment of the tidally influenced fresh-water
portion of the James River.
VI-2

-------
r
WIIIIAMSUIIHC
lAMisrm t ouNiv
rV- Ntwroul niws cut
IIINHICO ( OliNIV
CIIMIIIS <11V COIJNIV
IIAMflON
NtwrOKI i
NIWi /
I lllMIKIIitO
f ( J1
I " I'HINCl Ctom.t (GIINIV
SOUUVCOIINIV
IMlOf IVIWI1 COUNIV
COIINIY
nidi k
-r -
FIGURE VI.1. Location of Geographic Features

-------
RM 30
RM 20
KM 70
KMUO
JAMES ItlVtlt
Polylialine: KM 0—12 (Salinity >15%)
Mesuhalinc: RM 12—25 (Salinity 5-15%)
Olitfoltaline: KM 25—40 (Salinily 0.5-5%)
Lower lidal fieshwalcr: KM 40—(JO
(Salinily 0-0.5%)
MlttS
0	5	10
^ r - - |
0 S 1(1 is 20
KIIOMIILIIS
FICUKK VI. 2. Four Salinity Zones (Uoescli, 1973; Diaz, 1977)

-------
JAMES ItlVEIt
Shellfish production and
nursery area
Anadromous fish spawning
and nursery area
MILES
Commercial fishing area
10
I— —_ __ j
*- - |
0 5 10 15 20
KILOMETEIIS
r7"
FIGURE VI.3. Fishing, Spawning and Nursery Areas for Fish and Shellfish
(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1974)

-------
I
cr>

SPOUT IISIIING AREA
JAMES HIVEIl
Primary ipori fishing area
MILES
•r
10
0
5
15
KILOMHCIIS
FIGUKL VI.4. Primary Sport Fishing Areas (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1973)

-------
Shad, herring, catfish, turtles and elvers are also exempted from the closure.
A manuscript of the State order can be found in Appendix J. The river presently
is open to the taking of seed oysters (Owen et al., 1976c).
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MAJOR TRIBUTARIES
Appomattox River
The Appomattox River enters the James River at Hopewell with its waters
originating primarily in the Piedmont section of Virginia. The River is
dammed 11 km (7.mi) above the fall line at Petersburg. This has created Lake
Chesdin. Below Petersburg, the Appomattox flows slowly. Diversity of biota
is relatively high in the upper reaches of the River and green algae are the
major phytoplankton component. Below the dam diversity is low and in the
tidal reaches of the River the dominant algae are the blue-greens. Fish
species are similar to those in the James River with catfish assuming year-
round importance. A nursery area exists for striped bass. Shad and herring
also exist below the dam at Lake Chesdin. The organisms present below the
dam are primarily those which are tolerant of pollution. Tidal currents,
add pollution from the James River.
Chickahominy River
The Chickahominy is a shallow sluggish stream with an impounded lake and
tidal fresh-water portions. Above U.S. 60, the river is slow-flowing with
fresh-water swamps, and has numerous channels and pools. It receives sewage
effluent from Richmond via tributaries. Below the U.S. 60 bridge, the River
is less swampy and has more fresh-water marshes. The Chickahominy has a total
of approximately 5,670 hectares (14,000 ac) of marshes that are intensely used
by waterfowl. Benthic diversity is higher in the Chickahominy than in the
James or Appomattox with more clean-water species present. The River supports
a luxuriant growth of aquatic plants. Fish species in the Chickahominy are
similar to those in the James. Catfish are very abundant and the River is an
important spawning and nursery ground for herring and shad. Overall Chickahominy
water quality is good.
Nansemond River
The Nansemond River is a short tidal tributary about 26 km (16 mi)
long which enters the James at Hampton Roads. Its flow is regulated by supply
reservoirs at its headwaters and little fresh water is released except during
storms or when the reservoirs are full. As a result, salinity variations are
considerable. Salinity is 0-12 ppth in the upper parts and 15-20 ppth at the
mouth of the Nansemond.
VI-7

-------
SALINITY DISTRIBUTION
The James River is a typical coastal plain estuary in which the salinity
decreases as the distance upriver from the mouth increases (Figure VI.2).
Tidal cycle in the mouth of the River is semi-diurnal with two high tides and
two low tides occurring in an approximate 24-hr period. The mean tidal
range is 0.76 to 0.9 m (2.5 to 3 ft) in the first 32 km (20 mi) and less than
0.3 m (1 ft) at RM 50. The velocity of the tidal wave is about 18 km/hr
(11 mi/hr-16 ft/sec).
The river transport is a function of fresh-water flow and tidal movement.
Usually, there is a net downstream transport in the upper, less saline layer
and a net upstream transport in the lower, more saline layer. The salt water
extends approximately 64 km (40 mi) upstream from the river mouth, although
this boundary limit varies considerably depending upon the volume of river
flow. It is reported that salt water may extend up to 120 km (74 mi) upstream
(near Hopewell) during drought conditions, while fresh water reaches downstream
to RM 23 (Weiss and Wilkes, 1974). During the Tropical Storm Agnes in 1972,
the fresh-water flow almost reached RM 10, the upper portion of the polyhaline
zone (Larsen, 1974). The 21-year average salinity distributions from 1944 to
1965 show that the fresh-salt water interface occurs at RM 30 during the
months of March-May and at RM 40 during the November-February months (Fig-
ure IV.5).
The salinity increases with depth, although no strong stratification
exists. The differences in salinity between surface and bottom waters increase
during the months of high river flow. The seasonal salinity differences are
more pronounced at the river mouth and are less pronounced upstream. Surface
water salinity varies greatly by season as a result of fluctuating river
discharges. For example, at RM 23, the salinity varies between 3 and 14 ppth.
The isohaline moves 18 mi back and forth along the River (VIMS, 1973).
TEMPERATURE AND TURBIDITY
The water temperatures in the James River during a 1-vear period varied
between 6 and 28°C at RM 80; 6 and 25°C at Hampton Roads (VIMS, 1973). Generally
temperatures in the upper river were slightly higher (up to 7°C higher in summer)
than in the lower estuary except in winter. During the winter, the tempera-
ture at the mouth of the river was 2°C greater than that at RM 80. Surface
and bottom water temperatures were nearly uniform throughout the River.
The turbidity of James River is very high throughout most of its length.
The minimum water transparencies measured by Secchi discs were observed in the
area between RM 50 and RM 80, where the DO sag usually occurs (VIMS, 1973).
The transparencies in the lower 32 km (20 mi) of the James estuary ranged from
0.6 to 2.4 rn (2 to 8 ft) which is typical of many estuaries around the Chesapeake
Bay. Maximum turbidity, however, generally occurs at the saline and fresh-water
interface near Hog Island. Total suspended solid (sediment) concentrations
near surface water were greatest in an area between RM 30 and RM 35, averaging
approximately 60 mg/i (ppm). The total suspended matter at Hampton Roads was
10 mg/2. (ppm) (Nichols, 1972).
VI-8

-------
AVERAGE SALINITY (1944—1965)
i
VO
KIlOMUfRS
MARCII1—MAY 15
NOVtMUfK 1—ftllKUAKY 2fl
30	20
HIVEK MILES UPSTREAM
FIGURE VI.5. Salinity Distribution (Nichols, 1972)

-------
ECOLOGY OF THE TIDAL JAMES RIVER
To- understand che full impact of current and projected distribution of
Kepone in the James River, it is necessary to identify the species present in
various reaches and the extent of this habitat. Consequently, an effort was
initiated to describe the ecological profile of the tidal James. The tidal
James River biota was mapped from the available literature sources, mainly
studies by scientists at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science and personal
communications with appropriate State, Federal, and local officials. Major
emphasis is on che location of fisheries and spawning grounds of ecologi-
cally and commercially important species. In addition to the distribution and
productivity (when available) of the fisheries, distribution maps were prepared
for chlorophyll-a, invertebrates, vertebrates, and selected birds. The vascu-
lar flora and plankton are described but not mapped. Comprehensive lists of
fauna and flora are presented in Appendix D.
Overview of Previous Studies
The literature collected and reviewed for this ecological study consists
of over 150 documents. The Virginia Academy of Sciences (1950), James River
Project Committee, published an extensive review of the natural and human
resources of the James River Basin. Since that time, over 50% of the literature
used in this study has been generated from the Virginia Institute of
Marine Science. The bibliography by Barrick et al. (1971) was extremely
helpful as well as the printouts updating this bibliography done by the library
staff at VIMS.
Twenty-five other organizations have contributed to the James River
ecological literature (Table VI.1). It is difficult to meaningfully tabulate
the literature because numbers of documents do not reflect quality or quantity
of material included, nor does the name of the organization reflect the pos-
sibility of interagency funding and cooperation.
Biomass estimates for specific species in the James River system are
particularly difficult to develop. However, personnel at VIMS have been able
to derive working numbers based on extrapolation from trawl studies and mollusc
inventories. A brief description of the VIMS procedures follows:
Summer Survey - Estimates of finfish biomass in the James during the
summer season were based upon catches made during the 1977 ichthyology
summer trawl survey in the James River made with the R.V. Brooks cowing
a 16-ft semi-balloon trawl. Stations surveyed were selected randomly from
stratified categories. All catch and weight data were kept separated by
species, depth station and river miles from che mouth. Biomass for
individual species was computed from weights which were summed wichin
each depth and mile "block." Mean catches for each block were then
computed. To illustrate, consider the computation for a shoal area
between miles 0-15 where the actual catch of spot was 4628 grams in
23 cows, or 201 g/tow. There were 207 possible sices in chis stratum
which could have been sampled, hence che Cocal projecced weighc would be
VI-10

-------
201 g x 207 sites or 41,600 g. This total must then be adjusted to
account for the percentage of quarter square mile that a 16 ft net towed
for a quarter of a mile will cover, or 1,742,400 + (16 ft x 1320 ft)
%82. Hence the adjusted total is 41,607 x 82 or 3,411,744 g (7515 lb).
These adjusted totals were then summed for each of five strata to gener-
ate the estimate of total biomass for spot at miles 0-15 Subsequently,
all river segments were totaled and multiplied by final adjustment
factors of 1.8 to account for the catch efficiency of a 16-ft trawl to
that of a 30-ft trawl.
Winter Survey - The method of estimation for winter populations was much
the same as that previously described for summer populations. However,
a 9-m (30-ft) semi-balloon otter trawl was employed with 0.6 x 1.2 m
(2x4 ft) wooden trawl doors and a 9 m (30 ft) (each leg) bridle. This
swept an area of 1727 (18,590 ft^) at each station. Estimates were
made from surveys during 1973, 74 and 75.
Molluscs - Rangia clam populations were estimated utilizing the data
of Diaz (1977) and Jordan et al. (1976) . Survey data yielded estimates
of clam density in segments at 9 km (5 nautical mile) intervals. Extra-
polation relied on the assumptions that density was homogeneous over
the river bottom and equal to the average of three samples taken in a
segment. It was further assumed that clams have an average weight of
0.25 g (5.5 x 10"^ lb). Corbicula clam biomass estimates were similarly
derived from the data of Diaz (1977) based on a survey conducted in the
fall of 1972. An average weight of 0.1 g/clam was employed for extrapolation
purposes.
Aquatic Ecology
Because of its estuarine habitats, the biotic communities in the tidal
James River are highly complex and diverse in community structure and species
composition. They are comprised of typical marine forms in the polyhaline
zone, marine and estuarine forms in the meso-oligohaline zones, and fresh-
water and estuarine species in the tidal fresh-water zone.
The diversity and richness of the benthic populations are typical of this
type of estuary, that is, highest in the polyhaline zone and lowest in the
oligohaline zone (Diaz, 1977; U.S. AEC, 1974). Populations increase considerably
at the lower part of the fresh-water zone (RM 40-55), but decrease further
upstream (Figure VI.6).
Phytoplankton biomass (chlorophyll-a level) was greatest in the Hopewell
area (Figure VI.7) at more than 40 yg/£ (ppb) but was less than 10 ug/i
(ppb) for much of the estuary - RM 10-52. (VIMS, 1973; Brehmer, 1972).
Among the environmental factors that affect algal productivity and distribution
are salinity, water transparency, temperature, and herbivore activity.
VI-11

-------
TABLE VI.1. BIOLOGICAL-ECOLOGICAL STUDIES OF THE JAMES RIVER
BY ORGANIZATIONS
No. of
Oraanliation	Documents
Audubon Society (annual
bird censuses)	20
!Utcelle Columbus Labs	1
CoLleg* at villas and Mary	1
inginearlflg Science Company	2
Catas (W.2.) & Associates	I
Johns Hopkins Ifolvarstcy	2
longwood College	I
Old Dominion College	2
Roanoke College	I
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers	5
U.S. Atomic Energy Coaia*
slon (former agency)
L'.S. ?lsh and Wildlife
Service
U.S. Geological Survey
Wacar Rasources Division
U.S. Macioaai Aeronautics
and Space Administration
(NASA)
U.S. Haclonal Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
(NASA)
University of Virginia
Virginia Agricultural
Experiment Station
Virginia Gams and Inland
Fisheries Cosnisslon
Virginia Council Envlron-
aancal Quality
Virginia Department Highway
and Transportation
Virginia Electric and ?over
Company (VEPCO)
Virginia Institute of Marine
Science (VWS)	7
Virginia Institute Scien-
tific Research	i
Virginia Polytechnic Insti-
cute and Spats University	1
Virginia State College	5
Virginia State Water Control
Board	S
Subject
Birds
Thermal aodeling
Florlstlcs
Water quality
Water quality
Thermal ecology, natural resources
Florlstlcs
Wacer quality
Freshwater fish
Vacer quality, disposal, florlstlcs,
floods, resources, dredging
Surry environmental
31rds
Water supply
Phoeograpny
Tides, data bases, flora
Alewlfe
Flora
Endangered species
Advisory
rlsnerles
Surry environment
Flsnes, clans, aacrobenthos, thermal,
hydrography, crustacee, eels, water
quality, algae, :oramlnifera, sedi-
aants, plankton, ahrlap, oysters, vet-
lands, Surrv environment. Windmill
?olnt sewage, florlstlcs, erosion
Thermal
31ology
Algae
Water quality
VI-12

-------
SUMMER 1972
FALL 1972
3.0
10 ¦
1.0
~ OJS -
OJO -
0.25-
0.00
10 ¦
RIVES MIIIS UPSTREAM
FIGURE VI.6. Species Diversity, Richness and Eveness of the Benthic
Invertebrates (Diaz, 1977)
VI-13

-------
ClllOltOI'IIYLL A
J


AMES IIIVEIi
40 >ig/l
(above RM 651
20-40 jig/I
(KM 56-651
10-20,.«/!
(RM 52 56 and
lielow KM 10)
MILES
5	10
p5 -r=,r^rii ?p -Ti, L
0 S 10 15
KIlOMtltllS
<10#hj/I
(KM 10 52>
i'lCllKli VI. 7. CliloropliyU-u Concentrations During the Summer of 1965-1966
(!'&/ C.-(>|)b)

-------
Due to the flowing river, the fresh-water species probably die as the water
becomes more saline. The marine algae decrease as the salinity of the River
reaches 1 g/£. Little is known of the algae inhabiting the tidal swamps and
marshes (Ott, 1973) or individual phytoplankton species and their contributions
to the food web in the Chesapeake Bay in general (Lippson, 1973). Comprehensive
lists of biotic organisms are provided in Appendix D.
Lower Tidal Fresh-Water Zone (RM 40-80; Average Salinity 0-0.5 ppth)—
The biota of this area is characterized by the dominance of fresh-water
forms with some estuarine species. This area, particularly the upper part,
has high organic loadings mainly from the Hopewell area's domestic and industrial
wastes. The impacts of organic loadings are reflected in the high coliform
bacterial counts (100 - 10,000/100 ml) and oligochaete worms (>2,000/m^).
Dense phytoplankton populations and the high chlorophyll-a concentrations
in this zone may also be due to the high nutrient levels (VIMS, 1973).
The oligochaete worms, mainly the fresh-water Limnodrilus spp., are the
most dominant benthic invertebrate throughout the zone, although the number
decreases below the Hopewell area. The chironomid larvae (Coelotanypus
scapularis) are also numerous. Since 1972, the introduced Asian clam
(Corbicula manilensis) has spread throughout the entire tidal fresh-water zone
and has become a dominant species (Diaz, 1977). The brackish water clam
(Rangia cuneata) is abundant in the lower section of this zone below RM 65.
Major phytoplankton species are blue-green algae with Anacystis and
Gomphosphaeria species predominating at the upper reaches and lower portion
of the zone, respectively. Zooplankton densities are found to be highest
in this zone between RM 65 and RM 70 (Burbidge, 1974) . The dominant zoo-
plankters are limnetic cladocerans and copepods such as Bosmina longirostris,
B_. coregoni, Diaphanosoma branchyurum, Daphnia parvula, Leptodora kindtti,
Cyclops vernalis, and the estuarine species Eurytemora affinis (VIMS, 1973;
Hoagman et al., 1973).
This zone serves as major spawning and nursery grounds for anadromous
fish, particularly the alosin (herring) group. Dominant fresh-water fish are
channel catfish, brown bullhead, and white catfish. Extensive marshes and
swamps along the river provide fine habitats for waterfowl and other migratory
birds.
Oligohaline Estuary (RM 25-40; Average Salinity 0.5-5 ppth)—
This zone is the transition zone between fresh and salt waters and thus
the majority of the area is subject to fresh-water river flow and tidal move-
ment. The average salinity is generally less than 5 ppth and ranges from
near zero to 10 ppth. Due to the large fluctuation in salinity, the diver-
sity of nonmobile organisms is lowest in this region, while that of mobile
fauna is high by the overlapping of fresh-water and estuarine forms.
VI-15

-------
Primary productivity in this zone is very low mainly due to high tur-
bidity and thus chlorophyll-a concentrations are the lowest (VIMS, 1973).
Diatoms comprise more than 90% of the phytoplankton flora followed by dino-
flagellates and green algae (U.S. AEC, 1974). The blue-green algae, the
most abundant species in the fresh-water zone, are not found in this area
because dissolved solid levels and salinities are high.
Zooplankton populations are sparse with standing crops ranging from
4	to 48 organisms per liter (Vepco, 1973 a,b, 1976). The cohabitants are
estuarine copepods (Acartia tonsa and Eurytemora affinis) along with clado-
cerans, rotifers, and larvae of barnacles and gastropods (Jorden et al., 1976).
The quantity of meroplankton (fish and macro-invertebrate larvae, and
fish eggs) is low but constitutes an important part of zooplankton populations
in this area. One species of jellyfish is abundant; the sea nettle (Chrvsaora
ouinouecirrha) appears in the region up to RM 30 during the summer. (VIMS, 19 73)
The most frequently encountered benthic organism in the oligohaline zone
is the wedge (marsh) clam (Rangia cuneata) (Figures VI.17 and VI.18). Gammarus
daiberi (an amphipod) and Scolecolepides viridis (polychaete) (Figures VI.17
and VI.18) are also dominant through the seasons (Diaz, 1977). Oligochaete
worms and dipteran larvae are found in this area when salinity is low (Cain
et al., 1972), whereas barnacle larvae enter this area when the salinity is
high. The blue crab and small shrimps (Fenaeid and palmonid) are also pre-
sent in the area. At least 37 species of benthic invertebrates represented
by 5 phyla are recorded around the Hog Island region of the James River (Vepco,
1973 a,b).
The fish fauna in the oligohaline zone is highly diverse with 49 reported
species (White et al., 1972). They include both marine and fresh-water species
as well as migrating anadromous fish. This zone serves as a nursery ground
for many of the River's fish, particularly Atlantic croaker, hogc'noker, bay
anchovy, and striped bass. Most dominant inhabitants are hogchoker, white
perch, channel and white catfish, bay anchovy, alewife, and spot. The fecal
coliform bacteria counts are considered to be lower in this zone (30 - 300
coliforms/100 ml water) than in much of the James River (VIMS, 1973).
Mesohaline Estuary (RM 12-25; Average Salinity 5-15 ppth)—
This zone extends from RM 12 to RM 25 where the salinity ranges between
5	and 15 ppth. Primary productivity of this area is higher than the oligoha-
line area since turbidity is decreased. Increased productivity may also be
ascribed to the nutrient contribution from the salt marshes along the lower
James River. The total acreage of the salt marshes in the mesohaline segment
alone is approximately one-third of all marshes in the entire James River
(VIMS, 1973). The dominant plants of the marshes are three species of coragrass
(Spartina spp.) (see Figure VI.28 and Table VI.3). Marine and estuarine
diatoms and dinoflagellates are dominant phytoolankters.
VI-16

-------
The estuarine copepod, Acartia tonsa, appears to be the predominant
zooplankter along with many meroplankton larvae. The jellyfish are also
important zooplankters in the region; they are comb jelly (Mnemiopsis and
Beroe species), sea nettle (Chrysaora), and lion's mane (Cyanea capellata).
The jellyfish occur up to RM 20 in the winter.
The most consistent dominants in this zone are three or four species of
euryhaline polychaetes, barnacles (Balanus improvisus), and an amphipod
(Leptocheirus plumulosus). This zone is known as the most productive oyster
bed region in Virginia (Loesch et al., 1975). The soft clam (Mya arenaria)
is also abundant, particularly along the shallow shorelines where the oyster
seedbeds are distributed. Blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus), the second most
commercially important species, are found in their highest density here.
The mesohaline zone is the prime nursery ground for juveniles of many
estuarine and marine fish such as hogchoker, bay anchovy, silver perch, spot,
croaker, and weakfish.
Polyhaline Estuary (RM 0-20; Average Salinity >15 ppth)—
This zone extends from RM 12 near the James River Bridge to Hampton
Roads at the Chesapeake Bay. The area is the largest estuarine section of
the James River and is heavily inluenced by activities related to shipping,
waste disposal, and land reclamation (Boesch, 1973). Yet due to estuarine
circulation processes, the quality of water in this region is not as bad as
in the Hopewell area (VIMS, 1973).
The biota of this zone closely resembles the marine species found in
Chesapeake Bay or the Atlantic Ocean. Many benthic invertebrates are
stenohaline forms which are unable to tolerate wide variation of salinity.
Phytoplankton are more dense than in the upper estuary because turbidity
is reduced, and high nutrient concentrations are supplied from the Nansemond
and Elizabeth Rivers. Chlorophyll-a levels are also higher than in the upper
portion of the estuary (Brehmer, 1972; VIMS, 1973).
Neritic diatoms (52 species) and dinoflagellates (19 species) are the
major components of the phytoplankton community (Marshall, 1967). A marine
diatom, Skeletonema costatum, is by far the most dominant species followed
by Asterionella japonica and Nitschia pungens atlantica. The zooplankton
populations have not been well documented for this area, although they are
expected to be dominated by estuarine species such as Acartia tonsa (VIMS, 1973).
This species is the most widely distributed in the Chesapeake Bay and its
rivers with maximum density occurring in the areas of 10-20 ppth salinities
(Lippson, 1973). Acartia tonsa accounted for more than 50% of the total
crustacean zooplankton in the Patuxent River estuary during the warmer months
(Heinle, 1966).
The hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria), which prefers salinities greater
than 15 ppth, is very abundant and restricted to this zone only in the James
River estuary. Oysters are no longer productive in this area since the
introduction of predaceous oyster drills, the parasitic protozoan (Minchinia
VI-17

-------
aelsoni-MSX), and a disease fungus (Labyrinchomvxa marinum) to Che area in
recent years (VIMS, 1973). These oyster infesting organisms are widely dis-
tributed in the polyhaline zone.
Stable salinities and diversified substrates found in the polyhaline
estuary support the most diverse benthic communities found in the tidal
James River. (Diaz, 1977).
Many commercially important fish utilize this zone as spawning ground
(bay anchovy and hogchoker) and as nursery ground (silver perch, weakfish
and spot). This area also serves as feeding ground for many marine and
anadromous fish such as Atlantic croaker, spot, flounder, bluefish, striped
bass, white perch, and herrings.
An estimate of total summer and winter biomass levels for specific fish
is presented in Table VI.2. More detailed data on individual species, mapped
data on geographic dominance, seasonal dominance and the occurrence of plant,
animal, and bird species on the James River can be found in Appendix K.
VI-18

-------
TABLE VI.2. BIOMASS ESTIMATES DEVELOPED BY VIMS FOR
JAMES RIVER FINFISH
	Species	 Summer Biomass, kg Winter Biomass, kg
Alewife	NA	22,998
American Eel	910,987	25,814
American Shad	NA	4,632
Atlantic Croaker	25,710,498	136,345
Atlantic Menhaden	119,905	155,722
Atlantic Silverside	NA	42,341
Atlantic Sturgeon	NA	143
Bay Anchovy	19,371,913	27,770
Blackcheek Tonguefish	NA	242
Black Sea Bass	212,843	922
Blueback Herring	59,483	4,275
Bluefish	1,502,179
Brown Bullhead	NA	38,443
Carp	16,704,914	29,994
Channel Catfish	10,291,755	330,382
Eastern Silvery Minnow	NA	1,463
Feather Blenny	NA	1,214
Gizzard Shad	NA	5,021
Golden Shiner	NA	2,528
Grey Trout	10,277,312	NA
Hickory Shad	NA	567
Hogchoker	6,206,494	56,532
Naked Goby	NA	98
VI-19

-------
Species
TABLE VI. 2. (contd)
Summer Biomass, kg
Winter Biomass, kg
Northern Pipefish	NA	416
Northern Searobin	NA	107
Oyster Toadfish	81,738	34,708
Quillback	NA	1,850
River Chub	NA	32
Sea Lamprey	NA	159
Shorthead Redhorse	NA	2,454
Smallmouth Flounder	NA	75
Spot	63,801,871	53,158
Spottail Shiner	NA	15,282
Striped Bass	54,612	397
Striped Blenny	NA	57
Striped Mullet	NA	107
Summer Flounder	7,461,878	35,128
Tadpole Madtom	NA	14
Tantog	NA	3,655
Tassellated Darter	NA	1,035
Threadfin Shad	NA	3,472
White Catfish	3,330,4^6	32,836
White Crappie	NA	94
white Perch	2,085,012	4,516
VI-20

-------
REFERENCES
1.	Barrick, S. 0., M. D. Daw, P. S. Tennyson, F. J. Wojcik, J. J. Norcross,
and W. J. Hargis, Jr. 1971. The Chesapeake Bay Bibliography. Vol. I.
The James River. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Spec. Sci.
Rept. No. 58, Gloucester Point.
2.	Boesch, D. F. 1973. "Classification and Community Structure of Macro-
benthos in the Hampton Roads Area, Virginia." Mar. Biol. 21:226-244.
3.	Brehmer, M. L. 1972. Biological and Chemical Study of Virginia's
Estuaries. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Water
Resources Research Bulletin 45, Blacksburg.
4.	Burbidge, R. G. 1974. "Distribution, Growth, Selective Feeding, and
Energy Transformation of Young-of-the-Year Blueback Herring, Alosa
aestivalis (Mitchell), in the James River, Virginia." Trans. Amer.
Fish. Soc. 103:297-311.
5.	Cain, T., R. Peddicord, R. Diaz, D. Dressel, E. Tennyson and M. Bender.
1972. Surry - Preoperational Ecological Studies. Virginia Institute
of Marine Science, Dept. of Ecology - Pollution, Gloucester Point.
6.	Diaz, R. J. 1977. The Effects of Pollution on Benthic Communities of
the Tidal James River, Virginia. University of Virginia, Dept. of Marine
Sciences, Ph.D. Thesis Charlottesville.
7.	Heinle, D. R. 1966. Production of a Calanoid Copepod, Acartia tonsa,
in the Patuxent River Estuary. Chesapeake Sci. 7_:59-74.
8.	Hoagman, W. J., J. V. Marriner, R. St. Pierre, and W. L. Wilson. 1973.
Biology and Management of River Herring and Shad in Virginia. Completion
report, anadromous fish project, 1970-1973. Virginia Institute of
Marine Science, Gloucester Point.
9.	Jordan, R. A., R. K. Carpenter, P. A. Goodwin, C. G. Becker, M. S. Ho,
G. C. Grant, B. B. Bryan, J. V. Merriner, and A. D. Estes. 1976. Ecologi-
cal Study of the Tidal Segment of the James River Encompassing Hog Point.
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Spec, Sci. Rept. No. 78, Gloucester
Point.
10.	Larsen, P. F. 1974. Quantitative Studies of the Macrofauna Associated
with the Mesohaline Ovster Reefs of the James River, Virginia. College
of William and Mary, Ph.D. Thesis, Williamsburg.
11.	Lippson, A. J., ed. 1973. The Chesapeake Bay in Maryland. An Atlas of
Natural Resources. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
VI-21

-------
12.	Loesch, J. G., D. S. Haven, and J. P. Whitcomb. 1975. An Investigation
of Che Seed Oyster Reserves in Virginia and Testing and Modifying of Gear
to Harvest Oysters. Final report, 1 July 1973 - 30 June 1975. Virginia
Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point.
13.	Marshall, H. G. 1967. "Plankton in James River Estuary, Virginia.
I. Phytoplankton in Willoughby Bay and Hampton Roads." Chesapeake
Sci. 8:90-101.
14.	Nichols, M. M. 1972. "Sediments of the James River Estuary, Virginia."
Geol. Soc. Amer. Mem. 133:169-212.
15.	Owen, D. W., L. M. Rogers, M. H. Peoples, and D. Byrd. 1976c. Shoreline
Situation report. Prince George County, Virginia. Virginia Institute
of Marine Science, Spec. Rept. Appl. Mar. Sci. Ocean Engineer. No. 114,
Gloucester Point.
16.	U.p S. Atomic Energy Commission, Directorate of Licensing. 1974. Surry
Power Station Units 3 and 4, Virginia Electric and Power Company,
Docket Nos. 50-434 and 50-435. Final environmental statement related
to construction. Washington, DC.
17.	Virginia Academy of Science, James River Project Committee, comps. 1950.
The James River Basin; Past, Present and Future. Richmond.
18.	Virginia Electric and Power Company. 1973a. Surry Power Station Units
1 and 2, Six-month Operating Report No. 1, Mav 25, 1972 through Decem-
ber 31, 1972. Docket No. 50-280. Richmond.
19.	Virginia Electric and Power Company. 1973b. Surry Power Station
Units 1 and 2, Six-month Operating Report, January 1, 1973 through
June 30, 1973. Richmond.
20.	Virginia Electric and Power Company, Environmental Services Department.
1976. The Effects of Surrv Power Station Operations on Fishes of the
Oligohaline Zone, James River, Virginia. Richmond.
21.	Virginia Institute of Marine Science. 1973. James River Comprehensive
Water Quality Management Study (3c studv). Vol. 1. Summary. Vol. 2.
Biological Data. Vol 3. Chemical Data. Vol. 4. Physical Data.
Gloucester Point.
22.	Weiss, C. M. and F. G. Wilkes. 1974. "Estuarine Ecosystems that receive
Sewage Wastes." pp. 71-11. In: H. T. Odum et al., eds. Coastal Ecologi-
cal Svstems of the United States. Vol. 3. Conversation Foundation.
Washington, DC.
VI-22

-------
CHAPTER VII - THE MOVEMENT OF KEPONE IN THE JAMES RIVER
SUMMARY
Content
Chapter VII presents the results of the modeling efforts used to oredicr
the movement of Kepone in the James River. The chapter begins with a descrip-
tion of the field sampling program that provided data for calibrating the
model. In addition to measured Kepone levels, data include water quality
parameters, flow characteristics, and meteorological data. Next, the computer
model is briefly described. This is followed by the model output showing
predicted movement of Kepone past Burwell Bay under high, average, and low
flow conditions. An important aspect of this discussion is the verification
of the model using independent data provided by VIMS. Also presented are
results of the modeling effort aimed at assessing the efficacy of cleanup
efforts applied only to certain segments of the River.
Findings
•	Particulate Kepone concentrations up to 0.241 ug/g (ppm) Kepone were
found in the River proper. Suspended matter in Bailey Creek contained
up to 1.38 ug/g (ppm) Kepone.
•	Dissolved Kepone concentrations up to 0.045 yg/2, (ppb) were found in
the River proper. At most stations, dissolved Kepone was below the
detectable limit of 0.006 \igfl (ppb).
•	Only two mathematical models are currently available for calculating
the migration of contaminants by taking into account both dissolved and
particulate species and their interactions.
•	Mathematical simulation of Kepone transport under most probable flow
conditions yields an estimate of 89.1 kg/yr Kepone transported seaward
from Burwell Bay.
•	In the most probable scenario, Kepone transport is comprised of 75%
dissolved material and 25% associated with particulate material.
•	Calibration and verification activities reveal good agreement with all
available data.
•	Sensitivity analysis under the most probable flow conditions with
Kepone bed values twice as high and a 5-fold increase in partition
coefficient (5 x 10-<:> in place of 1 x 10~4) yield a prediction of
170 kg/yr transported seaward of Burwell Bay.
•	In the latter case, dissolved Kepone accounts for 92% of the total load.
•	Analysis of conditions likely to result from implementation of cleanup
in selected segments of the River suggests that little or no effect will
be noted in total Kepone discharge levels. Ambient Kepone concentrations
can be reduced in treated areas, however.
VII-1

-------
INTRODUCTION
The migration of Kepone in Che James River estuary was assessed by both
field sampling and mathematical modeling.
THE FIELD SAMPLING PROGRAM
Sorption-desorption kinetics and the affinity of Kepone for organic
particles suggest that sediments play a key role in the movement of Kepone
in the River. Sediment transport can be modeled to quantify that movement
and gain insight into the fate of Kepone residuals. Pursuant to this, a
field sampling program was conducted on June 25-28, 1977. The purpose of
this program was to obtain data on the James River for input to and calibra-
tion of Battelle's sediment and contaminant transport model (FETRA). The
overall objective of the modeling effort was to simulate the long-term move-
ment and distribution of Kepone in the 86-km (50-mi) stretch of the James
River between Burwell Bay and Hopewell, Virginia. The following describes
the sampling program required to calibrate the model, the results of the
sampling and analysis, the nature of the model employed, and the model
predictions.
The sampling program consisted of data acquisition at eight transects
between the James River Bridge and City Point at Hopewell. Three stations were
located on each transect and one to three depths were sampled per station for
each of three current conditions (flood, slack and ebb). The locations of
these stations are listed below and shown in Figure VII.1.
JR-1
James River Bridge
JR-2
Rocklanding Shoal
JR-3
Hog Island
JR-4
West of Swann Point
JR-7
Windmill Point
JR-8
Jordan Point
JR-9
Bailey Bay
JR-10
City Point
[JR-5 and JR-6 were designated for sampling during a complementary effort
conducted by personnel at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science.]
JR-1 through 4 were located in the saline portion of the estuary, and
JR-7 through 10 were located in the fresh-water portion. JR-8, 9, and 10
were located close together to give a concise view of Kepone near the source
area at Hopewell. All cross sections were tidally influenced. Sampling took
place during a 20-year low flow period. The dynamic nature of the model
takes this into account, however, and verification of output for high flows
with previous data on suspended sediments has demonstrated good correlation.
The sampling conducted in the field was directed to: meteorological and
hydrological information; channel and flow characteristics; physical and
chemical characteristics of suspended load and bed sediments; and water
quality characteristics. Kepone analyses were conducted on water, suspended
load and bottom sediment samples.
VII-2

-------
Willi aiusbury
JR-6
llopewel 1
JR-5
JK-3
.JR-1
Newport
• Hews ,v.
FIGURE Vtl.l. Location of Transects for .lames River Sampling

-------
Meteorological and HydroLogical Data
Meteorological and hydrological data included wind velocity and direc-
tion, and wave height, including period and direction at each station. Wind
velocities were measured using a Dwyer hand-held wind meter at cross sections
JR-1 through JR-4, and a MFG Climet model 025-9 wind velocity and direction
meter at JR-7 through JR-10. Wave height, direction, and period at each sta-
tion were estimated from visual observations.
Channel and Flow Characteristics
Channel and flow characteristics included a bathymetric profile of each
transect, tidal stage measurements, continuous current velocity/direction
measurements at the mid-channel station, and current velocity measurements at
each sampling depth at each station. Bathymetric profiles were taken at each
cross section using a Raytheon DE119 (JR-7 through 10) and DE719 (JR-1
through 4) continuous recording fathometers. Continuous current velocity/
direction measurements were recorded using two self-contained, moored Bendix
Q-9 Savonius rotor meters and IRC S-235 in situ recorders. Current measure-
ments at the stations were taken using two Hydroproducts model 650-S Savonius.
rotor current metering systems with analog readout modules. Tidal stage
measurements were taken by placing a graduated stake near one of the stations
on the cross section, and periodically recording the water level.
Water Quality Characteristics
Water quality parameters measured at each station and depth included
water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and conductivity. Temperature measure-
ments were taken with a Yellow Springs Model 51B in situ probe with an analog
readout module. Dissolved oxygen measurements were obtained using the modi-
fied Winkler titration method. The water samples for the Winkler titration
were obtained with 3-2. Van Dorn water samplers in series (three depths).
Conductivity and pH measurements were performed on-board with a 3eckman Model
RB3 conductivity bridge and Fisher pH meter.
Suspended and Bed Sediment Characteristics
Two types of suspended sediment data were obtained. A 1-1 water
sample was obtained from the Van Dorn water samples for each depth for labora-
tory analysis of suspended sediment load. A continuous 76-1 (20-gal) water
sample, using a water pump, was obtained at each station under each flow
condition at a depth of 1.5 m (5 ft) above the bed. These samples were stored
in 19-1 (5-gal) containers which were decanted and centrifuged at a later date
(2 weeks) and the solids and supernatant water were analyzed in the laboratory
for Kepone. Details of the analytical procedure employed can be found in the
previous sections on Hopewell studies. Total suspended solids were measured
using filtration on 0.45-micron Millipore® filters as prescribed in Standard
Methods.
VII-4

-------
One core sample was taken at each station for particle size analysis and
Kepone analysis. Where the water depth permitted, a push tube core sample was
taken using a 5.72-cm (2 1/4-in.) push tube sampler with a cellulose acetyl
butyrate liner. The sediment samples, while still in the liners, were removed
from the push tube barrel and stored for later Kepone analysis and particle size
distribution.
RESULTS
A summary of the data collected in the James River sampling program is
shown in Tables VII.1 through VII.9. The summary includes cross section and
station location, tidal phase and time, water depth of station and depth of
sample, current velocity, water temperature, conductivity, pH, dissolved
oxygen, suspended solids load, particulate Kepone (attached to suspended
sediment), and supernatant Kepone (dissolved). All supernatant Kepone values
were derived through petroleum ether:ethyl ether solvent extraction procedures
except for those from Bailey Creek which were extracted with a toluene:ethyl
acetate solvent. Figures VII.2 through VII.5 are the bathymetric profiles
of the eight transects showing the station locations and sampling depths.
Figures VII.6 and VII.7 are the vertical distribution of Kepone by sediment
size fraction (sand, silt, and clay) for cross sections JR-4, station 3
(West of Swann Point), and JR-9, station 1 (Bailey Bay). Table VII.10 is a
composite of Kepone concentration in the upper 12 in. of bed sediments at the
remaining cross sections and stations.
DISCUSSION
The James River sampling program was designed to provide information
for calibration of the FETRA sediment transport code. One of the major
objectives of the program was to observe the longitudinal, lateral, and verti-
cal variations in the measured parameters and to make a qualitative judgment
on the importance of the magnitude of these variations during the sampling
program. Thus, the field sampling program was confined to a relatively short
period of time and the number of cross sections and stations was limited.
The following discussion of measured parameters will be in terms of their
longitudinal, lateral and vertical variations along the 110 km (70-mi) stretch
of the tidal James River, and not necessarily in terms of time variations
other than those associated with tidal phase.
VII-5

-------
TABLE VII.1. RESULTS - JAMES RIVER SAMPLING PROGRAM JR-1 JAMES RIVER
BRIDGE June 25, 1977
Station Tidal Phase
1	5bb
'Ju35
oazo
Oepth,
ft
11.0
3.0
3.0
Current
Velocity,
ft/sec
1.69
1.35
Jater
"oto. ,
3r
Conductivi ty,
uinno	
1240
1250
aa_
7.3
7.3
Dissolved
Oxygen
ma/ L
5.0
5.0
Suspended
Solids,
W/l
•12.9
98.5
Suspended

-------
TABLE VII.2. RESULTS - JAMES RIVER SAMPLING PROGRAM JR-2 BURWELL BAY
JUNE 26, 1977
Station Tidal Phase
Time
Oepth,
ft
Current
Velocity,
ft/sec
Ma ter
Temp.,
°C
Conduct!vity,
umho
£H_
Dissolved
Oxygen
raj/l
Suspended
Solids.
m<)/2.
Suspended Supernal
Kepone, Kepone,
ug/g jq/l
1 Ebo

15.5







091b
3.0
1.50

1200
7.2
6.5
32.3


0910
12.0
o.sa

1210
7.2
6.0
78.7
<0.012 	
Slack

13.8







-
12
-------
TABLE VII.3. RESULTS - JAMES RIVER SAMPLING PROGRAM JR-3 HOG ISLAND
JUNE 27, 1977
Station Tidal Phase
1	Slack
Ebb
F1 ood
2	Slack
Ebb
flood
3	Slack
Ebb
Flood
Time
08«0
0U35
1120
ins
1610
1605
Depth,
ft
17.0
3.0
14.0
17.0
3.0
14.0
15.0
3.0
12.0
Current
Velocity.
1.32
1.23
1.54
1.39
1.35
1.47
Water
Temp..
•C
Conductivity,
umfto
1060
1090
1030
1050
1020
1040
2H_
.3
7.3
7.4
7.4
Dissolved
Oxygen
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.0
5.7
Suspended
Solids,
nw/1
62.2
87.1
76.2
64.3
36.6
62.8
Suspended
Kepone,
-nan	
<0.016
<0.040
<0.003
Supernatant
Keoone,
"<¦/*	

31.0







0935
3.0
0.90
1000
7.1
6.6
28.1


0930
15.0
0.71
1010
7.0
6.4
38.6


0925
28.0
29.0
0.33
1060
7.2
6.4
37.1
<0.088
0.020
1150
3.0
1.32
1010
7.4
7.0
24.8


1140
15.0
1.35
1010
7.4
7.2
22.9


1130
2S.0
29.0
1.25
1020
7.3
7.3
31.9


1645
3.0
0.56
990
7.6
7.5
11.6


1640
15.0
0.41
970
7.5
6.8
32.2


1635
26.0
0.24
980
7.5
6.8
28.9
<0.078
	

25.0







09S5
3.0
0.49
1000
7.3
6.9
18.3



12.0

1000
7:4
6.7
28.9


0950
22.0
22.0
0.56
1010
7.3
6.4
31.3
0.076
<0.055
1220
3.0
1.10
990
7.4
6.6
27.4



11.0

990
7.1
6.3
24.3


1215
19.0
22.0
1.13
1040
7.4
6.0
SI.2
<0.041

1715
3.0
0.52
950
7.5
7.5
15.9



11.0

960
7.5
7.1
20.3


1710
19.0
0.52
950
7.5
6.8
30.5
0.010
<0.054
VII-8

-------
TABLE VII.4.
RESULTS - JAMES RIVER SAMPLING PROGRAM JR-4 WEST OF
SWANN POINT JUNE 28, 1977
Station
1
Tidal Phase
Time
Oepth,
ft
Current
Velocity,
ft/sec
Water
Temp.,
°C
Conductivity,
umho
SiL
Dissolved
Oxygen
mq/t
Suspended
Sol ids,
mq/i.
Suspended
Kepone,
'^d/q
Supernati
Kepone
ua/f.
Flood

29.0








0/>5
3.0
0.37

630
7.4
6.5
19.5



0720
15.0
0.51

670
7.4
6.9
. 25.6



0715
26.0
0.86

740
7.4
6.9
23.7
0.098
	
Slack

31.0









1050
3.0
1.49

860
7.3
7.0
18.9



104b
15.0
1.40

860
7.3
6.5
30.2



1040
28.0
1.17

390
7.3
6.5
61.2
0.057
	
Ebb

25.0









1325
3.0
1.62

790
7.4
7.4
20.1



1320
13.0
1.35

830
7.4
6.7
21.a



1315
23.0
0.73

860
7.3
6.6
28.2
0.088
0.0C6
flood

13.0









0800
3.0
1.42

650
7.4
6.5
22.9



0755
10.0
1.08

660
7.3
6.4
32.2
0.239
	
Slack

12.0









1110
3.0
0.73

860
7.3
5.7
19.1



1105
9.0
0.59

850
7.3
6.5
33.3
0.068
••0.006
Eob

12.0









1340
3.0
1.69

770
7.3
7.1
21.3



1335
9.0
1.15

790
7.3
6.9
24.2
0.175
¦0.006
r lood

14.0









OS 3 5
3. J
1.25

670
7.3
6.7
32.9



0830
11.0
1.25

720
7.3
5.7
54.4
0.107
• 0.006
SldCK

12.0









1210
3.0
0.70

790
7.4
7.6
13.6



1205
9.0
0.44

810
7.4
6.6
21.6
0.148
	
Ebb

11.0









UOb
3.0
1.59

690
7.4
7.9
16.5



UOO
8.0
1.30

700
7.4
7.1
32.1
0.060
0.006
VII-9

-------
TABLE VII.5.
RESULTS - JAMES RIVER SAMPLING PROGRAM JR-7 WINDMILL
POINT JUNE 28, 1977
Station
1
Depth,
Current
Velocity,
Miter
Temp..
Conductivity,
Dissolved
Oxygen
Suspended
Solids,
Suspended
Kepone.
Supernatant
Kepone,
Tidal Phase Time
ft
ft/sec
'C
-mho
E2_ .
mq/e
mq/l
u
-------
TABLE VII.6. RESULTS - JAMES RIVER SAMPLING PROGRAM JR-8 JORDAN POINT
JUNE 27, 1977
Current Water	Dissolved Suspended Suspended Supernatant
Depth, Velocity, Temp., Conductivity,	Oxygen Solids, Kepone. Kepone,
Station Tidal Phase Time ft ft/sec °C	^mho	pH moH mq/t	uq/q	uq/t
Flooa

14.0








0830
2.0
1.35
27.5
340
7.0
0.3
37.3



6.0
1.44
28.5
340
7.0
0.3
35.5



10.0
1.52
28.5
320
7.1
0.5
53.6
	 -0.006
Slack

11.0








1200
2.5
0.25
29.0
310
7.2
1.1
24.4



5.0
0.08
29.0
290
7.3
2.3
	



8.0
0.17
29.0
300
7.4
2.3
36.7
	 	
Ebb

9.0








1525
3.0
1.52
30.3
280
6.9
4.3
70.7



4.5
1.44
30.0
270
6.9
4.7
73.3



6.0
1.44
30.0
260
6.9
5.0
70.1
0.020 	
Flood

26.0








0905
3.0
1.35
27.5
255
7.1
3.6
27.3



13.0
1.35
28.0
255
7.1
3.6
27.8



23.0
1.32
28.0
258
7.3
3.6
23.0
0.154
SldC'<

28.0








1222
3.0
0.68
28.0
260
7.4
3.7
19.0



14.0
0.59
29.0
245
7.0
3.5
25.2



24.0
0.68
28.5
240
7.0
3.3
24.9
0.114
Ebb

29.0








J =53
3.0
1.01
29.0
260
7.1
7.4
27.0



14.5
1.61
28.0
060
7.1
4.7
29.1



26.0
1.52
28.5
260
7.2
3.0
58.5
0.120
Flood

5.0








0930
2.0
0.73
27.0
260
6.3
5.3
47.3
0.053
Slack

4.0








1240
2.0
0.25
31.5
230
7.1
6.4
	
	
iob

4.0








1615
2.0
0.42
31.0
240
3.2
9.2
32.0
	
VII-11

-------
TABLE VII.7. RESULTS - JAMES RIVER SAMPLING PROGRAM JR-9 BAILEY BAY
JUNE 26, 1977
Current	Mater	Dissolved	Suspended	Suspended	Supernatant
Depth, Velocity,	Temp.,	Conductivity, Oxygen	Solids,	Kepone.	Kepone,
Stacion Tidal Phase Time ft ft/sec	°C -fflno	 pH mf/i	ma/1	-,a/q	ua!i.
1	Flood	3.0
0740 1.5 0.34	26.0	260 7.0 4.3	57.5	0.117		
Slack	3.0

1134
1.5
0.34
29.0
190
7.3
4.3
18.9
0.124
	
Eob

3.0









U06
1.5
0.59
29.0
260
7.4
5.1
29.3
0.074
0.016
Flood

27.0









0655
3.0
0.17
24.0
235
7.1
5.3
23.3




14.0
0.08
24.0
235
7.1
5.3
21.3




25.0
0.25
24.0
240
6.3
5.2
25.6
0.021
	
Slack

23.0









105a
3.0
1.10
27.0
230
7.4
3.5
22.1




11.0
0.35
27.0
230
7.4
3.9
23.9




22.0
0.68
27.0
230
7.4
3.0
27.8
0.029

Eob

27.0









1348
3.0
2.20
29.0
265
7.1
3.2
22.1




11.0
2.11
27.5
260
7.2
3.5
25.3




22.0
1.69
23.0
260
7.3
4.2
35.1
<0.081
	
Fiooc

3.0









0804
1.3
0.63
27.0
240
7.3
o.O
46.5
0.075

Slack

3.0









1155
1.5
0.68
30.0
230
7.6
7.6
40.2
C. 078
	
Ebb

3.0









1420
1.5
0.35
29.0
225
7.3
3.5
33.4
<0.392

VII-L2

-------
TABLE VII.8. RESULTS - JAMES RIVER SAMPLING PROGRAM JR-10 CITY POINT
JUNE 25, 1977
Current Water	Oissolved Suspended Suspended Supernatant
Depth, Velocity, Temp., Conductivity,	Oxygen Solids, Kepone, Kepone,
Tidal Phase
Time
ft
ft/sec

jmno

ma/1
mq/i
jq/q
-0/1
Flood

42.0



.





0616
3.0
1.52
22.0
225
3.4
5.7
30.9




20.0
1.27
22.5
225
8.3
5.3
26.0




38.0
1.10
22.0
230
3.2
5.9
34.9
0.028
	
Slack

42.0









0934
3.0
1.18
28.0
260
3.2
3.4
23.0




20.0
1.12
27.0
250
8.1
3.3
29.1




37.0
0.91
27.0
260
7.9
3.4
26.6
0.134
	
Ebb

42.0









1230
3.0
1.35
25.5
240
7.7
5.0
28.9




20.0
1.61
26.0
240
7.7
3.4
19.9




37.0
1.18
26.3
260
7.7
3.5
39.4
0.019
	
Flood

4.5









070!)
2.5
0.14
23.5
230
3.6
3.5
45.6
0.058
	
Slack

5.0









1018
3.0
0.14
28.2
235
7.3
6.5
32.5
<0.018
	
Ebo

4.0









1305
2.0
1.18
	
230
7.7
5.6
47.8
0.044
	
Flood

6.0









0730
3.0
	
23.5
235
9.0
5.9
40.0
0.063
	
Slacv

6.0









1030
3.0
	
30.0
240
7.7
6.3
20.3
0.069
	
Ebo

6.0









1335
3.0
	
	
230
7.6
5.9
23.5
0.094
0.042
VII-13

-------
TABLE VII.9. RESULTS - JAMES RIVER SAMPLING PROGRAM BAILEY CREEK
JUNE 27, 1977



Current
Water


Oissolved
Suspended
Suspended
Supernatant


Oeptii,
Velocity,
Temp..
Conductivity,

Oxygen
Solids,

-------
Bathymetry
The tidal James River averages about 6.29 km (4 mi) wide in the more
saline portion and 1.6 km (1 mi) or less in the upper fresh-water tidal portion.
As can be seen in Figures VII.2 through VII.5 not only do the widths vary
substantially along the 110 km (70 mi) reach, but the lateral depth variations
are also large. In the lateral dimensions, the River can be divided into
the main flow channel 6.1 m (20 ft) or greater in depth, channel margins
3 to 6 m (10 to 20 ft) in depth and subtidal flats less than 3 m (less than
10 ft) in depth. In the lower or saline portion of the tidal James River
the subtidal flats encompass up to 90% of the bottom surface area. In the
upper or nonsaline portion of the tidal James River, the subtidal flats seldom
account for over 50% of the bottom surface area.
Flow Characteristics
Flow characteristics in the tidal James River are primarily a function
of tidal currents, fresh-water discharge and wind-generated currents. During
the June 25-28 sampling program the fresh-water discharge was very low and the
wind velocity seldom exceeded 5 knots.. Iherefore, during this time period
tidal generated currents were the principal currents.
Mid-channel current velocities differed only slightly from transect to
transect, varying up to slightly over 1 knot at maximum flood and ebb flow.
The largest variations occurred in the lateral and vertical dimensions.
Generally, current velocities decreased with depth and were greatest in the
deep water flow channel, decreasing towards the tidal flats. Figures VII.8
through VII.15 are comparisons of the predicted currents, continuous current
records and depth-averaged instantaneous current velocity measurements.
During the sampling program on June 25-28, the flood currents were generally of
greater magnitude and of longer duration than the predicted current, whereas
the ebb currents were of lesser magnitude and of shorter duration than the
predicted current. This deviation from the predicted current is more than
likely due to the extremely low fresh-water discharge during the sampling
program.
Temperature
The water temperature during the June 25-28 sampling program ranged
from 26.8 to 32°C. Water temperatures in Bailey Creek generally exceeded
those in the James, ranging from 32 to 35.5°C. Water temperatures closely
followed the daily temperature pattern with the lowest temperatures in the
morning and the highest in the late afternoon. Slight vertical gradients
of approximately 1°C were observed in the deeper areas. The shallow subtidal
flats tended to have a greater range in water temperatures than did the
deeper areas of the river.
VII-15

-------
SOUTH	STATION 1	STAT!ON 2 STATION 3 NORTH
BANK
BANK
320
L-i-i
OQ
fE 30
Q_
LxJ
Q
JR-1 JAMES RIVER BRIDGE
12000
14000
2000
6000
8000
10000
0
4000
16000
DISTANCE (FEET)
<3
M
H
I
H-*
E SOUTH STATION 1 STATION 2	STATION 3	NORTH
£ BAN
BANK
o
JR-2 ROCKLANDING SHOAL
Q-
Q
4000
8000
0
24000
12000
16000
20000
DISTANCE (FEET)
FIGURE VL1.2. Bathymetry at JR-1 and JR-2

-------
SOUTH STATION 1
BANK
STATION 2
STATION 3
NORTH
BANK
5
15
JR-3HOG ISLAND
35
0
1000
2000
4000
3000
5000
6000
7000
8000
DISTANCE (FEET)
t:
ttf
CD
m
h—
Q-
UJ
Q
SOUTH
STATION 1
STATION 2
STATION 3
NORTH
BANK


BA
0
~\



10

—i

' /
20
— \
/ JR-4 WEST OF SWANN POINT
30
i 1 i
. I.I.I
i 1
0
2000 4000 6000 8000
DISTANCE (FEET)
10000
12000
FIGURE VII.3. Bathymetry at JR-3 and JR-4

-------
I
00
i bans' ™nm 1
0
STATI ON 2
CQ
~C
I—
Q_
UJ
Q
STATION 3
i-
NORTH
BANK
JR-7 WINDMILL POINT
1000
2000 3000 4000
DISTANCE (FEET)
5000
SOUTH STATION 1 STATI ON 2
K
ti
T
£


10



20
O

LU
CQ
30


Q_
LU
O
40
NORTH
BANK
STATION 3
JR-8 JORDON POINT
j	I	i	I	L
0
1000 2000 3000
DISTANCE (FEET)
4000
5000
FIGURE VII.A. Bathymetry at JR-7 and .)R-8

-------
p SOUTH
y BANK
STATION 3
NORTH
BANK
STATION 2
STATION 1
	i
S
o
	i
LU
JR-9 BAILEY BAY
Q_
LU
Q
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
7000 8000 9000
DISTANCE (FEET)
<
STAT ON 1 STATION 2
STATION 3
SOUTH BANK
NORTH BANK
o

JR-10CITY POINT
Q_
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
DISTANCE (FEET)
FIGURE VII.5. Bathymetry at JR-9 and JR-10

-------
I
K>
O
o
<
u.
cm
ZD
to
o
UJ
CO
CO
LT)
UJ
oc
o
0-3
3-6
6-9
± 9-12
02	0.3
KEPONE CONCENTRATION i*j/g(ppm)
PlCURIi VII.6. Depth Distribution of Ketone by Sediment Size Fraction - JR-9 Bailey Bay

-------
I
ro
O
<
to
o
L&J
CO
CO
to
LxJ
m
o
0-3
3-6
6-9
£: 9-12
KEPONE CONCENTRATION pg/g (ppm)
1'iGUKii VII. 7. Depth Distribution o£ Kepone by Sediment Size Fraction - JR-4 West of Swann Point

-------
2.0
§ 10
o
0
0	cq i n
£ 2.0
LU
Cki
01
r3
o
•••
••<-r • u
1000
2200
25 JUNE
o
A
Q
PREDICTED CURRENT
STATION 1 - SOUTH BANK
STATION 2 - MID CHANNEL
STATION 3-NORTH BANK
CONTINUOUS CI
DEPTH AVERAGED
FIGURE VII.8. JR-1 James River Bridge

-------
2.0
o
o
31.0
o
z
0
—
—


rMn 1
-X ....
III 1 jT\ | 1 1 |\/A(1 1 1 1 1
.•tt •* D
°/
/ /
1 rwl vTI 1
"Sl.O
O LU
£
2.0
az
rj
o
.JtlA
_	1200 -.
26 JUNE
1600
— PREDICTED CURRENT
o STATION 1-SOUTH BANK
a STATION 2-MID-CHANNEL
~ STATION 3-NORTH BANK
* CONTINUOUS CURRENT RECORDER
DEPTH AVERAGED
F1CURE VII.9. JR-2 Rocklanding Shoal

-------
2.0
<
M
M
I
hJ
4>
O
O
O
Cu
g
>-®°
f- CO
~ LU
o
o
__J
£
Iz
g
az
ra
o
1.0
0
1.0
2.0
0200
1000
27 JUNE	o
— PRED1C110 CURRENT
o STATION 1-SOUTH BANK
a STATION2-MID-CHANNEL
~ STATION 3-NORTH BANK
CONTINUOUS CURRENT RECORDER - INOPERABLE
22*00 '
DEPTH AVERAGED
FIGURE VII.10. JR-3 Hog Island

-------
2.0
§1.0
0
i—i—i—i b i—i—r
1000 N. 1400
28 JUNE	^
i—r
i r
1800,
1.0
OQ
m
l-U
2.0
— PREDICTED CURRENT \
o STATION 1, SOUTH BANK > DEPTH AVERAGED
a STATION 2, MID-CHANNEL)
o STATION 3, NORTH BANK
CONTINUOUS CURRENT RECORDER - INOPERABLE
FIGURE VII.11 JR-4 West of Swann Point

-------
2.0
° 1.0
o
of
1.0
OQ
CO
2(lo0 ' 1 2400
27 JUNE
28 JUNE
2.0
—	PREDICTED CURRENT 	
o	STATION 1, SOUTH BANK
a	STATION 2, MID-CHANNEL
o	STATION 3, NORTH BANK
•	CONTINUOUS CURRENT RECORDER
DEPTH AVERAGED
I'KJUKE V11.12. JR-7 Windmill Point

-------
_ o
m Q
o ^
z
o
o
id co
> CO
2.0
° 1.0
0
1.0
2.0

Ul
C£
rt:
:=>
o
o
A
a
PREDICTED CURRENT
STATION 1. SOUTH BANK
STATION 2, MID-CHANNEL
STATION 3. NORTH BANK
CONTINUOUS CURRENT RECORDER
DEPTH AVERAGED
FIGURE VII.13. JR-8 Jordan Point

-------
2.0
§1.0
0
«o">
CO
U4
2.0
2000
25 JUNE
- 1600. *•
—	PREDICTED CURRENT		
o	STATION 1, SOUTH BANK
a	STATION 2, MID-CHANNEL PEPTH AVERAGED
o	STATION 3. NORTH BANK
~	CONTINUOUS CURRENT RECORDER
FIGURE VII.14. JR-9 Bailey Bay

-------
2.0
to
I—
o
>-
h-
o
o
_J
Dd.
:=>
o
§1.0
re!
QQ
CO
0
1.0
2.0
0600
25 JUNE
24 JUNE
—	PREDICTED CURRENT
o	STATION 1, SOUTH BANK "I DEpT|^ AVERAGED
a	STATION 2, MID-CHANNEL J
a	STATION 3, NORTH BANK - NO DATA
•	CONTINUOUS CURRENT RECORDER
FIGURE VII.15 JR-10 City Point

-------
Conductivity
The largest variation of conductivity occurred in the longitudinal direc-
tion, varying from a maximum of 1260 umhos at the James River Bridge co
a minimum of 225 ymhos at City Point. As shown in Figure VII.16, the
conductivity decreased gradually between these two locations. All cross-
sectional averages shown in Figures VII.16 through VII.28 are obtained by
averaging values measured at three transverse locations across the channel
with equal weight. No large conductivity gradients were observed during the
sampling program, either in the longitudinal or vertical directions. This
absence of a large gradient in either of these two directions indicates the
lack of a null zone (area where fresh and saline waters intermix) and is due
to the very low fresh-water discharge during the June 25-28 sampling program.
The average fresh-water discharge of the James River at Carterville, Virginia
is 200,000 I/sec (7,000 ft^/sec). On June 25-28 the average discharge was
51,000 I /sec (1,800 ft-fysec).
Figure VII.17 shows the variations of conductivity between the near sur-
face, mid-depth, and near-bottom waters in the main flow channel during flood
tide. Vertical variations in conductivity during the sampling program were
slight. The largest variation occurred at JR-4, west of Swann Point, where the
conductivity increased from 630 ymhos at the surface to 740 ymhos at the
bottom.
Lateral variations in conductivity between the south bank, mid-channel,
and north bank during flood are shown in Figure VTI.18. The lateral variations
of conductivity were also slight. The largest variations in the cross-channel
conductivity distribution occurred at JR-3, Hog Island and JR-9, Jordan Point.
At Hog Island the conductivity varied from 1030 ymhos on the south side,
to 980 umhos in mid-channel, and 950 ymhos on the north side. This cross-
channel variation can be attributed to the presence of a flood-flow channel
on the south side of the water way and an ebb-flow channel on the north
side. At Jordan Point the conductivity varied from 330 ymhos on the south
side of the channel to 260 ymhos on mid-channel and on the north side of
the channel. The higher value on the south side is probably due to industrial
discharges from Bailey Creek with conductivities as high as 1500 ymhos.
£H
The greatest variations of pH in the James River water during the
June 25-28 sampling program occurred in the longitudinal direction, where
it decreased in the upstream direction until the vicinity of Hopewell where the
pH increased dramatically. Figure VII.19 illustrates the upstream changes
during flood, ebb, and slack flows. During flood the depth-averaged pH at
JR-1, James River Bridge was 7.7 and decreased to 7.0 at JR-7, Windmill Point.
The pH then increased slightly to 7.1 at Jordan Point and Bailey Bay. At City
Point the pH increased dramatically co 8.5.
Figure VII.20 which is the vertical variation of oH in the main flow
channel during flood, indicates very little variation with depth. The greatest
variations occurred at JR-8, 9, and 10 where the pH of the near bottom water
was two units greater than the near surface water.
VII-30

-------
1500
oo
O
O
oc
o
>
o
o
1000
500
0
DEPTH AND CROSS-SECTION AVERAGED
	 FLOOD
SLACK
JR-1 JR-2 JR-3 JR-4
J	U	I	I	
T
10
20
50
JR-7 JR-8910
J	LLL
30 40
Distance from Mouth (Nautical Miles)
FIGURE VII.16. Average Conductivity as a Function of Tidal Stage
60
1500
CO
O
g 1000
>-
I 500
t-
o
o
0
o
o
NEAR SURFACE
	MID-DEPTH
NEAR BOTTOM
JR-1 JR-2 JR-3 JR-4
JR-7 JR-8910
10
20
30
T"
40
50
60
Distance from Mouth (Nautical Miles)
FIGURE VII.17. Average Conductivity as a Function of Depth
VII-31

-------
1500
to
O
DEPTH AVERAGED
—	STATION 1 (SOUTH BANK)"^
—	STATION 2 (MID-CHANNEL)
—	STATION 3 (NORTH BANK)
JR-1 JR-2 JR-3 JR-4
10 20	30	40	50	60
Distance from Mouth (Nautical Miles)
FIGURE VII.18. Lateral Variation of Average Conductivity
9.0
8.0
CL
7.0
6.0
0	10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance from Mouth (Nautical Miles)
FIGURE VII.19. Longitudinal Variation of pH
DEPTH AND CROSS-SECTION AVERAGED
FLOOD
EB8
SLACK
JR-1 JR-2 JR-3 JR-4	JR-7 JR-3910
I	i	1	t	J	' i i
ii	I	i	i	i
VII-32

-------
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
NEAR SURFACE
MID-OEPTH
NEAR BOTTOM
JR-1 JR-2
_L
JR-3 JR-4
JR-7 JR-89I0
•	mi
10
20
T
r
60
30	40 50
Distance from Mouth (Nautical Miles)
FIGURE VII.20. Vertical Variation of pH in Main Flow Channel During Flood
The lateral variations of pH, as shown in Figure VII.21, were of a
greater magnitude than the vertical variations. At JR-10, City Point during
flood the depth-averaged pH varied from 8.3 on the south side of the waterway
to 9.0 on the north side.
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
JR-1 JR-2
i	i
T
10
DEPTH-AVERAGED
— SOUTH BANK
	MID-CHANNEL
	NORTH BANK^
20
JR-3 JR-4
	!__
i	r
30 4G
4 _
JR-7 JR-8910
i	111
50
60
Distance from Mouth (Nautical Miles)
FIGURE VII.21. Lateral Variation of pH During Flood
VII-33

-------
The highest pH during the June 25-28 sampling program was observed at the
mouth of Bailey Creek during ebb with a measurement of 11.0. The high pH
values found at JR-8, 9, and 10 probably can be attributed to the high pH
of industrial discharges into 3ailey Creek and Bailey Bay.
Dissolved Oxygen
During the June 25-28 sampling program dissolved oxygen (DO) ranged from
a value of 0 mg/Z (ppm) in Bailey Creek to 9.2 mg/£ (ppm) in the north side of
the channel opposite Jordan Point. Dissolved oxygen levels remained unchanged
or increased slightly in the upstream direction from James River Bridge (JR-1)
to west of Swann Point (JR-4) where the average concentrations were between
6 mg/Z (ppm) and 7 mg/Z (ppm) (Figure VII.22). From JR-4 to Jordan Point (JR-8)
dissolved oxygen levels decreased dramatically during flood and slack waters
to concentrations between 2 mg/Z and 3 mg/Z (ppm). Dissolved oxygen levels
increased to concentrations of 4 mg/2. to 6 mg/Z (ppm) between Jordan Point and
City Point. The tidal phase variations of dissolved oxygen were small in the
lower tidal James River but were large in the upper portion, varying from
2.5 mg/2, (ppm) during flood stage to 5.5 mg/Z (ppm) during ebb stage at Jordan
Point.
Generally, dissolved oxygen decreases with the depth as shown in Fig-
ure VII.23; however, in the upper, reaches of the River the depth variation
was slight. Between James River Bridge and Hog Island, dissolved oxygen
levels varied by approximately 1 mg/2. (ppm) between the near surface and near
bottom waters in the main flow channel during flood.
8.0
W 6.0
o
>-
X
o
4.0
o
LU
>
o


-------
8.0
CT
£
6.0
o
>-
§
§ 4.0
o
<~)
c/i
2.0
NEAR SURFACE
	 MID-DEPTH
	NEAR BOTTOM
JR-2
JR-3
I
10
20
r
30
JR-4
i
JR-7 JR-8910
—r
60
40	50
Distance from Mouth (Nautical Miles)
FIGURE VII.23. Variation in Dissolved Oxygen with Depth
The lateral variation of dissolved oxygen, shown in Figure VII.24 was
quite erratic. The largest cross-channel variations occurred at City Point
where the influence of Bailey Creek appears to be quite large along the south
bank. Here the depth-averaged, cross-channel dissolved oxygen levels during
flow stage varied from 0.3 mg/£ (ppm) on the Bailey Creek side of the channel
(south bank) to 6 mg/2. (ppm) on the north bank.
~CT>
E
Z
LU
o
>-
X
o
o
DEPTH AVERAGED
	 SOUTH BANK
	MID-CHANNEL
	NORTH BANK
LU
| 2.0
a
JR-1 JR-2
JR-3
JR-4
JR-7 JR-8Y9 10
Distance from Mouth (Nautical Miles)
FIGURE VII.24. Lateral Variation in Dissolved Oxygen Content
VII-35

-------
Suspended Sediment
The suspended sediment load of the tidal James River during the June
25-28 sampling program was quite variable in the longitudinal, lateral, and
vertical dimensions. Suspended sediment loads were observed to be as high as
98.6 mg/i (ppm) and as low as 11.1 mg/l Cppm). Generally, as shown in Fig-
ure VII.25, high suspended solids levels were found in the lower portion of
the estuary between Newport News and Hog Island, and in the upper portion
around Hopewell. The levels were generally lower in the stretch of river
between Hog Island and Windmill Point.
60
3 50
cn
S
on 40
o
^ 30
on jyj
o
UJ
§ 20
LU
CL
£ 10
on
0
10	20	30	40	50	60
DISTANCE FROM MOUTH (NAUTICAL MILES)
FIGURE VII.25. Longitudinal Variation of Suspended Solids
Figure VII.26 shows the vertical variation of suspended solids in the
main flow channel during flood. The suspended solids levels were observed to
be lowest in the near surface waters and increase with depth.
The lateral distribution of suspended solids, shown in Figure VII.27, was
much more variable than either the longitudinal or vertical distribution. The
suspended solids levels in the main flow channel were generally lower than
along the subtidal flats on either side of the flow channel.
KeDone
Longitudinal variations of Kepone associated with suspended sediment
during the June 25-28 sampling program are shown in Figure VII.28. Kepone
levels were found to generally decrease in the downstream direction from
the source area near Hopewell. The highest Kepone levels were found in
Bailey Creek suspended sediment with levels exceeding 1.0 ug/g (ppm).
DEPTH & CROSS-SECTION AVERAGED N
	FLOOD
	EBB
	SLACK
JR.-1 JR.-2
JR.-3
JR.-4
JR.-7
VII-36

-------
	NEAR SURFACE
	MID-DEPTH
	NEAR BOTTOM
£ 30
JR-1 JR-2
JR-3
JR-4
JR.-7 JR-89,10
n	i	i	1	1	r-
10	20 30	40 50	60
DISTANCE FROM MOUTH (NAUTICAL MILES)
FIGURE VII.26. Vertical Variation of Suspended Solids in Main
Flow Channel During Flood
80
DEPTH AVERAGED
STATION 1(SOUTH BANK)
STATION 2 (MID-CHANNEL)
STATION 3 (NORTH BANK)
70
60
S 40
§ 30
LU
a.

-------
200
180
3 160
£ J140
Q Z
UJ LxJ 1 AA
nr ^ 120
m S 80
Q
O Z
&£ 60
^  VALUES ARE LESS THAN
INDICATED DUE TO INSTRU
MENT DETECTION LIMITS
11
jff'-l JF^-2 J^-3 Jfj-4
r
30
T~
40
~r
50
JR-7
JR 89 }0
10	20
DISTANCE FROM MOUTH (NAUTICAL MILES)
60
FIfjUKIi V11.28. Longitudinal Variation of Kepone Attached to Suspended Sediment

-------
The lowest levels were found at the furthest downstream sampling location at
the James River Bridge with levels less than 11 ng/g (ppb). The largest longi-
tudinal decrease in concentrations occurred between Hog Island and just west of
Swann Point. Large lateral variations in Kepone levels attached to the sus-
pended sediment were observed. These lateral variations are shown in Fig-
ure VII.29. The largest lateral variations occurred between Hog Island and
Jordan Point.
STATION 1(SOUTH BANK)
—STATION 2 (MID-CHANNEL)
— STATION 3 (NORTH BANK)
<•> VALUES ARE LESS THAN
INDICATED DUE TO
£ -g 120
INSTRUMENT DETECTION/
LIMITS
5 £100

60
SZ co
JR-7 JR-89
20	30	40	50
DISTANCE FROM MOUTH (NAUTICALMILES)
FIGURE VII.29. Lateral Variation of Kepone Attached to Suspended
Sediment During Flood
MATHEMATICAL SIMULATION OF TRANSPORT OF
SEDIMENT AND KEPONE IN THE JAMES RIVER ESTUARY
Kepone originally released into the James River estuarine system has
been dispersed by turbulent mixing, river inflow and tidal flow. Much of
the Kepone has been adsorbed by river sediments (both organic and inorganic
materials) which may create a significant pathway to man through the aquatic
biota. Adsorption by the suspended sediments and/or possible desorption from
them are important mechanisms affecting the migration of Kepone through the
James River estuarine system (EPA, 1976; Smith, 1976). This is seen by the
deposition and resuspension of contaminated sediments in the River.
VTI-39

-------
Several model concepts were evaluated for use in the Kepone project.
However, as revealed by a recent workshop on the evaluation of mathematical
models (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1978) there are only two computer
models presently available to calculate migration of contaminants by taking
into account the interaction between the contaminants and sediment (e.g.,
contaminant adsorption by sediment or desorption from sediment, deposition and
resuspension of contaminated sediment). The two are the FETRA and SERATRA
codes (Onishi et al., 1976; Onishi, 1977a, 1977b). Both models are time-
dependent, two-dimensional transport models which calculate the migration of
sediment and dissolved and particulate pollutants by including the interaction
between sediment and pollutants. The FETRA model solves longitudinal and
lateral distributions of these substances, while SERATRA predicts longitudinal
and vertical concentrations. Although the SERATRA code was judged to be a
verified model by participants of the mathematical model evaluation workshop
(Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1978), the FETRA code was selected for this
study, because of the importance of lateral distribution of Kepone as well as
the longitudinal distributions of Kepone in the River.
Hence, the mathematical simulation of Kepone migration in the tidal James
River was conducted by applying the finite element sediment and contaminant
transport model, FETRA (Onishi et al., 1976; and Onishi and Ecker, 1977), to
the River between Bailey and Burwell Bays. Both time-dependent, one-dimensional
(longitudinal) simulation and time-dependent, two-dimensional (longitudinal
and lateral) simulation were attempted. However, due to the time limitation,
only computer results obtained by one-dimensional transport simulation through
application of the FETRA code and the one-dimensional hydrodynamic model,
EXPLORE (Baca et al., 1973) are presented here. Model computations were
conducted to predict the migration of sediments and Kepone by taking into
account sediment-Kepone interactions in the James River.
Sediment transport was modeled for three sediment types (i.e., cohesive
and noncohesive sediments and organic matter). Simulation of Kepone transport
was Initiated for dissolved and particulate Kepone (attached to sediments).
Particulate Kepone was analyzed separately for that adsorbed by sediment in
each sediment type.
Mathematical Model Formulation of FETRA Code
The FETRA code consists of the following three submodels: (1) sediment
transport model, (2) dissolved contaminant transport model, and (3) particu-
late contaminant transport model. A brief description of these models is pre-
sented here and further detailed model formulations are described in Appen-
dix M.
Sediment Transport Model—
Transport of cohesive sediment (silt and clay), noncohesive sediment
(sand), and organic material (that being transported independently with
sand, silt and clay) are modeled separately since movements of sediments and
adsorption capacity vary significantly. The model includes the effects of:
VII-40

-------
1.	convection and dispersion of materials
2.	fall velocity and cohesiveness
3.	deposition on the river bed
4.	resuspension from the river bed (bed erosion and armoring)
5.	tributaries
Sediment mineralogy and water quality effects are implicity included through
the effects of 2, 3, and 4 above.
The governing equation of sediment transport is a general form of
convection-equation as shown by
3C
3
C. . I - 3hW, , L. Jj. 3^ 3C.
P \ h 3jy 3x^ \ h 3y/ 3yJ
s„ s
where
!_ L icV 3_L 3c\ 2l . A	(1)
3x y x^ 3-X.J 3y ^ y^ 3y) h h
C. = depth averaged concentration of sediment for jth type sedi-
ment
X V
j j tions, respectively for jth sediment caused by velocity
Dv , DTr =.dispersion coefficient for longitudinal and lateral direc-
tions, respect
nonuniformity
h 3 water depth
K = D + e D
X. X. X. ^ X.
3 j 3 J
K = D + t % D
y3 y3 yj yJ
time
U, V = depth averaged velocity in longitudinal and lateral direc-
tions, respectively
x, y, z = longitudinal, lateral, and vertical directions in Cartesian
coordinates, respectively
= sediment deposition rate per unit bed surface area for jth
j sediment type
VII-41

-------
SR	3 sediment erosion rate per unit bed surface area for jth
j sediment type
£x , £	=¦ turbulent diffusion coefficient for longitudinal and lateral
j directions, respectively for jth sediment
As stated above, detailed derivation of the above equation and its boundary
conditions are described in Appendix M.
Dissolved Contaminant Transport Model—
In this study, it was assumed that the association of dissolved con-
taminants (such as dissolved Kepone) with suspended sediments (both organic
and inorganic matter) is the primary mechanism of contaminant uptake. The
model includes effects of:
1.	convection and dispersion of contaminant within the River
2.	adsorption (uptake) of dissolved contaminant by sediments (cohesive
and noncohesive inorganic sediments and organic matter) or desorption
from the sediments into water
3.	chemical and biological decay of contaminant
4.	tributaries. (Contaminant contributions from wastewater discharges,
overland runoff flow, fallout and ground water to a river system may be
treated as a part of tributary contributions.)
Effects of water quality (e.g., pH, water temperature, salinity, etc.)
and sediment characteristics, such as clay minerals, are taken into account
through changes in the distribution (or partition) coefficient, K
-------
D , D = longitudinal and lateral dispersion coefficients of dissolved
xw ^w contaminant, respectively (these are practically the same as
D , D )
x. 7j
=» distribution (or partition) coefficient between dissolved
j contaminant and particulate contaminant associated with j th
sediment
K. = mass transfer rate of contaminant for jsediment
J
K ° nondimensional coefficient: equal unity if contaminant adsorp-
tion or desorption associated with jsediment occurs
(K^j = 1); equal zero if neither contaminant adsorption nor
desorption associated with jth sediment occurs (K
-------
Particulate Contaminant Transport Model—
The transport model of a contaminant (such as Kepone) attached to sedi-
ments are solved separately for those adsorbed by cohesive and noncohesive
sediments, and organic materials (those being transported independently with
the inorganic sediments). This model also includes the effects of:
1.	convection and dispersion of particulate contaminant'
2.	adsorption (uptake) of dissolved contaminant by sediments or desorption
from sediments into water
3.	chemical and biological decay of contaminant
4.	deposition of particulate contaminant on the river bed or resuspension
from the river bed
5.	tributaries. (contaminant contributions from wastewater discharges, over-
land runoff flow, fallout and ground water to a river system may be
treated as a part of the tributary contributions.)
The equation governing the transport of particulate contaminant is:
where
Gg = particulate contaminant concentration associated with sedi-
j ment in the river bed
The above three equations, together with boundary conditions are solved
by the finite element solution technique with the Galerkin weighted residual
method.
The FET3A code, consisting of the above three models, then computes the
following:
V11-44

-------
a)	Sediment simulation
for any given time,
•	longitudinal and lateral distributions of total sediment (sum of
suspended and bed load) concentration for each sediment type
•	three-dimensional (longitudinal, lateral and vertical) distribu-
tions of ratio of different sediment type in the river bed
•	change in river bed elevation (elevation changes due to sediment
deposition and/or scour)
b)	Contaminant simulation
for any given time,
•	longitudinal and lateral distributions of dissolved contaminant
concentration
•	longitudinal and lateral distributions of contaminant concentra-
tion adsorbed by sediment for each sediment type
•	longitudinal and lateral distribution of concentrations of total
particulate contaminants associated with all types of sediment
(sum of particulate contaminant concentration for each sediment
type)
•	three-dimensional distributions of contaminant concentrations in
the river bed sediment for each sediment type
•	three-dimensional distributions of total contaminant in the river
bed
Prior to the application of the FETRA code to the present James River
estuary study, the accuracy and convergence of the numerical solutions calculated
by the FETRA code were evaluated to confirm the validity of the basic computational
scheme of the model. This verification involved solving equations by the
FETRA code and comparing the resulting numerical solutions with known analytical
solutions to the problems. These results are also shown in Appendix M. Com-
parison of these results reveals an excellent agreement between the computed
and analytical solutions. These results confirm the validity of the basic
numerical scheme of the transport model, FETRA.
Computer Simulation Results
The FETRA code was employed in combination with hydrodynamic models to
calculate Kepone transport in the tidal James River.
As stated earlier, both one (longitudinal) and two (longitudinal and
lateral) dimensional simulations have been attempted. However, due to the
time availability, only the computer results obtained by one-dimensional
simulation will be presented in this report. The one-dimensional EXPLORE code
was used to obtain depth and velocity distributions in the study area. These
were in turn fed to the time-dependent, two-dimensional sediment and pollutant
VII-45

-------
transport code, FETRA, to obtain longitudinal distributions of sediment and
Kepone in che tidal James River. Hence, the results presented here are verti-
cally and laterally averaged values changing with tidal flow.
The modeling procedure for FETRA involved simulating the transport of
sediments (organic and inorganic materials) within the water body. The results
were then input to models of dissolved and particulate Kepone in order to
dbserve the interaction between sediment and Kepone. Finally, changes in
river bed conditions were recorded, including: (1) river bottom elevation
change, (2) ratio of cohesive sediment, noncohesive sediment and organic
material, and (3) distribution of Kepone in the river bed.
The model was applied to an 86-km reach between City Point (River Kilo-
meter 123) and Burwell Bay (River Kilometer 37), as shown in Figure VII.30.
Mathematical simulation was not extended seaward beyond Burwell Bay because of
limitations on the availability of field data necessary to run the hydro-
dynamic code, EXPLORE. Hence, as will be discussed later the prediction of
Kepone levels leaving the James River and entering Chesapeake Bay may be
somewhat conservative.
Three flow discharge cases were simulated here: (1) a net fresh-water
input discharge of 58.3 m^/sec (2,060 cfs), (2) a net fresh-water input dis-
charge of 247 m^/sec (8,700 cfs), and (3) a net fresh-water input discharge of
681 m^/sec (24,000 cfs) (all measured at City Point). The net fresh-water
input discharge of 58.3 m^/sec at City Point corresponds to that of approximately
the 10 percentile discharge (Virginia Department of Conservation and Economic
Development, 1970) (i.e., 10% of the time of the year the net fresh-water
input discharge is 58.3 m3/sec or less). The second discharge of 247 m^/sec
corresponds to the average annual discharge, and the third discharge of
681 m^/sec corresponds to approximately the 90 percentile discharge.
Test conditions for these three cases are shown in Table VII.11. The
river sediments consist of cohesive sediment (silt and clay), organic matter
and sand. Their particle sizes were assumed to be 0.030 mm, 0.100 mm and
0.150 mm, respectively. Longitudinal dispersion coefficients for all sediment
and dissolved Kepone, Dxj and D^, were assumed to be 14 m^/sec. While all
longitudinal diffusion coefficients, ex. and	were assumed to be 0.14 m^/sec.
Since there have not been any field or laboratory studies to estimate three
parameters, Mj, xc-^., and tqj. to estimate erosion and deposition rates, Sr.j
and SDj (see Equations 15 an(Pl6 in Appendix M), they were determined to fit
measured sediment concentrations for the case of the fresh-water discharge of
58.3 m^/sec.' The bed shear stresses at each location, for each time step,
were calculated by the FETRA code internally with a known velocity.
Since the new contribution of Kepone from tributaries to the James River
is presently very small as compared to the total amount of Kepone already in
the James River, and also the flow rate of the tributaries is insignificant as
compared to the James River tidal flow rate, it was assumed that no Kepone was
added into the James River through tributaries during the simulation period.
As discussed in Chapter IV, there is no significant chemical and biological
degradation, or volatilization. Therefore, the decay rate, was assumed to
be zero in this study.
VII-46

-------
C11V HI
CHICKAHOMINY RIVER
AI'POMAIIOX
RIVER
WIN0MI1I HI.
JORDAN Pi
WILLIAMSBURG
HOPEWELL] [BAIt I Y BAY tAR BAY
BAIltY CR
JAMTSIOWN I.
HOC PI
SWANN PI.
HOG i.
COBHAM
V BAY >
MULBERRY
I SI AND
JAMES RIVER
BURWIIL
BAY
NEWPORT
NEWS y
KILOMETERS
NANSEMOND
RIVER
FIGURE VII.30. Tidal James River

-------
TABLE VII.11. TEST CONDITIONS FOR KEPONE SIMULATION
Fresh-water Discharge (m-Vsec)
River Sediment Size (on)
Cohesive sediment
Organic matter
Sand
Longitudinal Dispersion Coefficients
for all Sediment and Kepone (m^/sec)
Longitudinal Diffusion Coefficients
for all Sediment and Kepone (m^/sec)
Kepone Becay Sate (1/hr)
Kepone Distribution Coefficients (cm^/g)
Associated with cohesive sediment
Associated with organic matter
Associated with sand
Kepone Mass Transfer Rate (1/hr)
Initial Bed Sediment Constituents (Z)
Cohesive sediment
Organic Matter
Sand
Boundary Conditions During Ebb Tide
Sediment Concentrations at City
Point (mg/Z)
Cohesive sediment
Organic matter
Sand
Kepone Concentrations at City Point
Dissolved (ug/i)
Particulate (ug/g) associated with
Cohesive sediment
Organic Matter
Sand
Boundary Conditions During Flood Tide
Sediment Concentrations at Burvell
Bay (ag/Z)
Cohesive sediment
Organic matter
Sand
Kepone Concentrations at Burvell Bay
Dissolved (ug/Z)
Particulate (ug/g) associaced with
Cohesive sediment
Organic matter
Sand
Case 1	Case 2	Case 3
58.3	247	681
0.030	0.030	0.030
0.100	0.100	0.100
0.150	0.150	0.150
14	14	14
0.14	0.14	0.14
0	0	0
10,000	10,000	10,000
20,000	20,000	20,000
1,000	1,000	1,000
111
80	30	80
15	15	15
5	5	5
24	32	52
4.5	6	9.8
1.5	2	3.2
0.007	0.007	0.007
0.045	0.045	0.045
0.090	0.090	0.090
0.0045	• 0.0045	0.0045
24	32	52
4.5	6	9.8
1.5	2
0.007	0.007	0.007
0.032	0.032	0.032
0.064	0.064	0.064
0.0032	0.0032	0.0032
VII-48

-------
As discussed in Chapter IV, the distribution coefficient of Kepone for
water and sediments was theoretically estimated to be 5.7 x 10^ -v 1.1 x
10^ cm^/g, if organic materials are not considered. Field and laboratory
data obtained by Battelle and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science
(Huggett et al., 1978) reveal that the value for the James River sediment
varies from approximately 2 x 103 to 2 x 10^ cm^/g with the exception of
Bailey Creek which has a Kd value of up to 3 x 105 cmVg. As shown in
Figure IV.2 of Chapter IV, Kd values depend strongly on sediment sizes and
organic matter, as well as some water quality parameters. Based on results
obtained by the theoretical analysis (also shown in Figure IV.2) and available
measured data obtained in the James River and in laboratories, Kd values for
cohesive sediment, organic matter and sand were selected to be 1 x 10^,
2 x 10^, and 1 x 103 cm^/g for the present mathematical simulation. Since
the ratio of cohesive sediment, organic material and sand among the James
River sediment was initially set to be 0.80, 0.15, and 0.05 for this study,
the Kd value for the composite James River sediment corresponds to 11,050 cm^/g.
The mass transfer rate for Kepone, K j , was assumed to be 1.0/hr for all
sediment types. Hence adsorption and/or Resorption mechanisms at a given
condition are assumed to be completed in 1 hr to reach equilibrium. Sediment
and Kepone concentrations used for boundary conditions are also listed in
Table VII.1. Note that most measured dissolved Kepone concentrations were
below the detection limit which is approximately 0.01 to MD.005 ug/H in water.
From the measured particulate Kepone concentration and the Kd value, the
expected dissolved Kepone concentration is somewhat below but roughly the same
order of magnitude of the detection limit. Thus, for this study, as a conser-
vative estimate, the dissolved Kepone concentrations assigned as boundary
conditions were set to be 0.007 yg/Jl , as shown in Table VII.11.
Since the field data collected by Battelle in June 1977 are those for
58.3 m^/sec, a major portion of the calibration and verification of the FETRA
code was conducted for this discharge. After the model was calibrated, the
other two discharge cases were tested without changing or readjusting the
FETRA code except for boundary conditions of sediment concentrations. In
order to take into account the effect of the tide, the computer simulation was
conducted for 31 days with a 30-min time step by simulating tidal motion. All
computer results for sediment and Kepone concentrations presented here were
obtained on the 31st day of the simulation.
Simulation of sediment and Kepone transport was conducted for each of the
following substances: (1) cohesive sediment (clay and silt), (2) organic
matter moving independent of cohesive sediment, (3) sand, (4) dissolved Kepone
(5) particulate Kepone attached to cohesive sediment, (6) particulate Kepone
associated with organic matter, and (7) particulate Kepone adsorbed on sand.
In this chapter only major results of Kepone simulation are described. A more
detailed discussion of computer results is presented in Appendix M. Discus-
sion of the simulation results are presented here as follows: (1) calibration
of the model, (2) verification of the model, (3) summary of computer simula-
tion results on Kepone transport, (4) sensitivity analysis, and (5) Kepone
cleanup activities.
VII-49

-------
Calibracion of the Model—
Calibration of a mathematical model is one of the most important aspects
of the simulation process. Calibration is- usually performed by "tuning" a
model to reproduce a known condition by adjusting some model parameters. As
shown in Table VII.11, in the present study most of the parameters (such as
Kepone distribution coefficients, the turbulent diffusion coefficient, sedi-
ment sizes, sediment fall velocity, etc.) were determined by theoretical and
experimental analyses and field conditions prior to the model simulation
rather than by adjustment to match computer results of field data. Hence, the
only parameters which can be changed to fit simulation results to the measured
data are a dispersion coefficient and three parameters which calculate deposi-
tion and erosion rates of sediment. Thus, the major calibration effort was
exercised to reproduce sediment distribution patterns similar to the actual
longitudinal distribution of sediment concentrations for the 86-km study reach
measured by Battelle during June 25-28, 1977.
As a result of numerous trial runs after adjusting the parameters, final
calibration computer results for the fresh-water discharge of 58.3 m-Vsec are
shown in Figures VII.31 through VII.33. These figures show computed longitudinal
variations of total sediment concentration (sum of cohesive sediment, organic
matter and sand being transported as suspended and bed loads) at maximum ebb,
stack tide and maximum flood, together with measured data obtained by Battelle
for the same fresh-water discharge. Comparison of the computer results with
the measured data indicate excellent agreement. Although it is possible to
improve the model prediction with more fine tuning, it was judged that the
model was calibrated successfully. Figure VII.34 shows longitudinal distributions
of tidal averaged sediment concentrations for each sediment component (cohesive
sediment, organic material and sand) and the total sediment, together with
total sediment concentration data obtained by Battelle and by Virginia Institute
of Marine Science (VIMS, 1977; Huggett et al., 1978). VIMS data were obtained
during August 24-29, 1977. The fresh-water discharge at City Point (River
Kilometer 123) during the VIMS sampling period varied from 52.6 cm^/sec to
32.5 cm^/sec with a 6-day average of 41.7 cm^/sec. Although this discharge is
slightly less than that which occurred during the Battelle sampling period
(58.3 m^/sec), they are close enough to use for comparison with the computer
simulation results. As shown in Figure VII.34, the agreement between the
computer and measured results is good. Since the VIMS data were not available
until the calibration process was completed, the good agreement of predicted
results to VIMS data provides verification of the model to some degree.
Verification of the Model—
The verification of the sediment transport part of the model was conducted
for Case 2 (fresh-water discharge of 247 m^/sec) without changing any of the
model parameters. Resulting computer simulation of sediment concentrations are
shown in Figures VII.35 and VII.36, together with field data. These figures
include sediment concentrations of each type of sediment (cohesive sediment,
organic materials or sand) and total sediment (sum of those sediment components).
VII-50

-------
• FIELD DATA (BATTELLE)
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGURE VII.31. Longitudinal Distributions o£ Total Sediment Concentration at the Maximum Ebb
Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 mVsec, together with Field Data

-------
120.
1119.
100.
o F 111 Li) DATA (BATTliLLK)
I l	I	I	I	I i i i I	1	I	I	I	I	I	I	L—1	I	I	I	I	I	I—I	I	I	I	I—I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I 1,1	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	L
30. <10. 50. 60. 70. 60. 90. 100. 110.	120. 130
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGURE VI£.32. Longitudinal Distributions of Total Sediment Concentration at the	Slack Tide
for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m^/sec, together with Field	Data

-------
120.
i
Ul
u>
110.
^ 100.
_i
\
CD 90.
:2:
o
or
CO
LU
CJ
~ZL
CD
O
LU
i—i
Q
LU
CO
80.
70.
60.
50.
40.
30.
20.
10.
0.
o FIELD DATA (BATTELLE)
-1	I	1	L.
-I	I	I	I	1	I	I	I	I	I	I	L_
J	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	1	I	I	L_
_J	I	I	I	I	I	1	I	I	1	1	L
30. 10. 50. 60. 70. 80. 90.
RIVER KILOMETERS
100.
110.
120.
130.
FIGURE VII.33. Longitudinal Distributions of Total Sediment Concentration at the Maximum
Flood Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m^/sec, together with
Field Data

-------
CD
O
a=
ar
LxJ
(_)
Z
O
LJ
120.
11(9.
100.
90.
80.
70.
60.
	 TOTAL SEDIMENT
	 COHESIVE SEDIMENT
	 ORGANIC MATTER
— SAND
• FIELD DATA FOR TOTAL
SEDIMENT (BATTELLE)
O FIELD DATA
(IIUGGET, 1978)
I
m
CO
a
LU
CD
az
DC
UJ
>
az
cn
Q
50.

-------
I
Ln
Ln
CD
O
cn
oc
o
2:
o
(_)
a
LU
CO
120.
11(9.
100.
90.
80.
70.
60.
50.
40.
30.
20.
10.
0.
	TOTAL SEDIMENT
	 COHESIVE SEDIMENT
	 ORGANIC MATTER
•	— SAND
•	FIELD DATA FOR TOTAL
SEDIMENTS (Nichols,
1972)
-I	1	u
30.
j	1	1 -r 1	1	1	i_
60. 70. 80. 90. 100.
RIVER KILOMETERS
130.
FIGURE VII.35. Longitudinal Distribution of Sediment Concentration of Each Sediment Type
at Slack Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 247 m^/sec

-------
<
M
M
I
Ln
CT>
120.
^ 110. _
CD
O
cn
CO
o
2:
o
cn
LU
cn
o
UJ
CD
az
ac
cc
cn
a
100.
90.
80. _
70. _
60.
50.
<10.
30.
20.
10. L
0.
O
	TOTAL SEDIMENT
	 COHESIVE SEDIMENT
	•'ORGANIC MATTER
— • — SAND
O FIELD DATA FOR
TOTAL SEDIMENTS
(Nichols, 1972)
• FIELD DATA FOR
TOTAL SEDIMENTS
(Nichols, 1966)
. 1 1 1 1 1 1 Tr-i i 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 ij i i+TT mTm i 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 j^i-*-r4rf 11 ¦ 1 1 1 .
30. 40. 50. 60. 70. 80. 90. 100.
RIVER KILOMETERS
110.
120.
130.
FIGURE VII.36. Tidal Averaged Sediment Concentration of Each Sediment Type for the Fresh-
water Discharge of 247 m^/sec

-------
Measured total sediment concentrations in these figures were obtained by
Nichols (1972) in March 1965 and March 1960. Field data in 1966 were provided
by Nichols through personnel communication. Field data in 1965 were those
associated with a fresh-water input discharge of 250- m^/sec, while 1966 data
were obtained in 2 days when the fresh-water input discharge changed from
257 m^/sec to 144 m^/sec with the 2-day average discharge of 201 m-Vsec. The
present simulation was conducted for the discharge of 247 m3/sec in this case.
Comparison of these field data with computer results at slack tide and tidal
average cases (Figures VII.35 and VII.36) indicate excellent agreement among
these values. Since the present model was calibrated for the discharge of
58.3 m^/sec and the model was not readjusted for the 247 m^/sec case, this
excellent agreement with measured data for the latter case provides solid
verification of the model.
Verification of the Kepone transport part of the model was conducted by
comparing computer results to measured data obtained by Battelle and VIMS for
Case 1 (fresh-water discharge of 58.3 m^/sec). Again Battelle's data were
obtained during June 25-28, 1977 and VIMS data were collected during
August 24-29, 1977. Since there were no parameters adjustable to fix the
computer results to those field data, comparison between them was regarded to
be model verification. Figures VII.37 through VII.39 present predicted par-
ticulate Kepone concentrations associated with each type of sediment and
average particulate Kepone (weighted average of three particulate Kepone
values associated with the three sediment types) per unit weight of sediment,
together with cross-sectionallv averaged field data of average particulate
Kepone concentrations obtained by Battelle, for maximum ebb, slack and maximum
flood tides, respectively.
Figures VII.40 and VII.41 present predicted tidal averaged particulate
Kepone concentrations per unit weight of sediment, and those per unit volume
of water, respectively, together with measured average particulate Kepone
concentrations obtained by Battelle and VIMS. As noted above, Battelle's data
in these figures are cross-sectionally averaged values. However, VIMS data
are those measured in a main navigation channel of the River. Except for the
maximum flood tide case (Figure VII.39), the agreement between the computer
results and the field data are good. For example, Figure VII.41 reveals
excellent agreement except one measured point at River Kilometer 111. The
discrepancy between the predicted and measured value at River Kilometer 111
may be explained as follows: in the upper most part of the River, suspended
and dissolved Kepone distribution across the River is much less uniform, as
compared to distributions in the lower part because of the short distance from
the original Kepone discharge source (Bailey Creek). Hence, VIMS measured
data obtained in a main channel of the River at River Kilometer 111 are
expected to be higher than a cross-sectional average there. However, in the
lower part of the River, the measured data in the main channel may be much
closer to the cross-sectional average. This trend may be reflected in Fig-
ure VII.41, when the computed and measured values are compared. From the
comparisons shown in Figures VII.37 through VII.41, it is judged that the
particulate Kepone transport part of the model has been verified with suf-
ficient field data.
VII-57

-------
.20
i
Ul
00
C£>
C9
a.
2:
o
az
oc
0
o
CJ
CD
Q_
LU
LU
I—
ai
_j
—>
LJ
nc
cr
.18
. 16
. 14
. 12
.10
.06
.06
.0'!
.02
0.00
/
A
AVERACE PARTICULATE KEPONE
PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH
COHESIVE SEDIMENT
PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH
ORCANIC MATTER
PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH
SAND
FIELD DATA (BATTELLE)
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111¦111111111.11 		
30.
40.
50.
60.
70.
60.
90.
100.
110.
120.
130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FICURE VII.37. Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone Concentrations at Maximum
Ebb Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge to 58.3 m^/sec

-------
I
Ln
vO
¦—>
t£>
C.9
az
cc
c_)
z
o
CJ
o
Q_
(H
_l
ID
(_)
QC
az
Q_
. Ah
. 18
. 16
. 11
. 12
.10
.08
.06
.04
.02

/
	AVERAGE PARTICULATE KEPONE
	PARTICULATE KEPONE WTTI1 COHESIVE
SEDIMENT
¦ 	 PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH ORGANIC
MATTER
— • — PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH SAND
• FIELD DATA FOR AVERAGE
PARTICULATE KEPONE
\	(BATTELLE)
0. flPIFi 111111 TTT~t 1111 ii 1111111111 n 111111 n 11111111111111111111111111 n 111111111 n . 1111111111111111111111
30. 40. 50. 60. 70. 80. 90. 100.
RIVER KILOMETERS
110.
120.
130.
FIGURE VII.38. Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone Concentrations at
Slack Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m^/aec

-------
cr\
O
CD
CD
=L
o
az
az
o
z
o
<_)
UJ
o
n_
LU
az
_i
ZD
(_)
1—t
»-
az
az
a_
.20
.18
.16
. ia
.12
.10
.08
.06
,0'i
.02
	 AVERAGE PARTICULATE KEPONE
	PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH COHESIVE
SEDIMENT
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH ORGANIC
MATTER
— PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH SAND
• FIELD DATA FOR AVERAGE*
PARTICULATE KEPONE . / *
/ \
01. MMh ¦ 11 ¦ ¦ 1 T7"f~T 1 ¦¦ 1 11 11111.11 ¦ ¦ 1111111111111111111 ¦ 111111111 ¦ 11111 ¦ 111111111 1111111111111111111111 1111
30. <10. 50. 60. 70. 60. 90. 100. 110. 120.
RIVER KILOMETERS
130.
FTGUKE VL1.39. Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone Concentrations at Maximum
Flood Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 mVsec

-------
.20
i
o
CD
\
(_D
=L
O
Q_
ZD
t_>
CSZ

az
az
a
.18
.16
.14
.12
.10
.06
.06
.04
.02
	 AVERAGE PARTICULATE KEPONE
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH COHESIVE
SEDIMENT
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH ORGANIC
MATTER
/
\"
- • — PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH SAND
• FIELD DATA FOR AVERAGE
PARTICULATE KEPONE (BATTELLE)
\ O' FIELD DATA
X^HUCGET, 1978)
0.QOFi 111111TTTi i i i i i i ii Ii i i i i i i i i I i i i i i i i i i I i i i i i i i i i I i i i i i i i i i I i i i i i i i i i I i i i i i i ii i I i i i i i i i i iI	
30.
40.
50.
60.
70.
80.
90.
100.
110.
120.
130.
FIGURE VII.40.
RIVER KILOMETERS
Tidal Averaged Particulate Kepone Concentrations for the Fresh-water
Discharge of 58.3 m^/sec

-------
I
ON
N>
. J

III
o
n_
LU
Ll I
I-
li"
-_l
:t>
o
a:
a:
a
iLl
L£j
(U
LIZ
m

-------
As shown in Tables VII.1 through VII.10, most of dissolved concentrations
that occurred in the James River study reach were below the detection limit
which is approximately 0.005 to 0.010 ug/H. VIMS also reported from their
August 1977 field sampling that the dissolved Kepone level in the James River
is below the detection limit. Hence in this study, dissolved concentrations
at both ends of the study reach were set to 0.007 ug/fl, , which is approxi-
mately the highest possible value maintained in the River. Figure VII.42
shows the computed tidal averaged dissolved Kepone concentration together with
particulate and total (sum of dissolved and particulate) Kepone concentra-
tions. This figure indicates that dissolved Kepone concentrations vary from
approximately 0.0048 to 0.0080 ygIt. As stated above, from the measured
particulate Kepone concentration and the K
-------
I
.02(9
c_2 .018
3.'
O
~ —4
I—
cn
cc
CD
o
UJ
.016
.01'!
O .012
.010
O
0- .008
UJ
V
a
LlJ
LD
cn
cc
UJ
>
cn
_i
cn
a
.006
.00'1
.002
0.000 til
TOTAL KEPONE
	 DISSOLVED KEPONE
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111II»1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
30.
'10.
50.
60.
70.
60.
90.
100.
110.
120.
130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
lIGURli VI 1.42. Longitudinal Distributions of Tidal Averaged Total, Dissolved and Particulate
Kepone Concentrations for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m^/sec

-------
This figure also reveals that the Kepone concentration associated with
the organic material is approximately twice as high as the concentration
associated with cohesive sediment, which in turn has a Kepone concentration
10 times higher than that of sand. Areawide averages for particulate Kepone
adsorbed by the cohesive sediment, organic matter and sand are 0.063, 0.126,
and 0.006 pg/g, respectively. The total particulate Kepone concentration
averaged over the 86-km reach is 0.071 ug/g.
Figure VII.41 presents tidally averaged longitudinal variations of
dissolved, particulate and total (sum of dissolved and particulate) Kepone
concentrations. This figure reveals that total Kepone concentrations vary
from approximately 0.006 ug/2. to 0.0132 yg/l with the peak concentration
occurring at River Kilometer 75 (in the vicinity of the Swann Point). Con-
centrations of dissolved, particulate and total Kepone average over the 86-km
reach are 0.0065, 0.0024, and 0.089 ug/Z. These values indicate that approxi-
mately 27% of total Kepone is carried by sediment, while 73% remains in the
dissolved form.
The mathematical simulation results also reveal that at Burwell Bay, the
tidally averaged total Kepone concentration is 0.0076 ug/£ and that approxi-
mately 14.0 kg of Kepone per year are transported from the tidal James River
towards Chesapeake Bay. Dissolved and particulate Kepone concentrations are
0.0064 ug/I and 0.0012 ug/£, respectively. Hence, suspended sediment carries
approximately 2.2 kg Kepone per year seaward from the tidal James River, while
11.8 kg of Kepone are transported into the ocean and Chesapeake Bay per year
in a dissolved form. Since there is some possible deposition of contaminated
sediment and adsorption of dissolved Kepone by cleaner suspended sediment
between Burwell Bay and the river mouth, 14.0 kg/yr is a somewhat conservative
estimate.
Accumulated bed elevation changes after 1-month simulation are shown in
Figure VII.43. In this figure, positive values along the vertical axis indi-
cate the amount of sediment deposition in mm, during a 1-month simulation,
while negative values show the amount of river bed scoured during the same
period. This figure reveals a series of scouring and deposition patterns
reflecting the complex geometry of the tidal James River with many bays being
connected by narrow channels. For this flow case, an average annual net bed
deposition rate for the 86-km tidal James River reach is predicted to be
approximately 1.7 mm/yr.
Figure VII.44 shows the change in bed surface Kepone concentration that
occurred during a 1-month simulation. The Kepone concentrations shown here
are those which appeared on the very surface of the river bed without any
mixing with Kepone existing below that level. For example, in Bailey Bay
(around River Kilometer 120) Kepone concentration is reduced dramatically
during a 1-month simulation. As shown in Figure VII.43, Bailey Bay experi-
enced sediment deposition of approximately 2 mm. Figure VII.44 indicates that
the Kepone concentration in this top 2-mm layer is reduced from the level
shown in the solid line to those shown in the dotted line. Another example
VII-65

-------
15.
a
LU
10.
h-
LU
i—i
•—i
UJ
(_£>
a=
>
UJ

UJ
-10.
a
u.i
m
-15.
J-L
419.
50.
60.
70.
60.
30.
90.
100.
110.
120.
130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGURE VII.43. Variation of River Bed Elevation Changes Due to Sediment Deposition and/or
lied Scouring at Maximum Lbb Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m^/sec

-------
I
CTn
^4
t£>
(J)
«	>
O
or
or
UJ
lj
z
o
C_)
iLl
o
Q_
UJ
v:
UJ
CJ
ai
Ll-
CC
ZD
CO
a
UJ
CD
.35
.30
.25 _
.20 _
.15 _
.10 _
,05 _
INITIAL RTVER BED SURFACE KEPONE CONDITION
RIVER BED SURFACE KEPONE CONDITION AFTER ONE MONTH
A/ \
v y—1	/
0.00111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111				111111,111
30. 40. 50. 60. 70. 80. 90. 100. 110. 120. 130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGURE VII.44. Change 011 Bed Surface Kepone Concentration Occurred During 1-Month Simulation
for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m^/sec

-------
occurs in Che 70-River Kilometer area. Figure VII.43 reveals that there is a
net scour of approximately 1 mm. Hence the Kepone concentration in the very
surface of the river bed after 1-month simulation shown in Figure VII.44 is
the one which appeared in the layer as it originally existed 1 mm below the
original bed surface. Figure VII.44 reveals the definite trend of reducing
the Kepone level near the upper part of the river and of increasing the level
near the lower part of the River.
3
Case 2 - Net Fresh-water Discharge of 247 m /sec—The tidal averaged
particulate Kepone distribution as shown in Figure VII.45 indicates that the
total particulate Kepone concentration changes from 0.040 ug/g to 0.098 ug/g
with the overall average of 0.070 ug/g. The peak concentration occurs at
approximately River Kilometer 75. Overall particulate Kepone concentrations
associated with suspended cohesive sediment, organic matter and sand are
0.060, 0.120, and 0.006 ug/g, respectively.
Tidal averaged longitudinal variations of dissolved, particulate and
total Kepone concentrations are shown in Figure VII.46. Tidal averaged total
Kepone concentration varies from 0.0068 ug/i to 0.0166 ug/2. with two peaks at
River Kilometer 75 (near Swann Point) and River Kilometer 53 (around the null
zone for this fresh-water input discharge case). Concentrations of dissolved,
particulate and total Kepone averaged over the study area are 0.006 ug/£,
0.0048 ug/l and 0.0108 ug/£. This implies that approximately 44% is carried
by the sediment, while 56% of Kepone is in a dissolved form.
The present mathematical study also indicates that at Burwell Bay, the
tidal averaged total Kepone concentration is 0.0080 ug/i and that approxi-
mately 62.3 kg of Kepone per year are discharged out from the tidal James
River towards Chesapeake Bay. Dissolved and particulate Kepone concentra-
tions are estimated to be 0.0064 ug/£ and 0.0016 ug/1. These values imply
that out of 62.3 kg of total Kepone, 12.5 kg of Kepone are transported bv
sediment and 49.8 kg of Kepone are in a dissolved form.
Accumulated bed elevation changes due to sediment deposition and river
bed scouring after 1-month simulation are shown in Figure VII.47. As shown
in this figure, bays in general have sediment deposition and narrow connect-
ing channels between bays experience bed scouring. For this case an average
annual net bed deposition rate for the 86-km tidal James River reach is pre-
dicted to be approximately 3.6 mm/yr. Figure VII.48 indicates the change in
bed surface Kepone concentration and reveals a trend similar to that for
Case 1 (Figure VII.44).
3
Case 3 - Net Fresh-water Discharge of 681 m /sec—The tidal averaged
particulate Kepone concentrations are shown in Figure VII.49. The figure
indicates chat total particulate Kepone changes its concentrations from
0.045 ug/g to 0.095 ug/g and has three peaks, one each at River Kilometer 43,
75, and 118. Tidal averaged total particulate Kepone over the 86-km reach is
0.076 ug/g. Particulate Kepone adsorbed by cohesive sediment, organic mate-
rial and sand averaged over the entire study reach is 0.064 ug/g, 0.129 ug/g
and 0.006 ug/g, respectively.
VII-68

-------
I
cr>

CD
CD
LU
Z
O
0-
LU
LU
1—
en
	i
ZD
CJ
I—*
h-
az
az
Q_
Q
LU
CD
az
az
UJ
az
az
o
.20
. 18
.16
. 14
.12
. 10
.08
.06
.0<1
.02
0.00
AVERAGE PARTICULATE KEPONK
PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH COHESIVE
SEDIMENT
PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH ORGANIC
MATTER
PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH SAND


\
I ' ' I H I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I ¦ I	I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1	I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
30.
40.
50.
60.
70.
80.
90.
110.
120.
130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGURE VII.45. Tidal Averaged Particulate Kepone Concentrations for the Fresh-water
Discharge of 247 in^/aec

-------
I
o
I—1
O
O
UJ
O
o_
LU
Q
UJ
Q)
az
0c
UJ
cc
a=
a
.020
TOTAL KEPONE
^ .018
Q .016
£ .01'!
O .012 L
	 DISSOLVED KEPONE
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE
.010 L
.008 i.
.006
. 00'1
.002
0.000
1111111 n 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
30.
40.
50.
60.
70.
60.
90.
100.
110.
120.
130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGURli VL1.46. Longitudinal Distributions of Tidal Averaged Total, Dissolved and Particulate
Kepone Concentrations for the Fresh-water Discharge of 247 m^/sec

-------
15.
i—\
LjJ
21
1—1
_l
1—1
LU
CD
2T
az
ai
LU
LU
-10.
a
LU
CO
30.
50.
60.
70.
60.
90.
100.
110.
130.
120.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGURE VII.47. Variation of River Bed Elevation Changes Due to Sediment Deposition and/or
Bed Scouring at Maximum Ebb Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 247 m^/sec

-------
.35
,30 _
,25 _
.20 _
15 _
10
.05 _
A
/ \
\ / \ A
V_XX
0.00
¦ 																																																																																 < 1111111111
30.
10.
50.
60.
70.
80.
90.
100.
110.
120.
130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
PLGIIKL VI 1.48. Change In Bed Surface Kepone Concentration Occurred During 1-Month Simulation for
the Fresh-water Discharge of 247 m^/sec

-------
I
t_o
CD
\
CD
n.
o
Q_
az
ZD
CJ
CO
az
Q_
a
LU
CD
az
az
UJ
>
az
az
a
.20
.18
.16
.1(4
.12
.1(9
.08
.06
.04
.02
0.00t
AVERAGE PARTICULATE KEPONE
PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH COHESIVE
SEDIMENT
PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH ORCANIC
MATTER
PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH SAND


/
/\
r
\
j-i iii 																																																																													
30.
40.
50.
60.
70.
80.
90.
100.
110.
120.
130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FICURE VII.49. Tidal Averaged Particulate Kepone Concentrations for the Fresh-water
Discharge of 681 m^/sec

-------
As shown in Figure VII.50, tidal averaged total Kepone concentration
varies from 0.0072 ug/JZ to 0.0155 ug/2. with an average value of 0.0124 ugJl.
Tidal averaged particulate Kepone concentration obtained over the entire
86-ka reach is 0.00575 ug/I which corresponds to 46% of the total Kepone con-
centration. Similarly, overall dissolved Kepone concentration is 0.00665 ug/I
which is 54% of the total Kepone concentration. As compared to Cases 1 and 2,
particulate Kepone for this case has the highest contribution to the total
Kepone, due to the higher rate of bed scouring and subsequent sediment con-
centration under this flow condition.
The simulation results also reveal that at Burwell Bay, the tidal averaged
concentrations of total particulate and dissolved Kepone are 0.0093 ug/&,
0.0026 ug/1, and 0.0066 yg/Z, respectively. Hence, it is estimated that
under this fresh-water discharge of 681 m3/sec, approximately 200 kg of
Kepone per year are flushed out from the cidal James River toward Chesapeake .
Bay. Of that total, 28% or 56.0 kg is being transported bv sediment and 72%
or 144 kg is moved out in a dissolved form.
Changes in accumulated river bed elevation and in Kepone concentration
in the river bed surface are shown in Figures VII.51 and VII.52. Unlike
Cases 1 and 2, the overall net erosion of the river bed occurs at a rate of
4.1 mm/yr under this high flow condition.
Case 4 - Overall Evaluation Through Combination of Results from Cases 1,
2, and 3-—In order to obtain a realistic estimate of Kepone transport,
the computer results obtained from Cases 1, 2, and 3 were combined with their
frequency of occurrence. As mentioned before, fresh-water discharges of
58.3 m^/sec (Case 1) and 681 m^/sec (Case 3) correspond to the 10 and 90 per-
centile of the discharge. The discharge of 247 m3/sec (Case 2) is the annual
average discharge. To best estimate probable annual Kepone transport, based
on the results of these three cases, Cases 1, 2, and 3 were assigned to occur
30, 40 and 30% of the time.
The annual total Kepone concentration over the area is estimated to be
0.0108 ug/i. The annual particulate Kepone concentration over the area is
computed to be 0.072 ug/g or 0.0028 yg/£, while dissolved Kepone concentra-
tion is 0.0064 ug/i. Hence, 26% of the total Kepone is transported with
sediment and 74% is in a dissolved form.
Similarly, the average annual net bed desposition rate for the 86-km
tidal James River reach is estimated to be 0.7 mm/yr which agrees well with
field data obtained during the last 70 years (Nichols, 1972). This also
confirms the general validity of the present mathematical simulation.
Finally, it is estimated that 89.1 kg of Kepone per year are transported
from the tidal James River towards Chesapeake Bay. Of that, 22.5 kg of Kepone
are a particulate form associated with sediment, and 66.6 kg of Kepone are in
a dissolved form. Since there are some possibilities that the contaminated
sediment is deposited and/or dissolved Kepone is adsorbed by cleaner sedi-
ment between Burwell Bay and the James River mouth, 89.1 kg/yr is a conserva-
tive estimate. However, since 74% of the Kepone is in the dissolved form, it
is judged that changes in the total Kepone concentration between Burwell Bay
and the river mouth are not very significant.
VII-74

-------
.020
^4
Ul
^ .018
O
cn
az
o
CJ
LU
o
o_
LU
a
LU
CD
cc
az
LU
>
az
az
a
.016 L
.014 L
O .012
TOTAL KEPONE
DISSOLVED KEPONE
PARTICULATE KEPONE
.010 t-
.008
.006
.004 L
.002 L
0.000Ei^u
30.
11111111111111
40.
¦ I.
50.
¦'' ¦ 1111' ¦ 11' ¦ ¦ ¦' ¦ i ¦ ¦' 111 ¦ ¦ i'' ¦»i ¦ ¦ ¦ i
1111111111111111111111111111111111
ill!
60.
70.
60.
90.
100.
110.
120.
130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FTCUKE VII.50. Longitudinal Distributions of Tidal Averaged Total, Dissolved and
Particulate Kepone Concentrations for the Fresh-water Discharge of
68 L m-Vsec

-------
15.
i—\
I	1
_l
i—i
UJ
LS

0
	1	1
I—
-5.
a=
>
LU
_J
LU
-10.
a
UJ
on
-15.
30.
50.
60.
70.
60.
90.
100.
110.
120.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGURE Vli.51. Variation of River Bed Elevation Changes Due to Sediment Deposition and/or
Bed Scouring at Maximum Ebb Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 681 m^/sec

-------
nil
1111
11111
.15 _
0.00
130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FTGllRIi VII. 52. Change in lied Surface Kepone Concentration Occurred During 1-Month Simulation for
the Fresh-Water Discharge of 681 m^/sec

-------
The summary of the simulation results on Kepone migration from Burwell
Bay seaward-for all four cases is shown in Table VII.12.
TABLE VII.12. SUMMARY OF SIMULATION RESULTS ON KEPONE MIGRATION FROM
BURWELL BAY SEAWARD FOR ALL FOUR CASES

Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Case
3
Fresh-water Input Discharge (m /sec)
58.3
247
681
321
Annual Total Kepone Discharge (kg/yr)
14.0
62.3
200
89.1
Dissolved Kepone Percentage (%)
84.3
80.0
72.0
74.7
Particulate Kepone Percentage (%)
15.7
20.0
28.0
25.3
Sensitivity Analysis—
In order to assess the response of the model, FETRA, a sensitivity analy-
sis was conducted for some selected parameters and conditions. They included
fresh-water discharge, sizes, fall velocity, and density of sediment, and
three parameters affecting sediment erosion and deposition (critical shear
stresses for erosion and deposition, erodibility constant shown in Equa-
tions 15 and 16 in Appendix M). Among these variables and parameters, the
three sediment erosion and deposition parameters were found to have a strong
influence on the sediment transport, as reported by Onishi (1977a,b).
Because of the strong interaction between Kepone and sediment, the dis-
tribution coefficient, K^., describing the sorption-desorption equilibrium
condition is one of the most important keys to accurate model prediction. To
investigate this sensitivity as well as bed Kepone concentration a second
series of simulations (Cases 5, 6, 7, and 8) was conducted employing a dis-
tribution coefficient of 2000 cm^/g with river bed Kepone concentrations
twice as much as those used in Cases 1 through 4. The distribution coeffi-
cient of 2000 cm^/g is representative of those found in Bailey Bay and, as com-
pared to 10,000 cm^/g used for Cases 1 through 4, would reflect a high degree
of Kepone availability for desorption from sediment to water as suggested by
the laboratory studies conducted at the EPA Research Laboratory in Gulf
Breeze (Garnas et al., 1977; U.S. EPA, 1978).
Test conditions for Cases 5 through 8 are the same as those of Cases 1>
through 4 except the values of distribution coefficient and bed Kepone con-
centrations. Under these conditions, sediment transport is unaffected by a
change in partitioning Kepone and therefore remains the same as previously
reported. However, as expected, the dissolved Kepone levels for all these
four cases become higher than those for Cases 1 through 4 and do not cor-
respond as well with field data as the computer results of Cases 1 through 4.
VII-78

-------
Table VII.13 indicates the brief summary of results on Kepone migration from
Burwell Bay toward Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Ocean for this sensitivity
case. As shown in Table VII.13, the amount of Kepone being transported from
Burwell Bay toward Chesapeake Bay increases for these cases as compared to
those of Cases 1 through 4; the results for the sensitivity analysis cases
do not add significantly to the amount of Kepone transported past Burwell
Bay each year. Hence, conclusions derived from computer results for Cases 1
through 4, will not change significantly with variation of the distribution
coefficient and bed Kepone level tested in this study.
TABLE VII.13. SUMMARY OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS—KEPONE MIGRATION
FROM BURWELL BAY SEAWARD

Case 5
Case 6
Case 7
Case 8
3
Fresh-water Input Discharge (m /sec)
58.3
247
681
321
Annual Total Kepone Discharge (kg/yr)
35.8
135
350
170
Dissolved Kepone Percentage (%)
95
93
88
92
Particulate Kepone Percentage (%)
5
7
12
8
Kepone Cleanup Activities—
The model may also be used to answer questions about mitigation such as:
1.	What will happen to the Kepone migration pattern and its concentration
level if a part of the Kepone in the river bed is removed by physical,
chemical or biological methods.
2.	Where is the optimal location for Kepone removal to reduce the Kepone
level in the River.
In order to answer these questions, further mathematical modeling was con-
ducted for an additional 10 cases (Cases A through J) by assuming that for
each case, Kepone in the bed at a certain part of the tidal James River was
completely removed. This is accomplished by changing boundary conditions to
assume no bed Kepone in the restored reach. For all cases, fresh-water input
discharges were assumed to be 247 m^/sec. Computer results during the maxi-
mum ebb tide after 1-month simulation for these cases were then compared with
those of Case 2 (no cleanup activity was performed for Case 2) in order to
assess the effectiveness of the Kepone cleanup activities.
Locations of Kepone cleanup activities are divided into four categories:
(1) upper part of the River (Cases A, B, and C), (2) middle part of the River
(Cases D through H), (3) lower part of the River (Case I), and (4) combination
of (2) and (3) (Case J). Exact cleanup locations are shown in the lower
VII-79

-------
parts of Figures VII.53 through VII.55, together with simulation results.
Total, dissolved and particulate Kepone concentrations for Cases A through J
and Case 2 are shown in Figures VII.53 through VII.55, respectively. In these
figures, thick solid lines represent Case 2 (no cleanup activity).
In the cases of upper river cleanup activities (Cases A through C),
Cases B (cleanup of Bailey Bay and upper half of Tar Bay) and C (Bailey and
Tar Bay) indicate the improvement of river conditions for these cases by
reducing concentrations of total, dissolved and particulate Kepone by up to
approximately 15% within the vicinity of the cleanup locations. The cleanup
activity conducted for Case A (cleanup of Bailey Bay) does not reduce the
Kepone concentrations, as shown in these three figures.
In the case of middle river cleanup activities (Cases D through H),
significant reduction of Kepone level (total, dissolved and particulate Kepone
concentrations), up to 55 and 48%, was obtained for Cases D and E, respectively.
The cleanup area of Case D is a 34.5-km reach between 50.5 and 85.0 River
Kilometer, while a cleanup area for Case E is a 22-km reach between 56.0 and
78.0 River Kilometer. Cases G and H also demonstrate some reduction (up to
approximately 13%); however, Case F does not show any improvement. For these
five cases, there is not significant improvement near Burwell Bay, as shown
in Figures VII.53 through VII.55.
For the case of cleanup activity in the lower river (Case I), there is
no measurable reduction in the Kepone concentration. Consequently, the
Case J (combination of Cases G and I) computer results are the same as those
of Case G.
Among these 10 cases, Cases D and E reveal significant reduction of both
dissolved and particulate Kepone concentrations. Although Case D (up co 55%
reduction of Kepone concentration) is slightly better than Case E (up to 48%
reduction), comparison of sizes of cleanup areas for these two cases (34.5 and
22.0 km reaches for Cases D and E, respectively) leads to the conclusion that
Case E is more efficient to reduce the Kepone concentration in the River per
unit area of cleanup activities.
VII-80

-------
0.020
0.018
0.016
0.014
z
o
t—
<
oc.
0.012

UJ
o
0.010
z
o
o
0.008
o
Q_
LU
<
I—
o
0.006
CLEAN UP REGIONS
«—CASE(j>
«—~ «*(R)
0.004
0.002
30
40
50
60
80
90
70
120
100
.130
110
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGURE VII.53. Changes in Total Kepone Concentrations Due to Partial Kepone Cleanup Activities

-------
<
M
M
I
00
D>
zl
<
£
2
UJ
o
z
o
o
o
a.
UJ
!*£
O
£
o
CO
CO
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
30
CASES
©@©0
©
«case(3>
«—(D—~
CLEAN UP REGIONS
«-CASE(J>
«—~ (R)
«—®—~
«—©	
	(D)	~
	I	I	I	
40
50
60
70	80	90
RIVER KILOMETERS
100
110
120
FIGURE VU.54,
Changes in Dissolved Kepone Concentrations Due to Partial Kepone Cleanup
Actlvlti es

-------
0.11
0.10
0.09
5 0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
§ 0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
CASES
©0©©
%
J&~~ \ /
/ N-
•4-case(T)->
CLEAN UP REGIONS
«-CASE®-»
¦*—o «»(H)
—<5>—
* ~ ~©
	©	»
	(D)	
30
40
50
60
70	80	90
RIVER KILOMETERS
100
110
120
130
Ff.CURE VIT.55. Changes in Particulate Kepone Concentrations Due to Partial Kepone Cleanup
Activities

-------
REFERENCES
1.	Baca, R. G., W. W. Waddell, C. R. Cole, A. Brandstetter, and D. B. Cearlock.
1973. "EXPLORE-I: A River Basin Water Quality Model." Battelle, Pacific
Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington.
2.	Brandstetter, A., R. G. Baca, A. F. Gasperino and A. S. Myhres. 1976.
Water Quality Models for Municipal Water Supply Reservoirs—Part 1,
Summary. Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington.
3.	Desai, C. S., and J. F. Abel. 1972. Introduction to the Finite Element
Method, for Engineering Analysis. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company,
New York.
4.	Garnas, R. L-, A. W. Baurquin, P. H. Pritchurd. 1977. "Fate and Degrada-
tion of Kepone in Estuarine Microcosms." Chesapeake Bay, Program II,
Easton, MD. September 20-21, 1977.
5.	Huggett, R., D. Haven and M. Nichols. 1978. Kepone-Sediment Relationships
in the James River. Final Report to U.S. EPA Gulf Breeze Laboratory.
6.	Krone, R. B. 1962. Flume Studies of the Transport of Sediment in
Estuarial Shoaling Processes. Hydraulic Engineering Laboratory and
Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory, University of California
at Berkeley.
7.	Nichols, M. M. 1972. "Sediments of the James River Estuary, Virginia."
Geo. Soc. Amer. Mem. 133:169-212.
8.	Norton, W. R. and I. P. King. 1977. "Operating Instructions for the
Computer Program RMA-2: A Two Dimensional Finite Element Program for
Problems in Horizontal Free Surface Hydrodynamics." Resources Management
Associates, Lafayette, California.
9.	Norton, W. R., I. P. King and G. T. Orlob. 1973. A Finite Element
Model for Lower Granite Reservoir. Water Resources Engineers, Inc.,
Walnut Creek, California.
10.	Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 1978. Proceedings of a Workshop on
Evaluation of Models Used for the Environmental Assessment of Radionuclide
Releases, September 6-9, 1977, Gatlinburg, TN.
11.	Onishi, Y. 1977a. Finite Element Models for Sediment and Contaminant
Transport in Surface Waters — Transport of Sediments and Radionuclides
in the Clinch River. BNWL-2227.
12.	Onishi, Y. 1977b. Mathematical Simulation of Sediment and Radionuclide
Transport in the Columbia River. BNWL-2228.
VII-84

-------
13.	Onishi, Y., and R. M. Ecker. "Mathematical Simulation of Transport of
Kepone and Kepone-Laden Sediments in the James River Estuary." Presented
at the Kepone II Seminar, Easton, MD, September 1977.
14.	Onishi, Y., P. A. Johanson, R. G. Baca and E. L. Hilty. 1976. Studies
of Columbia River Water Quality - Development of Mathematical Models for
Sediment and Radionuclide Transport Analysis. BNWL-B-452.
15.	Partheniades, E. 1962. A Study of Erosion and Deposition of Cohesive
Soils in Salt Water. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California at Berkeley.
16.	Shupe, S. J., and G. W. Dawson. 1977. Current Disposition of Kepone
Residuals in the James River System. Presented at Kepone Seminar II
held at Easton, Maryland.
17.	Smith, W. C. 1976. Kepone Discharges from Allied Chemical Company,
Hopewell, Virginia. Internal EPA Memorandum, National Field Investi-
gation Center, U.S. EPA, Denver, CO.
18.	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. Kepone in the Marine
Environment, Publications and Prepublications. Gulf Breeze Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, FL.
19.	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. 1976-2, Information
Memorandum. Review of the Chesapeake Bay Program. Seminar on Kepone
held at Virginia Institute of Marine Science, October 12-13.
20.	Virginia Institute of Marine Science. 1977. The Role of Sediments in
the Storage, Movement and Biological Uptake of Kepone in Estuarine
Environments. Annual Report to the U.S. EPA, October 20, 1977.
21.	Virginia Department of Conservation and Economic Development. 1970.
"James River Basin—Comprehensive Water Resources Plan, Volume III -
Hydrologic Analysis." Planning Bulletin 215, Division of Water Resources
the State of Virginia.
VII-85

-------
CHAPTER VIII - ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF KEPONE
SUMMARY
Content
Chapter VIII is a compilation of information available on the impact
of Kepone on aquatic species. A majority of the data presented resulted
from research performed at the EPA's Environmental Research Laboratory at
Gulf Breeze. Sections include discussions of acute toxicity, chronic toxicity,
bioconcentration, bioaccumulation, and the implications of these processes
to the James River ecosystem. Of particular interest is the relatiorship
between Kepone levels in water and sediment to concentrations subsequently
found in the aquatic species. This leads to discussions of alternative
"no-effect" criteria and of the potential duration of environmental impact
in the James River from persistent Kepone residuals.
Findings
•	The fish species in the James River that is most sensitive to the acute
toxic effects of Kepone is spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) with a 96-hr
LC50 of 6.6 ug/2- (ppb).
•	Sublethal effects with chronic exposure have been reported at Kepone
concentrations in water as low as 0.05 ug/Jl (ppb) (sheepshead minnows).
•	Kepone bioconcentration factors calculated from laboratory studies
range from 8.1 in blue crab to a high of 13,470 in mysid.
•	The major route of Kepone uptake in fish is from Kepone dissolved or
suspended in the water.
•	Filter feeding shellfish take up Kepone from contaminated suspended
solids.
•	Bioaccumulation of Kepone from food and sediment is significant in blue
crabs and polychaete worms.
•	In laboratory studies, contaminated oysters depurated Kepone to non-
detectable levels in 7 to 20 days.
•	Fish species both bioconcentrate and depurate Kepone at slower rates
than oysters.
•	Analysis of field and laboratory data suggest that Kepone levels at or
below 0.005 pg/2. (ppb) in water and 0.015 pg/Z (ppm) in bottom sediment
would result in no adverse ecological impacts.
•	The current FDA Action Limits are 0.3 yg/I (ppm) Kepone in the edible
meat of fish and shellfish, and 0.4 ug/il (ppm) in blue crab.
VIII-1

-------
INTRODUCTION
The importance of environmental levels and annual transport of Kepone
in the James River is best determined in light of the ecological effects of
Kepone. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Research
Laboratory at Gulf Breeze has determined these effects for many aquatic
species as a part of the overall EPA Mitigation Feasibility Study. That
work is reported in detail in a companion document "Kepone in the Marine
Environment." A summary of pertinent data is presented here. Many of the
referenced sources were authored by the Staff at Gulf Breeze and can be found
in the above-mentioned compendium of publications and prepublications.
PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF KEPONE
Kepone is an extremely stable member of the cyclodiene insecticides. Per-
haps the most important physical factor affecting its aquatic biological avail-
ability is its solubility in water. Within a pH range of 4 to 6 the solubility
o£ Kepone ranges from 1.5 to 2.0 mg/2. (ppm). An increase of pH to 9 to 10
increases the solubility to 5 to 70 mg/2, (ppm). The second case is highly
unlikely in a river"system such as the James and therefore the first range
can be taken as a working level for Kepone solubility. (High pH levels have
been recorded in Bailey Creek, but not in the main channel of the River.)
Even with Kepone solubility ranging from 1.5 to 2.0 mg/2. (ppm) it is not
likely that actual levels of Kepone in the James River water would be greater
than 0.01 to 1.0 ugII (ppb). The reason for the difference is the high sedi-
ment load on the James River waters. Sediments, especially those of high
organic content, have a very high affinity for Kepone. Thus, the amount of
Kepone available to those organisms which could take it from the dissolved
state is relatively small. On the other hand, chose organisms such as
oysters or other filter feeders which ingest water-borne sediments, will have
more ready access to Kepone.
ACUTE TOXICITY
Only a limited number of species have been tested for acute sensitivity
to Kepone (Table VIII.1). Of these only a few are residents of the James
River. Toxicity data for species not found in the James River are of value,
however, since extension of data on representative species is valid for
many contaminants. While specific values cannot be obtained from such an
extension, one can define a range of general toxicity.
The response of redear sunfish, Lepomis microlophus, to Kepone was
investigated by Bridges (1962) who found that the 96-hr LC50 for Kepone
varied with exposure temperature. At a water temperature of 45°F the LC50
was 140 yg/i (ppb), while at a higher temperature of 85°F the lethal level
was reduced to 29 ppb. Therefore, the toxicity of Kepone to the redear
sunfish is 7.1 times greater at 85°F than at 45°F. In studies conducted
by Bentley (1975) both bluegill sunfish and rainbow trout were tested.
VIII-2

-------
TABLE VIII.1. ACUTE TOXICITY VALUES OF KEPONE TO SELECTED SPECIES
	Species	
Redear Sunfish
Lepomis mlcrolophus
Bluegill
Lepomis macrochirus
Rainbow Trout
Salmo galrdneri
Fiddler Crab
Uca pugilator
Mysid
Mysidopsis bahia
Brown Shrimp
Panaeus aztecus
Oyster
Crassostrea virginlca
Grass Shrimp
Palaemonetes pugio
Blue Crab
Callinectes sapidus
Sheepshead Minnow
Cyprinodon variegatus
Spot
Leiostomus xanthurus
96 hr LC50> yg/£-(ppb)
140.0 at 45°F
29.0 at 85°F
51.0
36.0
1470.0
10.1
85.0
LE EC5Q, 24 hr
15 - 57.0
shell growth EC
48 hr
121.0
50
210.0 (no mortality)
69.5
6.6
Reference
Bridges, 1962
Bentley, 1975
Bentley, 1975
Heitmuller, 1975
Nimmo et al., 1977
Butler, 1963
Butler, 1963
Shimmel and Wilson,
1977
Shimmel and Wilson,
1977
Shimmel and Wilson,
1977
VIII-3

-------
The bluegill sunfish species is found in limited numbers in Che fresh-water
portion of the James River, while the rainbow trout species is not found
in the tidally influenced wacers of the James (Chapter VI). The 96-hr LC50
for the bluegill was determined to be 51 yg/2. (ppb); for the trout it was
slightly lower at 36 M%!^ (ppb). In this static bioassay the fish generally
demonstrated lethargy, discoloration, loss of equilibrium and death. For
the fiddler crab, Uca pugilator. sensitivity was investigated by Heitmuller
(1975). The 96-hr LC50 was found to be 1470 ugJl (ppb). This species of
crab is not found in the James estuary.
Although not found in the James River, the brown shrimp Panaeus aztecus
is closely related to two other panaeid shrimps which are. Studies have indi-
cated the effective concentration for 50% loss of equilibrium or death was
85 yg/l (ppb) (Butler, 1963). Another study indicated that for an impor-
tant James River species, the eastern oyster, Crassostrea virainica, the
growth rate of the shell was reduced in 50% of Che exposed organisms in the
range of 15 to 57 ug/& (ppb) depending upon the salinity (Butler, 1963).
One of the most important organisms in the food chain of Che Chesapeake
Bay tributaries is the opposum shrimp, a mysid. These organisms represent an
important component of the food for such fish species as weakfish, Cvnoscion
regalls; shad, Alosa sapidisslaa; blueback herring, Alosa aestivalis; alewife,
Alosa pseudoharengus; bay anchovy, Anchoa mitchilli; striped bass, Morone
saxatills; and white perch, Morone americana (Hildebrand and Schroeder,
1972). Most of the species listed use mysids as a food during the juvenile
stages; however, some feed on mysids throughout their life cycle, e.g., white
perch and bay anchovy. The only mysid listed in the most recent species check
list for the James River is Neomysis americana and from the list of fishes
above it should be an important member of the food chain. However, gut analysis
of striped bass from the James revealed no mysids. This was in direct contrast
to mysid levels of 14% found in striped bass from che York and Rappahannock
Rivers. Toxicity data for Kepone effects on mysids are available for Mysidoosis
bahia (Nimmo et al., 1976). Although the quantitative toxicity data for
M. bahia cannot completely substitute for missing data on americana it
should be noted that in recent EPA studies M^ bahia was one of the most
sensitive species to Kepone chac has been examined (Hansen ec al., 1976).
Therefore, the information available on M^_ bahia may well identify the lower
limits of toxicity and Kepone interference with Che normal growth and produc-
tion of americana. The EPA studies with Mysidopsis bahia determined a
96-hr LCjq for Kepone of 10.1 ug/2. (ppb) at 25 to 28"C and 10 to 16 ppth salinity.
In a life cycle 3tudy it was determined that the opposum shrimp were stunted
and that the average number of young produced by females previously exposed
to Kepone was halved by exposure to 0.39 Ug/i (ppb) Kepone chroughouc Che
19-day scudy (Nimmo et al., 1976).
The most pertinent studies chus far have been conducted by che EPA labora-
tory at Gulf Breeze, Florida (Schimmel and Wilson, 1977). Four species of estua-
rine organisms known Co occur in che James River wacers were invescigaced for
acuCe Coxicity and bioconcenCraCion. The organisms were grass shrimp,
Palaemonetes pu%io; blue crab, Callinectes sapidus; sheepshead minnow,
VII-4

-------
Cyprinodon variegatus; and spot, Leiostomus xanthurus. Dissolved Kepone was
found to be acutely toxic to the fish species and to the shrimp but not to
the blue crab. The maximum concentration tested was 210 Ug/£ (ppb) but the
maximum mortality of blue crabs was only 10%. The 96-hr LC^g varied widely for
the remaining species. The most sensitive species tested was spot which
had an LC50 of 6.6 yg/I (ppb). The sheepshead minnow was 10 times higher at
oy.o ug/x. (.ppb). The grass shrimp was even more tolerant with a LC50 of
120.9 Ug/£ (ppb) and, as was stated above, no acute toxicity was demonstrated
for the blue crab at the concentrations tested. The signs of toxicity in the
fish were similar regardless of the species and are similar to those reported
by Bentley (1975) for blue gills and rainbow trout. Generally the fish became
lethargic and lost equilibrium before death. The advanced stage of toxicity
was usually noted by discolorations in various areas of the body. This simi-
larity may be indicative of the mechanism of lethality.
CHRONIC TOXICITY, BIOCONCENTRATION,.AND BIOACCUMULATION
Knowledge of the toxicant concentration which will kill an organism in
a standard length of time, usually 96 hr, is valuable information for com-
paring the relative toxicity of different toxicants. In addition, this infor-
mation will allow the prediction of field mortality in an acute exposure
situation. In most cases of contamination of a natural water system, toxicant
concentrations are below the laboratory determined acute LC50 value as a result
of solubility, dilution, etc. When this occurs, the information required for
impact analysis is the effect of chronic exposure, e.g., the effective concen-
tration, usually stated as an EC50, which will elicit some sublethal response.
The response can be a number of different indicators, such as growth, reproduc-
tion, and behavioral changes. All of these items can be just as important
to the survival and well being of a species as a mortality due to a massive
dose.
When considering a persistent organochlorine compound like Kepone the
other factor which must be considered is the ability of the organisms to bio-
concentrate the material directly from the dissolved state in the water column
and to pass it on to the higher trophic levels. The latter situation occurs
through a food chain where a prey organism carrying a body burden of Kepone
is consumed by a predator which then accumulates some or all of the Kepone in
its prey. It is through this mechanism that persistent compounds have been
shown to accumulate and can become a threat to the health of both the upper
levels of the aquatic ecosystem and to man as a consumer of aquatic species.
Questions of chronic toxicity, sublethal response, bioconcentration, and
bioaccumulation have been addressed in a number of Kepone studies. The most
pertinent Kepone investigations have been summarized in Table VIII.2 and are
discussed below.
VIII-5

-------
TABLE VIII.2. CHRONIC EFFECTS, UIOCONCIiNTRATION AND BIOACCUMULATION OF KEPONE
I
Species
Chlorococcum sp.
Uunallella tertlolecta
NlUshla sp.
Thd loss ioslrd psuedonana
Grass shrimp
Paleaiionetes yujto
Blue Crab
Calllncctes sapitles
Sheepsliead minnow
Cyprlnodon varlegatus
Spot
Leiostomus xanthurus
Oyster
Crdssostrea viigtnlca
Mysid
Hysldupsis bdliid
Grass shrimp
Paleomunutes gu^[o
Sheepshead minnow
Cyprlnodon vdiIcqatus
S|>ot
teiostouius xanthurus
Sheepshead uiinnow
Cyprinodon variegatus
Adults
Juveniles
Exposure (ppb) 	Result	
100 ppb, 24 lir ECsn(growth) = 0.35 ppa
3 times in 7 day
12-121 ppb
96 lir
110-210 ppb
7.1-78.5 ppb
1.5-15.9 PPb
0.03-0.39 ppb
28 day
0.026-0.41 ppb
21 day
0.023-0.40 ppb
28 day
0.05 ppb
28 day
0.029-0.40 ppb
30 day
* 0.58 ppo
= 0.60 ppo
3 0.60 ppo
0.05-24 0 ppb LCcn = 1.3 ppb
28 day	i0
Tissue
Concentration
		5,127-11 ,425
0.37 ppn	7,115
0.06-0.99 ppro	3,217-2,340
0.25-12 ppm	5,200
0.13-22 ppui	7,200
Reference
Walsh et al. ,
1977
Schlouel and
Wilson, 1977
Algae • Oyster 1 2.1
Water -• Algae > Oyster 3 0.007
Brine shrimp -> mysids 2 0.53
Bahner et al.,
1977
Mysid • Spot * 0.85
Brine shrimp * mysid - Spot = 10.5
Hansen et a I.,
1977a

-------
The lowest level in the food web of an aquatic system contains the primary
producing organisms, the algae. Walsh et al. (1977) determined the effective
concentrations of Kepone which will diminish the growth of four algal species.
Two of the species studied were green algae, Chlorococcum sp. and Dunaliella
tertiolecta, while the other two were diatoms, Nitzschia sp. and Thalassiosira
pseudonana. Walsh conducted 7-day tests of the effect of Kepone on the
growth of these species of algae. Cultures were exposed to 100 Ug/& (ppb)
at three times during the 7-day tests. The results in terms of EC50 for
growth shows that Chloroccoccum sp. is the most sensitive at 0.35 Ug/g (ppm).
The other three species were very similar in response with EC50 values of
0.58 Ug/g (ppm) for Dunaliella tertiolecta; 0.60 Ug/g (ppm) for Nitzschia sp.
and Thalassiosira psuedonana. The exposure concentrations in this laboratory
study were considerably higher than those which might be expected in the
James River and therefore it is doubtful that Kepone would be a factor in
reducing the productivity of phytoplankton. In companion studies Walsh deter-
mined the bioconcentration factors for the same four species of algae. The
results were Chlorococcum sp., 800; Dunaliella tertiolecta, 230; Nitzschia sp.,
410; and Thalassiosira psuedonana, 520. While the algal productivity may not
be affected at field concentrations, it is apparent that the algae may be
expected to bioconcentrate Kepone and thus serve as a source of Kepone at the
base of the food web.
The possibility of bioconcentration by higher trophic levels was investi-
gated by Schimmel and Wilson (1977). The primary objective of this study was
to determine the acute toxicity of Kepone to grass shrimp, Palaemonetes pugio;
blue crab, Callinectes sapidus; sheepshead minnow, Cyprinodon variegatus; and
spot, Leiostomus xanthurus, which was discussed above. The survivors of this
study were pooled for tissue analysis with the following bioconcentration
factors resulting: blue crab, 8.1; shrimp, 696; spot, 1221; and sheepshead
minnow, 1548. These results are similar to bioconcentration factors found
with other organochlorine toxicants. No explanation was offered for the
relatively low bioconcentration factor for the blue crab. The measured tissue
level ranged from 0.85 to 1.2 yg/g (ppm) which is comparable to the tissue
levels that have been measured in blue crabs taken from the field. Bender et al.
(1977) reported at the Kepone Seminar II on September 20-21, 1977 that the
average tissue concentration for female blue crabs was 0.19 and males averaged
0.81 Ug/g (ppm).
One of the most significant studies of Kepone to date was conducted by
Bahner et al. (1977) of the EPA Gulf Breeze Laboratory. The objectives of
the program were to determine: (1) the rate and magnitude of Kepone biocon-
centration from water; (2) rates of Kepone depuration; and (3) the rate of
Kepone bioaccumulation through a laboratory food chain. The organisms used
in this study were eastern oysters, Crassostrea virginica; mysids, Mysidopsis
bahia; grass shrimp, Palaeomonetes pugio; sheepshead minnow, Cyprinodon
variegatus; and spot, Leiostomus xanthurus. The organisms in the study were
collected from the field, acclimated in the laboratory and then exposed to
two concentrations of Kepone in aquaria. All species were held for periods
up to 30 days in Kepone treated water and then held for a similar period in
Kepone-free water (except for the mysids) to investigate the capacity for depuration.
VIII-7

-------
Kepone was bioconeentraced by all species wich equilibrium levels being attained
within 8 to 17 days of exposure. Approximate bioconcentration factors for
each species were: spot, 3,000; grass shrimp, sheepshead minnow, 7,000;
oysters, 13,000; and mysids, 10,000. Kepone was bioconcentrated more efficiently
by the crustaceans with increasing concentrations in the water. The fish
with uptake rates slower than the oysters reached equilibrium levels in 10
to 20 days. The edible fillets of the spot contained approximately the same
concentration as the whole fish; thus the edible portion represents one of the
largest reserves of Kepone. As with bioconcentration, Kepone depuration was
most rapid in the oysters, with Kepone reaching nondetectable levels within
7 to 20 days. Other organisms were much slower, particularly grass shrimp and
fish. Kepone concentrations in these latter organisms remained 50 to 70%
of peak value as much as 24 to 28 days after initiation of depuration.
In companion studies, Bahner et al. (1977) investigated the bioaccumula-
tion of Kepone via laboratory food chains. Kepone-contaminated algae,
Chlorococcum sp., was fed to oysters. The oyster tissue reached equilibrium
within 14 days but the quantity of Kepone transferred was small. The measured
Kepone concentration in the algae was 34 Ug/g (ppm). After 14 days of feeding
oyster tissue concentration reached 0.21 Ug/g (ppm). When the feeding was
terminated most of the Kepone was depurated within 96 hr. Thus the rate of
depuration is rapid and oysters taken from the field with tissue levels that
are detectable must come from areas where the water and/or the food contain a
continuous source of Kepone. The bioaccumulation factor for oysters fed con-
taminated food was 0.007. The food chain bioaccumulation factor, i.e., water-
algae-oyster, was 2.1, however (concentration in oysters to that in water
originally).
In a plankton-raysid-fish food chain, spot accumulated Kepone after eating
mysids which had accumulated Kepone from Kepone-contaminated brine shrimp
which they had eaten. The brine shrimp had concentrated Kepone from the water
to which they were exposed for 48 hr. The brine shrimp were exposed to two
levels of Kepone and thus there were two study chains, low and high exposure.
The bioconcentration of Kepone by brine shrimp was a factor of 10 for the
low exposure and 23.3 for the high exposure. The bioaccumulation factor
from brine shrimp to mysids was 0.5 in both cases and from mysids to spot it
was 0.85. Spot were fed Kepone-contaminated mysids for 30 days but the
tissue concentration in spot never reached an equilibrium point (stable
ceiling value) indicating that uptake of Kepone exceeded depuration and hence
net uptake continued. The bioaccumulation factors at the links in this
simple food chain suggest that bioaccumulation of Kepone is a relatively
inefficient mechanism, the overall accumulation factor for the chain was only
10.5. Approximately 3,000 times as much Kepone in the food chain was required
to produce the same tissue levels as that which would be bioconcentrated by
the top organism, spot. However, there was a measurable amount of bioaccumula-
tion and it does represent a means of Kepone transport through a food chain.
VIII-8

-------
The chronic effect of Kepone on sheepshead minnow growth and survival of
embryo, fry and juveniles was investigated by Hansen et al. (1977a). Adult
sheepshead were held in Kepone concentrations ranging from 0.05 to 24.0 yg/2,
(ppb) for 28 days. All the fish in the highest two concentrations [7.8 and
24 ug/2. (ppb)] died. Symptoms of poisoning during the exposure were darkening
of the posterior of the body, hemorrhaging near the brain, fin rot, loss of
swimming coordination, cessation of feeding, and scoliosis. Scoliosis was
also reported by Couch et al. (1977). Survivors of the 28-day bioassay
were spawned and the progeny observed for survival, growth, hatching, and devel-
opment in a 36-day exposure to six concentrations ranging from 0.08 to
33.0 yg/2, (ppb) Kepone. A significant portion of the embryos from adults
exposed to 1.9 Ug/H (ppb) died during embryogenesis even when held in Kepone-
free water. Also, the Kepone bioconcentrated by the adults (factor = 5200) and
passed to the embryos was very slow to depurate. Forty-six percent of the
Kepone in the egg was still found in the fry 36 days after hatching. The fry
exposed to 0.08 Ug/& (ppb) were stunted. The conclusion reached by Couch et al.
was that the acute toxicity results available for Kepone greatly underestimate
the true hazard of the chemical to fish. Where the 96-hr LC50 for Kepone
was found to be 6.96 yg/5. (ppb) for adult fish, the 28-day LC50 was 0.8 Ug/2.
(ppb) for adult fish and the 28-day EC50 was 0.8 Ug/& (ppb) for fry. Growth,
reproduction and survival was affected by all concentrations studied. While
it is generally accepted that one-hundredth (0.01) of the 96-hr LC50 for persis-
tent organism chemical should protect species (NAS-NAE, 1973), the data devel-
oped in this study indicate that a concentration one thousandth (0.001) of
the 96-hr LC50 was detrimental to the sheepshead minnow.
IMPLICATIONS OF KEPONE EFFECT STUDIES
The environmental impact assessment process for a persistent toxic mate-
rial such as Kepone requires certain information. The acute and chronic
toxicity to species in the water system in question is necessary. This infor-
mation serves as the base for prediction of damage at the organism level in
terms of direct lethality or sublethal effects such as inhibition of growth,
behavioral alterations, and interference with reproduction. Bioconcentra-
tion and bioaccumulation factors must also be addressed in dealing with per-
sistent compound classes which may have demonstrated a propensity for this
activity. The details of information on these topics have been discussed above,
and a general overview of this information is seen in Table VIII.3. Inspection
of this table will reveal the major shortcoming of the toxicological data that
are available for the compound Kepone. At the top of the table is listed the
species for which data exist on the topics of toxicity, bioconcentration and
bioaccumulation. Each of the species listed in the table has been rated as to
its presence or absence in the James River ecosystems. If the species is
found in the waters of the James River it is rated as to its importance based
on abundance. Of the 13 species for which data exist only six are found in the
river. Only three of these six, blue crab, oyster, and spot, are of economic
significance. This is in direct contrast to a list of 21 additional species
which are of importance to the river ecology for which no data are available.
VIII-9

-------
TABLE VIII.3. COMPARISON OF SPECIES BASED ON LABORATORY DATA
AVAILABLE AND IMPORTANCE TO THE JAMES RIVER
I
t-*
o
James River James River Acute Chronic
Abuent Present Importance Toxicity Toxicity Bloconcentratlon Bloacc uiiiula t Ion
Creen Algae
Clilorocucciim ai>.	A	XX
Diinallella lertloiecta	A	XX
Diatoms
Nltzschia sp.	P	Ab	XX
Thalassloslra pseudonana	C	XX
My sids
Hysldopsls balila	A	X	XX
Urine Shrimp
Artemla sallna	A	X
Crass Shrimp
Palacmonetes pnnio	P	X	X
Brown Shrimp
Panaeiis azteeus	G	X
Fiddler Crab
lica punlllator	A	X
Blue Crab
Calllnectes sapldus	P	Ab	T	X
Oyster
Crassostrea vlrglnlca	P	Ab	NA	X	X	X
A = Absent NA = Not applicable I) = Dominant in some salinity zones P =¦ PresenL C = Common
0 - Ceiius presenL, oLher species Ab = Abundant in some salinity zones and seasons T = Tested, none determined

-------
Redear Sunfish
Lepomls inlcrolophus
Bluegill Sunfish
Lepomls macrochlrua
Sheepshead Minnow
Cyprinodon varieftatus
Spot
Lelostomus xanthurus
Asiatic Clan
Corblcula manilensis
Wedge Clam
Rangia cuneata
Ainphipod
Gammarus daiberi
Polycheate
Scolecolepldea virldls
Soft Clam
Mya arenaria
Hard Clam
Mercenarla mercenarla
Channel Catfish
Ictalurus punctatus
Brown Bullhead
Ictalurus nebulosus
White Catfish
Ictalurus catus
James Klver
Absent Present
A
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
TABLE VIII.3. (contd)
James River Acute Chronic
Importance Toxicity Toxicity Bioconcentration Bioaccumulation
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab

-------
Ilogclioker
'l'rlnectes uiacii I atua
White Perch
Mo rone americana
Day Anchovy
Anclioa mltchlll i
Striped Baas
Horone aaxatllls
Sliver Percli
Balrdella chryaura
Ueakf lsh
Cynosclon refia11a
Suiiiiuer flounder
1'aral lcthya dentatus
Blueback Herring
Aloaa aeatlvalla
Alewlfe
Aloaa pauedoliarenRaa
Spot Call Slilner
Notropla Imdsonlua
Atlantic Croaker
MlcropoKQn undnlatiia
Spotted llake
Uropliycla reglus
James Klver
Absent Present
P
I'
P
P
P
P
1'
I'
P
P
P
P
TA11LE VIII.3. (contd)
Chronic
Toxlclty BloconcentratIon BloaccnimilatIon
U
1)
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
James Klver Acute
Importance Toxicity

-------
The latter part of the species list is by no means inclusive of all James River
species but only lists those indicated as abundant or dominant in the benthic
or pelagic communities (See Chapter VI). The use of representative species
in toxicological studies is not unprecedented. Economics and resource limita-
tions mediate against evaluation of all pertinent species for a particular
water body. Historically, data on related species have been of value in
assessing relative effects and determining likely impacts.
The acute toxicity data for all species indicate that the lethal con-
centrations, i.e., the 96-hr LC50 are all higher than the levels found dis-
solved in the water of the James. In part this is due to the low solubility
of Kepone but it is especially the result of the high Kepone affinity of the
sediments. The conclusion is that organisms which would be exposed to dis-
solved Kepone, mainly finfish, are not likely to experience acute toxicity.
The concentrations of Kepone in the water column are much lower than the typi-
cal lethal levels as generated in the laboratory. For economically important
organisms which are in contact with the sediment, i.e., blue crabs and oysters,
no acute toxicity is demonstratable from the available data. Blue crabs were
relatively unaffected by levels as high as 210 ppb and oysters typically cease
siphoning in the presence of noxious materials or in the case of Kepone are
quick to depurate.
The primary productivity of the James River is not likely to be affected
by Kepone because of its low availability to the algae. The levels required
to reduce the productivity of the algae species studied was approximately
100 times higher than the level typically found in the water column. It has
been suggested that, while the primary productivity may not be affected, the
bioconcentration performed by the algae may serve as a source for bioaccumu-
lation at the higher trophic levels. Factors pertinent to this considera-
tion are discussed below.
A review of the summarized acute toxicity data in Table VIII.1 provides
an indication of the more sensitive organisms. Compared to the algae, benthos,
and most finfishes listed in Table VIII.3, the mysids are probably the most
vulnerable. As previously noted, mysids were conspicuously absent from the
gut of James River striped bass. This may indicate direct effects of Kepone
contamination which have caused a change in food sources for predators.
It has been stated above that the concentrations of Kepone used in the
toxicity studies discussed were higher than those expected in the James River
waters. From this data it might be concluded that the fish populations are
relatively safe from acute effect. The chronic toxicity studies are another
matter. Several studies of chronic effects indicate that Kepone is toxic to
the species studied at very low concentrations. Rapid uptake has been demon-
strated for migratory species as well as long-term residents.
Persistent organics such as DDT, lindane, toxaphene, and dieldrin are
known to bioconcentrate and the mechanism is thought to be the relatively
high solubility of the compounds in the fatty tissues of the organisms
affected. Bioconcentration represents a mechanism for transfer of toxicants
VIII-13

-------
in organisms which then act as a source of the toxicant for the organisms at
higher trophic levels. Table VIII.4 presents a summary of data on tissue con-
centrations of Kepone in various species. The data were derived from two
sources, laboratory studies in which selected organisms were exposed to con-
centrations of Kepone and animals collected from the James River. The data
in the upper portion of the table were selected from the literature on the
basis of exposure levels which were most representative of what can be assumed
to be the case in the environment, i.e., a long-term, low-level exposure. The
field data were taken from Bender et al. (1977). Unfortunately, it is impossible
to know the exact exposure concentration of the field biota but in this dis-
cussion a nominal concentration in the James River of 0.01 to 0.1 ugi% (ppb)
has been assumed. Thus, the exposure levels in the laboratory studies cited
are in the same range and the tissue levels are similar. Inspection of the
data by Bender revealed some interesting trends concerning what can be expected
in James River biota. The fresh-water fish revealed the greatest variation
in tissue levels of Kepone, ranging from 0.004 to 2.4 ug/g (ppm). The long-
term estuarine residents were much less variable but showed the same upper
limit. Values for these species range from 0.6 to 2.7 Ug/g (ppm). The short-
term marine species had the lowest tissue level of 0.1 Ug/g (ppm) while the
long-term marine finfish ranged from 0.75 to 0.81 Ug/g (ppm). This comparison
of data derived from the laboratory and field indicates that the information
from the laboratory concerning rates, mechanisms, and depuration is applicable
since similar exposures in laboratory and field result in similar tissue
concentrations.
Bioconcentration is a dynamic process which means that tissue concentra-
tion of a chemical is time dependent and further that removal of the organism
from the source of the dissolved chemical usually results in depuration.
Since most of the James River fisheries have been closed due to the excessive
tissue levels of Kepone, the rates and mechanisms of bioconcentration and
depuration are critical items of information. The data of Bahner et al. (1977)
and others indicate that the fish bioconcentrate Kepone to an equilibrium level
in 8 to 17 days; oysters are much faster. Depuration displays a similar pattern,
i.e., oysters depurated Kepone to nondetectable levels in 7 to 20 days in the
laboratory, while bluefish have been noted to require more than 90 days to
depurate. The field program of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science
(Bender et al. , 1977) included the sampling of Kepone-laden oysters from the
James River and moving them to uncontaminated areas. These transplanted oysters
were then sampled over time to determine the effect of season on the depuration
rate. As might be expected the oysters depurate more slowly in the winter when
activity levels are depressed. The biological half-life of Kepone in oysters
in the summer is about 1 week while in the winter 40 days are required before
there is a measurable decline in the residue levels. Measured tissue concen-
trations in light of the rapid depuration rate of oysters in the summer indi-
cate that they must be in continuous contact with water carrying Kepone or
have access to Kepone-laden food and sediments.
VIII-14

-------
TABLE VIII.4. COMPARISON OF TISSUE CONCENTRATIONS OF KEPONE RESULTING
FROM CHRONIC LABORATORY EXPOSURE WITH TISSUE CONCENTRATION
MEASURED IN FIELD SAMPLED ORGANISMS
Field
Laboratory	Tissue,
	Organisms	 	Exposure, ppb		ppm
Laboratory Studies
Algae
Chlorococcum sp.	100, 3 times over 7 day	80.00
Dunaliella tertiolecta	23.00
Nitzschia, sp.	41.00
Thalassiosira psuedonana	52.00
Mysids
Mysidopsis bahia	0.026 21 day	0.19
0.41	21 day	6.30
Oyster
Crassostrea virginica	0.03 28 day	0.29
0.39	28 day	3.60
Grass Shrimp
Palaemonetes pugio	0.023 28 day	0.09
0.40	28 day	4.57
Sheepshead Minnow
Cyprinodon variegatus	0.05 28 day	0.37
Spot
Leiostomus xanthurus	0.029 30 day	0.06
Field Studies
Spottail Shiner (Notropis hudsonius)	Unknown 0.08
Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus)	11 0.04
White Catfish (Ictalurus catus)	" 0.25
American Eel (Anguilla rostrata)	" 0.64
Black Crappie (Promoxis nigromaculatus)	" 1.0
Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides)	" 2.4
White Perch (Roccus americanus)	" 2.7
Bay Anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli)	" 0.65
Atlantic Silverside (Menldia menidia)	" 1.6
Hogchoker (Trinectes maculatus)	" 0.94
Grass Shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio)	" 0.60
VIII-15

-------
TABLE VIII.4. (Contd)
Field
Laboratory	Tissue,
	Organisms		 	Exposure, ppb		ppm
Sand Shrimp (Crangon septemspinosa)	Unknown	2.0
Xanthid Crabs	"	0.27
Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidus) Female	"	0.19
Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidus) Male	"	0.81
Oyster (Crassostrea virginica)	"	0.16
Hard Clam (Mercenaria mercenaria)	"	0.09
American Shad (Alosa sapidisslma)	"	0.03
Atlantic Menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus)	"	0.05
Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus)	"	0.81
Croaker (Micropogon undulatus)	"	0.75
Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix)	"	0.29
The relatively slower rate of the fish to concentrate and depurate Kepone
is important. In terms of the migratory fishes that use the James River for
spawning grounds, it means that those fishes spending more than a month in the
waters of the James River probably will reach equilibrium. However, it is likely
that the rate of Kepone uptake for fish is depressed in the winter when water
temperatures are lower. No data have been found, however, to support this.
There does not appear to be grounds for describing Kepone concentration
by the same mechanism as many of the organochlorine compounds which seem to be
lipophilic (Bender et al., 1977). The tissue level of Kepone found in the
white catfish and the channel catfish differ considerably. White catfish have
a measured mean concentration of 0.25 ug/g (ppm) from field samples and
channel catfish have a mean concentration of only 0.04 Ug/g (ppm). Both fish
species occupy the same area of the James River and eat the same food. An
explanation for the difference in Kepone levels is not found in the relative
body fat content. The white catfish average lipid content is 9.6 mg/g (ppth)
while the channel catfish is 10.7 mg/g (ppth). Analysis of Kepone in spot
revealed tissue concentrations in the following descending order: brains,
liver, gills, other components, and muscle. On the basis of percentage of
total body burden the descending order is: other components, muscle, gills,
brain, and liver.
VIII-16

-------
A frequent observation made for persistent chemicals in nature is that
there appears to be a stepwise increase in tissue concentration levels in
different trophic levels of an ecosystem. This is due to higher trophic
levels consuming lower trophic levels and thus accumulating the already
bioconcentrated toxicant from the lower trophic level. The degree of bio-
accumulation potential for Kepone was investigated in a study conducted by
Bahner et al. (1977) discussed previously. The laboratory food chains inves-
tigated revealed a relatively low potential for bioaccumulation for many
species with the exception of blue crab and polychaete worms. In all cases,
the bioaccumulation was measurable but for most species did not seem to be a
major factor in the magnification of the Kepone concentration in the biota.
Thus, the data available on Kepone would suggest that the major source of
magnification in the biota is bioconcentration rather than bioaccumulation.
This conclusion is supported by evidence on DDT gathered by Hamelink
(1971). This investigator hypothesized that residue concentrations in dif-
ferent trophic levels of an aquatic food chain were a reflection of the
amount retained by organisms of a trophic level as a result of bioconcentra-
tion and solubility differences acting through systems of exchange equili-
bria. The primary evidence usually used to demonstrate bioaccumulation is
the stepwise increase of a compound like DDT with each step in the food
chain. Hamelink demonstrated such stepwise increases in DDT in a pond system
where complete, incomplete, and broken food chains were compared for bio-
accumulation potential. The tissue levels observed indicated a stepwise
increase in concentration of DDT regardless of the food chain system. The
explanation for the results is based upon partition coefficients between two
immiscible solvents, water, and lipid containing tissues. As noted earlier,
lipids do not appear to be the key factor for Kepone concentration.
The amount of Kepone bioconcentrated and the rate at which it occurs is
determined particularly by the solubility of Kepone in water, in tissue, and
the difference between the two solubilities. The implication for Kepone is
that anything which increases the solubility of Kepone in water or decreases
the solubility of Kepone in tissues will decrease the amount of Kepone bio-
concentrated. The overriding factor in determining the amount of Kepone
dissolved in the water of the James River is the affinity of the sediments
for Kepone. At the present time the Kepone situation in the James indicates
that the sediments represent the massive source of Kepone which can be highly
bioconcentrated by the biota for many years. Hamelink's hypothesis suggests
that the sediment reservoir is in a dynamic state and anything which alters
its interaction with the water may alter the degree of bioconcentration. If
the sediments are altered or manipulated in a manner which reduces their
relative affinity for Kepone the degree of bioconcentration will increase.
Furthermore, the hypothesis indicates that bioconcentration and not bio-
accumulation through the food chain is the mechanism which is important in
determining the amount of Kepone that will get into the tissues of the James
River biota other than the blue crab.
VIII-17

-------
Biologists at the EPA Gulf Breeze Laboratory have reviewed all toxico-
logical data to select acceptable ambient Kepone levels which will be safe
to aquatic life. The approaches considered are summarized in Table VIII.5.
Based on these results, the Gulf Breeze staff has recommended a protective
water quality criterion of 0.008 ug/Z (ppb). This is believed to protect all
species tested to date. It would be a difficult criterion to implement,
however, since it is at detection limits, without the use of sophisticated
sample concentration techniques. Fluctuating analytical results and the lack,
of use of these concentration techniques make it uncertain whether present
levels in the James River exceed this limit. In general, Bailey Creek and
Bay water do. A limit based solely on production of fish with tissue levels
below the FDA limits would be 0.022 ug/& (ppb). Only one sampling point on
the James River (City Point) had water with Kepone in excess of this concen-
tration. Yet, fin and shell fish tissue Kepone concentrations remain in
excess of FDA limits. Hence, water criteria are either too high, or are not
the limiting factor for uptake by fish.
The food and sediment concentration value recommended for use by the
Gulf Breeze Staff is 0.015 Ug/g (ppm) Kepone. This is based on a safety
factor of 0.1 over food quality criterion based on chronic feed studies.
There is no real justification for the 0.1 factor, but the consideration of
desorption of Kepone from sediments brackets safe levels between 0.08 and
0.008 Ug/g (ppm). In this context, the 0.015 Ug/g (ppm) level appears to be
of the right magnitude. Had the less protective water criteria of 0.02 yg/I
(ppb) (FDA considerations) been employed, the sediment criteria would have been
0.02-0.2 ug/g (ppm) Kepone. In either case, many sediments in the James River
and most in the Hopewell area including Bailey Creek and Bay exceed these
criteria. This could explain why fish tissues continue to exceed FDA limits
while water levels do not exceed water criteria based on concentration in
flesh to the FDA limit. In summary, it is currently concluded that no adverse
ecological effects will occur if Kepone concentratons can be maintained below
0.008 ug/£ (ppb) in water and 0.015 Ug/g (ppm) in sediments. These are
conservative estimates and should protect all trophic levels in the estuary.
FOOD RELATIONS OF THE JAMES RIVER BIOTA
The importance of bioaccumulation through the James River food chain has
been discussed previously in this report and will not be detailed here. The
earlier discussion indicates that relative to bioconcentration, bioaccumulation
is inefficient and does not represent a major source of Kepone transport in
the ecosystem for most species. However, Kepone is a persistent compound ana
thus a discussion of food chain relationships is of interest.
Many of the James River species, particularly those of economic impor-
tance have been investigated with regard to their seasonal abundance, distri-
bution, spawning activities, and catch data. Finfish studies occasionally
report gut contents but these data are much more difficult to locate and are
usually incomplete. In most cases where food organisms are mentioned, the
topic is of a very secondary nature to the primary subject of the report or
publication. In general, while many aspects of James River species have been
studied, knowledge of their relationships to other trophic levels is poorly
developed.
VIII-18

-------
TABLE VIII.5. ALTERNATIVE CRITERIA FOR KEPONE LEVELS IN WATER
Approach	 	Method		Criterion
Water
Use of Application Factor
Application factor 0.01 for persistent cheml- 0.01 x 6.6 = 0.066 pg/fc
cal, spot most sensitive species 6.6 pg/i.
Maximum Acceptable Toxicant Results of recent chronic tests with rays ids 0.008 pg/l
Concentration (MATC)
Concentration Required to Divide action level (0.3 pg/g fin and shell 0.3 ; 13,500 = 0.02 pg/i.
Reach FDA Food Limits	fish, 0.4 pg/g crab) by bloconcentration	0.4 f 10,000 = 0.04 pg/l
factors (13,500 for oysters, 10,000 myrlds).
Food
Food Quality Criteria
Sediment
Food Chain Considerations
Use a safety factor (0.1) on the MATC cal-
culated for food (0.15 |ig/g crab)
Sediment level should not exceed food
quality level due to benthic uptake.
0.1 x 0.15 = 0.015 pg/g
in food
0.015 pg/g
AND SEDIMENT
Remarks
Does not reflect results of
chronic tests with sheepshead
minnows and ayslds.
This is conservative level
protective of all species
tested.
This level is close to those
at which toxic effects have
been observed, contradicts
observations in the James
River.
This is based on limited
knowledge and refers to food
only.
Does not account for desorp-
tion of kepone to water.
Consideration of Desorptlon
Potential and MATC in Water
Assume desorption rate of 0.001 - 0.0001
and MATC in water 0.000008 mg/i
o.ooooos ; o.ooi = 0.008 pg/g
0.000008 ; 0.0001 = 0.08 pg/g
Highly dependent on washout
rate.

-------
A simplified food-web relationship has been developed for the James River
major species and is presented in Figure VIII.1. The finfish species displayed
in this figure are those identified in Chapter VI as being the most abundant
in the James River during various seasons. The majority of the gut content
analysis information was taken from Hildebrand and Schroeder, 1972, with
the remainder obtained from the other articles referenced here.
The simple food web that was developed suggests two important factors
that are related to the environmental assessment of Kepone in the James River.
One of the most important species in the food relationships of many finfish
in the River is the decapod crustacean which fills in for the conspicuously
absent mysid. As stated before, Neomysis americana provides a food base
for many of the important species of fish and particularly during the juve-
nile stages of some of the migratory species in other nearby rivers.
Figure VIII.1 also illustrates the importance of the benthic community.
A large portion of the finfish community is supported by the organisms living
in or on the James River sediments. Many of these organisms are filter feeders
and subsist upon the detritus and organic-laden silt which is the main Kepone
carrier in the river sytem. Others are scavengers and obtain their food from
materials deposited on the river bottom. Thus, they are in direct contact
with the sediments.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF FUTURE KEPONE CONTAMINATION
Laboratory studies have confirmed the ability of Kepone to produce acute
and chronic effects in aquatic species. Analyses have also confirmed that
migratory fish moving into the James River can accumulate Kepone in their
tissue to levels above FDA limits in a period of days to weeks. Closure of
the James to fishing as a result of this accumulation is the single impact
in the natural environment which can be tied directly to Kepone contamination.
Attributing other impacts on the James River ecosystem to Kepone is speculative
at this point. Most prominent is dramatic reduction in the blue crab popula-
tion (>90% between 1972 and 1975), a considerable decrease in juvenile alosins,
and the apparent absence of mysids. Laboratory data are not available to
identify the Kepone levels which are associated with three specific effects,
but some indication can be found in a review of sublethal toxicity levels.
Studies with blue crab have shown a decline in moulting when provided food
containing 0.15 Ug/g (ppm) Kepone. Since oysters can concentrate Kepone by
a factor of 10,000, these food levels could be reached if water levels exceed
0.015 Ug/2. (ppb). Growth of mysids and sheepshead minnows is retarded when
these species are exposed to 0.072 Ug/£ (ppb) and 0.080 Ug/& (ppb), respec-
tively.
VIII-20

-------
I
INJ
FINFISII
PLANK I mi
111 HTIIIIS
Alosids
(SJmllucd|)(Kl Crustaceans	\
(Hyilas In Oilier *
mqchuker
Coiifcpods
SySUttls)
\
Mo lusks
Vasculai pldiirs
& detritus
Insect Larvae
Anne li ils
Striped Bass
Shrimp
Qluc-crab ^	
Algae
Oysters
Sediments
Slit
Detritus
FIGURE V1TI.1. Partial Food Web for Selected James River Species

-------
Results of the mathematical modeling of the James River (see Chapter VII)
indicate that soluble levels of Kepone currently range from 0.005 yg/I at
Burwell Bay to a high of 0.008 Ug/£ (ppb) near the mouth of the Chickahominy
River during low flows. Field data are restricted by levels of detection in
this range and confirm only that soluble levels in the James River are only
rarely above these concentrations. Both the predicted and observed values are
below the concentrations at which sublethal effects have been noted, as dis-
cussed above. These data are very close to the recommended no effect criteria
level of 0.008 Ug/I (ppb). Based on these criteria, direct effects to aquatic
species do not appear to be occurring as a result of soluble Kepone in the
James River. Similarly, bioconcentration factors reported for organism uptake
from water do not account for the ability of fish and crabs to exceed FDA limits
when exposed to James River water. Hence, the role of the sediments and food
chain is very important in the effects noted to date.
This apparent lack of effects attributable to levels of dissolved
Kepone can be expected to continue. Soluble Kepone is controlled by the
concentration of Kepone in sediments and subsequent desorption. With all
major sources of Kepone to the River eliminated, Kepone concentrations in
sediment will decline over time and hence so will those of the water.
This decline will be slow, however. It is estimated that only 76 to 170 kg
(167 to 374 lb) of Kepone are transported, past Burwell Bay each year by the
River. An additional 10 to 100 kg (22 to 220 lb) of Kepone may leave the River
in the tissues of migratory fish. These comprise only 1.4 to 3% of the total
Kepone believed to lie in the sediments. As the concentrations decline, so
will the rate of loss. Consequently, movement from the River will take
decades to approach a zero state.
The overall loss process can be simplified to approximate a quantity of
Kepone which is depleted by 2% of its remaining total each year, or:
Q'Q0 (0.98)C
where
Q = the quantity of Kepone in sediment at any time t
Qq = the original quantity of Kepone in sediment
Similarly, if a standard unit volume of sediment is considered, the expres-
sion can be replaced with:
C = C (0.98)C
o
where
C = concentration of Kepone in sediment at time t
Cq = the original concentration of Kepone in sediment
VIII-22

-------
This relation is delineated in Figure VIII.2 for concentrations of Kepone
reported in various reaches of the James River. From these data and the above
calculations, it would take over 200 years for sediments with 1 yg/g (ppm)
Kepone to approach to the recommended safe level of 0.015 pg/g (ppm). Similarly
it will take 175, 95, 60 and 14 years to reach that same level when initial
concentrations are 0.5, 0.1, 0.05, and 0.02 pg/g (ppm) Kepone, respectively.
These time periods represent maximum lengths of time since the relation assumes
a completely mixed system when in fact movement below the turbidity maximum
is better approximated as plug flow. Furthermore, no account is taken for
dilution with uncontaminated sediments. Therefore, restoration by natural
mechanisms is likely to occur more rapidly.
It should also be noted that depletion of bed sediment concentrations
will not occur at an equal rate throughout the river. The turbidity maximum
causes a buildup of Kepone at the salt wedge. This buildup is sustained as
long as contaminated upstream sediments feed it.
It is clear that Kepone concentrations will remain highest in the area
of the turbidity maximum near the mouth of the Chickahominy River. While
fresh-water residents predominate in this segment of the.James River, it serves
as an important nursery area for the hogchoker, bay anchovy, alewife, blueback
herring, and shad. White perch and striped bass also use this area for spawn-
ing and as a nursery. The Chickahominy River is the upstream boundary for
blue crab and croaker.
Research on sublethal effects of Kepone to aquatic life has focused on
soluble levels. Little is known about sublethal effects resulting from Kepone
concentrations in sediments. As noted earlier, current soluble levels in
the James River are believed too low to be responsible for direct effects on
the ecosystem. Therefore, any impacts noted must be closely tied to sediment
contamination. The vast majority of the river sediments below Richmond
presently contain Kepone in excess of the 0.015 Ug/g (ppm) level deemed safe.
The 0.015 Ug/g (ppm) Kepone sediment level was selected on the basis of
safe food limits for blue crabs and the observation that these food organisms
can attain the same tissue concentrations as the sediments with which they are
associated. This implies that if Kepone concentrations in sediments remain
above 0.015 Ug/g (ppm) continued impacts on the crab population can be antici-
pated.
The current concentrations in sediments are also responsible for keeping
fish tissue above FDA limits. No quantitative relations have been developed
to determine how low sediment concentrations would have to be taken to keep
organism tissues below the limits. Suspended sediments in the lower James
carry Kepone at concentrations in the tens of parts per billion. Hence, fish
must be capable of concentrating Kepone by a factor of 10 over the suspended
sediments. If suspended sediments originate as bed sediments, then fish
tissue may exceed FDA limits if bed sediments have Kepone concentrations
VIII-23

-------
in excess of 0.03 Ug/g (ppm). This is close co the 0.015 ug/g (ppm) recommended
safe limit for sediments. Hence, fishing restrictions in the James River
due to high Kepone residues in fish is likely to persist for many years
as evidenced by Figure VIII.2.
Based on these considerations, it is projected that sublethal effects
and tissue concentrations above current FDA limits will persist for a period
of many years. Blue crabs and alosins are most likely to be impacted by these
effects as they apparently have been in the past. The effects on the alosins
may persist somewhat longer than those on blue crabs because of their use of
the zone around the Chickahominy River which will sustain high Kepone concen-
trations for the longest time of any portion of the River.
VIII-24

-------
10.0
6
&
c.
I
00
3C
»
4J
C
4)
s
¦o
4)
C/)
e
4
u
0
CJ

-------
REFERENCES
1.	*Bahner, L. H., A. J. Wilson, Jr., J. M. Sheppard, J. M„ Patrick, Jr.,
L. R. Goodman, and G. E. Walsh. 1977. "Kepone Bioconcentration,
Accumulation, Loss and Transfer Through Estuarine Food Chains."
Chesapeake Science. 18(3):299-308.
2.	*Bender, M. E., R. J. Huggett, and W. J. Hargis, Jr., 1977. Kepone Residues
in Chesapeake Bay Biota. Presented at Kepone Seminar II, Easton, MD.
September 20-21, 1977.
3.	Bentley, R. E. 1975. Acute Toxicity of Kepone to Bluegill (Lemomis
macrochirus) and Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri). Summary Report Submitted
to Allied Chemical Corporation by Bionomics, Inc.
4.	Bridges, W. R. 1962. "Effects of Time and Temperature on the Toxicity of
Heptachlor and Kepone to Redear Sunfish." Organic Pesticides Their Detec-
tion, Measurement and Toxicity to Aquatic Life, pp. 247-249.
5.	Butler, P. A., 1963. "Commercial Fisheries Investigation". Pesticide-
Wildlife Studies: A Review of Fish and Wildlife Service Investigations
During 1961 and 1962. George, J. L. (ed). U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C. Circular 167.
USGPO. pp. 11-25.
6.	*Couch, J. A., J. T. Winstead and L. R. Goodman. 1977. "Kepone-Induced
Scoliosis and Its Itistological Consequences in Fish." Science. 197:
585-587.
7.	Hamelink, J. L., R. C. Waybrant and R. C. Ball. 1977. "A Proposal:
Exchange Equilibria Control the Degree Chlorinated Hydrocarbons are
Biologically Magnified in Lentic Environments. Trans. Am. Fish Soc.,
100(2):207-214.
8.	*Hansen, D. J., L. R. Goodman-and A. J. Wilson, Jr. 1977a. "Kepone:
Chronic Effects on Embryo, Fry, Juvenile and Adult Sheepshead Minnows
(cyprinodon variegatus). Chesapeake Science. 18(2): 227-232.
9.	*Hansen, D. J., A. N. Wilson, D. R. Nimmo, S. C. Schimmel, L. H. Bahner.
1977. "Kepone: Hazard to Aquatic Organisms." Science. 193:528.
10.	Heimuller, T. 1975. Acute Toxicity of Kepone to Fiddler Crabs
(Uca pugillator). Summary Report Submitted to Allied Chemical Company
by 3ionomics.
11.	Hildebrand, S. F. and W. C. Schroeder. 1972. Fishes of Chesapeake Bav.
Reprinted for the Smithsonian Institution by T.F.H. Pubs. Inc.,
Neptune, NJ.
VIII-26

-------
12.	NAS-NAE Committee on Water Quality Criteria. 1973. Water Quality
Criteria. 1972 Ecol. Res. Ser., U.S. EPA-R3-73-003, March 1973.
13.	*Nimmo, D. R., L. H. Bahner, R. A. Rigby, J. M. Sheppard, and
A. J. Wilson, Jr. 1976. "Mysidopsis bahia: An Estuarine Species Suit-
able for Life Cycle Bioassays to Determine Sublethal Effects of a
Pollutant." Presented at Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Evaluation.
October 25-26. Memphis, TN.
14.	*Schimmel, S. C. and A. J. Wilson, Jr. 1977. "Acute Toxicity of Kepone
to Four Estuarine Animals." Chesapeake Science. 18(2):224-227.
15.	*Walsh, G. E., K. Ainsworth, and A. J. Wilson. 1977. "Toxicity and
Uptake of Kepone in Marine Unicellular Algae." Chesapeake Science.
18(2):222-223.
~Participants in the overall EPA Kepone Mitigation Feasibility Project. Papers
can also be found in:
Gulf Breeze Laboratory. Kepone in the Marine Environment. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, April 1978.
VIII-27

-------
CHAPTER IX - HOPEWELL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
SUMMARY
Content
Chapter IX describes methods for eliminating Kepone contamination trom
the terrestrial areas of Hopewell. It begins with the establishment of a
set of example criteria that are used to delineate areas of potential clean-
up activities. The scenario resulting from application of these working
criteria would include mitigation activities at Nitrogen Park, a portion of
the old Life Science plant site, the Kepone disposal lagoon, open spaces in
the Station street neighborhood, and the marsh adjacent to the southeastern
corner of the Hopewell landfill. Various techniques are presented that could
address the Kepone contamination in these and other areas of Hopewell. Costs
and environmental impacts of alternatives are compared, which leads to estab-
lishment of a comprehensive cleanup plan as dictated by the set of working
criteria applied in this scenario. The final section of Chapter IX provides
an overview of techniques available for destruction of Kepone residuals in
the materials generated from cleanup activities.
Findings
•	Current data on human and ecological dose response to Kepone levels in
soil are insufficient to establish technical criteria for designating
required cleanup actions in Hopewell.
•	Potential techniques for mitigating the impacts of Kepone in surface
soil include scraping or excavation, soil cover and seeding, lime
treatment to accelerate leaching, amine accelerated photolysis, and
the addition of synthetic soil amendments.
•	Uncertainties concerning the effectiveness and environmental impact of
lime treatment deem it an inadvisable mititjation alternative at this
point.
•	Tree cover inhibits the effectiveness of amine accelerated photolysis
and synthetic soil amendments.
•	Cost of excavating and drumming contaminated marsh sediment adjacent
to the southeastern portion of the landfill is estimated to be $5,000.
•	Covering Nitrogen Park with 5 cm (2 in.) of uncontaminated soil and
reseeding would cost approximately $3,500.
•	High-temperature incineration is an effective means of destroying harm-
ful Kepone residuals.
IX-1

-------
INTRODUCTION
The complexity of interactions of Kepone with the environment in the
Hopewell area along with a significant amount of missing information has
hampered efforts to identify the cause-and-effect of current Kepone movement
patterns. However, it is apparent that Kepone residuals persist and that
they act as a continuing source of contamination to Bailey Bay and the
James River. It is therefore Important to evaluate alternatives available
to eliminate these sources.
From the sampling and analysis work performed during recent studies,
two continuing sources of Kepone movement to the River have been Identified:
(1) contaminated soil and (2) disposal sites. Prior to construction of the
new regional sewage treatment plant, the Hopewell primary plant contributed
a major portion of daily inputs to Bailey Bay. Total inputs, however, were
in the tens of grams per day range. Subsequent opening of the regional
plant and estimates of the total Kepone content of this source have reduced
its importance as a source term. Before selecting and evaluating alterna-
tives, both the objective of the restoration effort and the overall strategy
to be employed in the selection process must be determined. A method of
establishing criteria is presented in Che follpwing section to illustrate
how this could be accomplished if sufficient data were available.
ESTABLISHMENT OF EXAMPLE CRITERIA
In general, the objective of restoration is to reduce Kepone migration
and to reduce Kepone availability to organisms. Uncertainty over the impact
of chronic low-level exposure makes it difficult to select quantitative
criteria pursuant to the objective. One approach would be to assure that
efforts are directed to maintain the effluent levels of 0.5 ug11 (ppb)
selected for discharges from the Hopewell sewage treatment plant. This
effluent limitation was developed as a working guideline in April 1975,
however, and does not reflect recent studies on the effect of Kepone on
aquatic communities. Therefore, it may not agree with ambient water cri-
teria currently recommended by the EPA Gulf Breeze Laboratory.
Alternately, criteria can be selected on the basis of present knowledge
of dose-response relations. Laboratory data suggest that accumulation
through the food web can lead to concentrations in fish above the action
level if Kepone levels in water exceed 0.02 yg/2. (ppb) (see Chapter VIII).
Consequently, total daily Kepone discharges must be kept below the level
which would sustain these concentrations in the net daily outflow from
Bailey Bay. The latter flow rate is roughly equivalent to the total daily
inflow to the Bay as well as James River flow. From rainfall data for the
IX-2

-------
3
Bailey Creek drainage, the tributary input is an average of 190,000 m /day
[close to 50 million gallons per day (MGD)]. The nearly 532,000 m-Vday
(140 MGD) of industrial cooling waters discharged to Bailey Bay have not
been included since they are withdrawn from the same general area and con-
stitute a recycle rather than new input. Municipal inflows are minor. To
this must be added the flow of the James River. To assure acceptable levels
at all times, a low flow rate case was applied. During June 25-28, 1977
the flow at Cartersville was 51 m^/sec (1800 cfs). This was a 20-year low
flow and is adequate for the purposes here. Flow at City Point is generally
1.22 times that at Cartersville or 62 m^/sec (2200 cfs) during the June 25-28,
1977 period. Hence, Kepone discharges must be kept below:
M = 0.02 yg/£ x 5.4 x 10^ m^/day
» 2 x 10 ^ g/H x 5.4 x 10^ Z/day
= 108 g/day
Use of this rationale is somewhat moot at this point since, as is evi-
dent from Table V.16, Identified inputs at this time are considerably below
this level. Hence chronic stress is not likely from current Hopewell inputs.
At the same time Kepone outflows should also be controlled to ensure
that no individual source exceeds levels which can lead to acute ecological
damages. The lowest 96-hr LC50 reported to date is 6.6 yg/& (ppb) for spot
(see Table VII.1). This does not imply that any input with Kepone in excess
of this level would sponsor acute effects, since dilution and dispersion in
receiving waters must be considered. However, it serves as a working limit
for the evaluation of mitigation alternatives performed here.
There is also concern for contaminated surface soils from the stand-
point of direct public contact. It is assumed that open fields, parks,
playgrounds, etc., with high levels of Kepone on the surface may endanger
people who come in direct contact with the soil. In particular, even if
contact is infrequent, there is a potential for allergic reactions and skin
irritation. This is hypothetical to some extent since dose-response rela-
tions for direct contact have not been characterized.
Some data are available to give perspective on concentrations of Kepone
which may cause harm in the environment. Female rats fed Kepone in their
diet began to show significant effects on the size of the liver and kidneys
at 5 to 10 yg/g (ppm) Kepone. At 10 yg/g (ppm) Kepone the females were also
highly excitable. A value of 1.0 yg/g (ppm) was selected as the no effect
level. Reproduction in mice has been affected by food levels of 10.0 yg/g
(ppm) Kepone. Predaceous insects and anthropods are not (3 out of 4)
affected by concentrations of 1 to 2 yg/g (ppm) in soil; however, birds
display greater than 50% reduction in reproduction when fed 5 to 10 yg/g
(ppm) (U.S. EPA, 1975a). Based on these results soils with greater than
10 ug/g (ppm) Kepone are addressed as candidates for elimination from
IX-3

-------
public contact. Soils in the Hopewell area with the concentrations
>10 ug/g (ppm) roughly coincide with areas producing runoff with Kepone in
excess of 6.6 ug/g (ppm). This does not constitute a health criteria.
Rather, it reflects a working standard employed for the work reported
herein to focus attention for mitigation alternatives. Sites selected by
these criteria should be considered as examples illustrating potential
costs of restoration.
One final criterion is directed to deposits of Kepone. Any large
quantity of unconfined Kepone in the environment should be isolated and
confined to prevent future migration into the River. In this context,
"large" would refer to any deposit of sufficient size to add significantly
(102) to current quantities of Kepone in James River. Hence, deposits of
more than 1000 kg (2200 lb) should be addressed. In summary, in accordance
with the example criteria, mitigation in Hopewell should be addressed to
areas with runoff containing greater than 6.6 ug/2. (ppb) Kepone, surface
soils with greater than 10 ug/g (ppm) Kepone and subsurface deposits with
more than 1000 kg (2200 lb) of Kepone.
The strategy for achieving this objective is based first on an attempt
to collect and destroy Kepone residuals which exceed criteria limits. The
alternatives should at least intercept inflows or prevent public contact.
Once alternatives have been identified which can satisfy these objectives,
selection will be based on cost and potential impact considerations. A
discussion of individual alternatives follows.
CONTAMINATED SOIL
From the results of field sampling and analysis in Hopewell it is
apparent that the surface layers of soil are a repository for Kepone at
this time. Based on measurements in the top 2.5 cm (1 in.) in the area
bounded by Bailey Creek, the James River, the Appomattox River and the
southern city limits of Hopewell (approximately 11 mi^), it is estimated
that 45 to 450 kg (100 to 1000 lb) of Kepone presently exist in surface
soils. The bulk of this is distributed in a radial fashion from the old
Life Science Products Company site with concentrations of Kepone decreasing
with distance.
Laboratory and field data suggest that this contamination is subject
to movement both outward and downward. The outward movement is driven by
runoff which in the plant site area has been found to contain up to 687 ug/2,
(ppb) Kepone. In subsequent leach tests with contaminated soil from the
Nitrogen Park area, it was determined that natural soils containing 9 to
200 ug/g (ppm) yield 112 to 604 ug/i (ppb) when contacted with distilled
water. This is far in excess of levels which would be predicted from par-
tition coefficients between sediments and water, ana suggests that much of
the Kepone in Hopewell soils is particulate Kepone from atmospheric deposi-
tion rather than Kepone bound to soil particles through sorption. Hence,
runoff aay dissolve particulate Kepone and/or suspended fine particles
EC-4

-------
without carrying larger soil particles to transport Kepone horizontally.
Kepone will be present even if runoff does not occur at high scour veloci-
ties. Ultimately, the soluble Kepone will equilibrate with nearby solids.
Movement downward results from percolation, which appears to be both
slower and less prevalent than horizontal movement as a result of the
affinity between Kepone and particulate matter in soil. Kepone's particu-
late affinity is similar to that noted in aquatic sediments in the James
River system. To quantify the equilibrium levels expected, samples of top
soil and deeper soil from the Hopewell area were shaken overnight in a
Kepone solution. It was determined that Kepone partitions with soils from
Hopewell at a level of 3 to 6 x 10"^ (concentration in water to concentra-
tion in soil). The lower partition values are found in deeper soils. Hence,
Kepone movement is retarded more at the surface than in the lower layers of
soil. Evidence that percolation has occurred was found in cores from two
wells [Nitrogen Park — Kepone at 6.1 m (20 ft) and north lagoon well —
Kepone at 3.1 m (10 ft)] in a smaller (25 cm) core at Nitrogen Park, in
ground water in scattered wells around the Hopewell area, and in deep cores
from the Pebbled Ammonium Nitrate Plant site. At Nitrogen Park, runoff
water flows northwest until blocked off by fill for the road. At that
point the water becomes ponded in a low marshy area where percolation and
evaporation are the only outlets for water. At the lagoon well the percola-
tion may reflect seepage from the lagoon itself.
Based on data provided in Chapter V, there are four areas in Hopewell
which meet surface soil and runoff criteria outside of disposal sites:
the former Life Science Products plant, Nitrogen Park, open areas in the
Station Street neighborhood, and the Allied Semi-Works plant site. The
Allied Semi-Works plant was found to have ponded water containing 48.3 yg/2.
(ppb) shortly after a storm. Drainage from the site (runoff) carried only
3.38 yg/£ (ppb). Associated soil levels were 11.8 and 23.2 pg/i, (ppm) in
the area surrounding the site. However, this site is removed from further
discussion since Allied Chemical is currently formulating plans in con-
junction with the Commonwealth of Virginia to eliminate this contamination.
The elimination of contaminated soil as a source can be accomplished
by either of two approaches: (1) source elimination or (2) interdiction of
horizontal and downward routes of movement.
Source Elimination
Methods of source elimination are in general preferable to approaches
which would stop transport since these approaches isolate but do not remove
the hazard. Methods available for source elimination are relatively limited.
The simplest approach would be to physically remove contaminated soil and
dispose of it. This would involve scraping contaminated layers of soil
where Kepone has remained near the surface, an approach already taken at
the Life Science Products plant. In areas where contamination is much
deeper, excavation would be required. To evaluate this approach, candidate
IX-5

-------
areas have been selected with use of Che working criteria. It was also
necessary to select a means and place for disposal or isolation of these
soils.
In the estimation of costs for soil scraping, costs were compared to
site preparation work involving clearing and grubbing. It was necessary
to assume that there was minimal vegetative cover, including light brush
and few small trees. EPA reference material was used to develop the stud]
estimate (Found et al., 1973). The EPA estimate was based upon an EPA
Sewer Construction Cost Index of 194.2. The revised 1977 index value is
288.0 and this figure was used to update costs.
Costs for soil scraping are estimated to be $1,100 per acre using
bulldozer and blade type equipment at sites 10 acres or greater in size.
This estimate presumes that debris will be disposed on site. If offsite
disposal is required, the cost estimate should be doubled to §2,200 per
acre. The higher estimate is most appropriate since Kepone-contaminated
soil would have to be removed to a secure area and most sites are smaller
than the minimum 10 acres upon which the cost relation is based.
In areas where significant Kepone can be found at depth, excavation
may be needed. Local costs in the Hopewell area average $2.10 to 2.50/yd^
for shallow excavation (<5 ft) and $2.50 to 3.00/yd^ for deeper work. The
high end of these ranges was used. Cost estimates for soil removal at
prospective sites are detailed in Table IX.1. Associated costs for dis-
posal must be added, and are considered in the Subsequent Appraisal Section.
TABLE IX.1. COST OF SOIL REMOVAL AT SELECTED SITES
Area	Cost,
	Site	 (acres)	Scraping ($)
Nitrogen Park 1	2,200
Life Science Products 0.125	300
Station Street
Neighborhood 1	2,200
Kepone could also be minimized in runoff by accelerating dissolution
with a caustic wash. Kepone is more soluble in alkaline solutions and
therefore would desorb more readily from soils if alkaline waters are
employed. Subsequent runoff would have to be collected prior to reaching
natural waters. In the Life Science Products plant area, the combined
storm sewer system could be used for collection and wash could be neutral-
ized at the old treatment plant. This would greatly reduce levels of
soluble Kepone and allow it co concentrate in sludges that are already
contaminated.
IX-6

-------
A related approach involves solid lime placed on the soil surface.
Natural precipitation would solubilize the lime and Kepone which then could
be trapped in the storm runoff. That which percolated would move the Kepone
to the vadose zone where natural attenuation mechanisms should hold it.
This procedure would have a similar effect to covering the Kepone with
uncontaminated soil. Dosing with lime would have to be carefully performed
to assure that any excess would be neutralized by the soil prior to carrying
the Kepone to underlying aquifers. Runoff could also be accelerated without
chemicals simply by irrigating contaminated areas to rinse surface layers
thoroughly. Since solubility levels are extremely low, this is likely to
be a slow process.
The cost of caustic leaching will largely reflect the amount of chemi-
cal required and the number of retention dikes needed to maintain control.
Laboratory tests with loam topsoil from the Hopewell area indicate that a
dose of 0.8% (on a dry weight basis) is required to bring the soil solution
pH to 12 where leachate levels of Kepone will exceed 6 ug/S, (ppb) (see
Table IV.2). The total quantity of lime required for each site and asso-
ciated costs are presented in Table IX.2. The cost for control is based on
$100 per day rental fee for pumps and $30 per yd for earth fill. Lime is
calculated at $37 per ton and application is assumed to include discing at
$100 per acre. The costs reflect treatment of the surface only. Caustic
rinses will not be effective in removing deposits of Kepone below the
surface. Use of sodium hydroxide solution in place of lime is estimated
to cost twice as much.
TABLE IX.2. ESTIMATED COST FOR LIME TREATMENT OF SOILS
AND SUBSEQUENT RUNOFF CONTROL
Quantity of Soil Cost of	Control Total
	Site	 (Top 1 in.) (lb) Lime ($) Costs($) Costs ($)
Nitrogen Park 437,500 165	200* 365
Life Science Products	55,000	20		**	20
Station Street
Neighborhood	437,500	165		** 165
* Assumes runoff can be pumped from the marshy holding area to a nearby
manhole during two storms.
**Assumes runoff will be intercepted by existing storm sewer.
IX-7

-------
While physical removal is the simplest approach in concept, it is
expensive and involves large volumes of residuals requiring disposal. For
these reasons, approaches to in situ degradation may be preferable. Such
an approach generally requires the identification of agents which will
oxidize the Kepone in place without leaving equally harmful residues. As
noted previously, Kepone appears resistant to natural chemical, photo-
chemical and biochemical attack. Very specific chemicals and/or very harsh
conditions are required to initiate degradation. In the review of options
for the removal and/or destruction of Kepone, several such harsh oxidation
schemes were evaluated. Chlorine dioxide and ozone were found to be quite
ineffectual when applied individually to solutions of Kepone. Ozone in
conjunction with ultraviolet radiation was effective with contact of 45 min
and more. This approach, however, is not readily applied to soils in situ
since it is difficult to maintain the contact required. . Further details on
mitigation effectiveness can be found in Chapter X.
Promising results were obtained with y irradiation and photolysis in
the presence of amines. The y radiation was not considered further because
destruction was not complete and doses were considered high for use in
public areas. The amine photolysis appears more attractive. Preliminary
screening has revealed that in the presence of ethylenediamine, Kepone is
subject to photochemical attack from sunlight. When contaminated sediments
were sprayed with ethylenediamine at the rate of 10% and placed in direct
sunlight, 30Z of the Kepone was oxidized after 10 days of outdoor exposure.
The costs for applying a similar dose to surface soils (top 1 in.) in
Hopewell are estimated in Table IX.3. This is based on a current cost of
$0,805 per lb for ethylenediamine and an application cost of $500/acre.
TABLE IX.3. COST OF AMINE ACCELERATED PHOTOLYSIS OF KEPONE
Surface
	Site	 Area (acres)	Cost
Nitrogen Park 1	4,000
Life Science Products 0.125	500
Station Street
Neighborhood 1	4,000
Interdiction of Transport Routes and Elimination of Contact
Should it prove economically or technically infeasible to remove all
Kepone-contaminated soil, it is still possible to eliminate the important
routes of transport or contact and, in so doing, effectively isolate the
Kepone. In the case of surface soils, this would mean preventing the
spread of soluble Kepone by runoff waters and preventing human and biota
contact.
IX-8

-------
One approach would be to cover present surfaces with a layer of suffi-
cient depth to prevent runoff from picking up Kepone. This would also
prevent direct contact with high concentrations. Coverings could range
from natural soils to soil amendments or polymeric coatings such as
Dowell M179 (see Chapter X). These types of approaches have been demon-
strated for erosion control in a variety of locations. Partial covering
could also be achieved by planting grasses or other ground cover plants.
Comparison of adjacent surface soils in Nitrogen Park has revealed signifi-
cantly higher Kepone levels in grass-covered locations than in bare soil.
This may reflect an ability to retain Kepone deposited from the atmosphere.
In either event, plant cover appears to reduce mobility. It does not,
however, reduce the potential hazards of direct contact.
The costs associated with these options are compared in Table IX.4.
Costs for soil addition and seeding are based' on applications of 2 in. of
soil at $538/acre in., 5 lb of seed/1000 ft^ at $435/acre, a hauling dis-
tance of 20 miles at $3.50/ton, and spreading costs of $200/acre in.
TABLE IX.4. ESTIMATED COSTS OF AMENDING SURFACE SOILS IN
CONTAMINATED AREAS
	Cost ($)	
Area to be	Soil Cover (2 in.)	Synthetic
	Site Treated (acres)	and Seeding		Amendment
Nitrogen Park 1	3,500	—
Life Science Products 0.125	440	1,250
Station Street
Neighborhood 1	3,500	10,000
Costs for application of Dowell M179 are based on an application rate
of 60 tons per acre at a delivered cost of $158 per ton for rail car ship-
ments. An application cost of $100/acre is assumed based on use of conven-
tional discing. When these unit costs are employed, the total cost for
application of a soil amendment is equivalent to that for applying 6 in. of
soil and reseeding. The soil amendment approach, however, cannot be used
in areas with heavy vegetative cover since the plant life will reduce the
integrity of the seal. This would be the case in the Nitrogen Park and
Station Street neighborhood areas.
These alternatives are untested in the context offered here and require
further evaluation and possible field testing prior to implementation. Com-
parative test plots using candidate soil covers would be helpful in generat-
ing quantitative data.
IX-9

-------
CONTAMINATED SEWERLINES
Periodic analysis of sewage from the Hopewell area has revealed con-
tinuing levels of Kepone in domestic wastewaters. Simultaneous sampling
of major trunk lines in the city further revealed that contamination was
not localized in the Station Street area where the Life Science Products
plant operated, but was widespread throughout the city. Similarly, slime
growth from sewer pipe walls and wet wells displayed a significant lev61
of Kepone. It is hypothesized that this pool of Kepone feeds the continu-
ing Kepone concentrations in the wastewater through a process of slow
desorption. For instance, with a nominal partitioning of 5 x 10"^ (water:
solids), average slime levels of 0.4 ug/g (ppm) are all that is necessary
to sustain 0.2 ug/& (ppb) Kepone in the wastewater. As noted earlier, at
this rate all Kepone in the sewer system would have been depleted long ago
if continuing input did not exist over and above the less than 1 lb esti-
mated in the trunk lines, which serve as a long-term, low-level source of
Kepone.
Elimination of this long-term, low-level source would require an exten-
sive sewer cleaning effort directed both at the growth on the walls and at
residual organic matter in wet wells or other holding areas. A similar
effort was conducted on portions of the Hopewell system near the Life
Science Products site during initial cleanup efforts. The effectiveness
of that action is difficult to assess since subsequent analysis suggests
that highly contaminated runoff (>600 ug/Z-ppb) has returned the level of
Kepone in sewer organic matter to near previous levels.
Sewer cleaning is typically performed with mechanical or hydraulic
devices to physically dislodge solid matter from pipe walls. Because of
Kepone's specific chemical properties, a high strength caustic flush may
also be effective. In this case, provisions would be needed to neutralize
the Kepone-bearing waste solution at the old sewage treatment plant prior
to routing to the new regional secondary plant. This would protect the
biological activity in the new plant, and reduce soluble Kepone for manage-
ment with the sludge fraction.
If it is assumed that the elevated pH must be maintained for 1 day,
sufficient caustic will be required to produce 11,360 (3 million gal)
having a pH of 12. Assuming relatively high concentrations of magnesium
(20 mg/i-m) and calcium (40 mg/2-pprn) this would mean a maximum solution
strength of 0.015 molar NaOH or roughly 6.8 metric tons (7.5 tons). Caustic
would be supplied from tanks of 50% solution and metered into mainlines and
trunks over a 24-hr period. Sulfuric acid would be applied at the sewage
treatment plant to reestablish a neutral pH. Total cost for chemicals
would be $4500. Alternatively, the bacterial growths themselves could be
attacked directly with an oxidant such as chlorine or sodium hypochlorite.
Sewer cleaning costs depend upon many considerations. Some of the
criteria involved are shown in Table IX.5. It is apparent from this list
that costs can be highly site specific. This would account for the broad
range of costs reported in a national survey on sewer rehabilitation shown
in Table IX.6 (EPA, 1975).
IX-10

-------
TABLE IX.5. SEWER CLEANING COST CRITERIA (EPA, 1975)
Access to manholes
Manhole conditions
Type of manhole construction
Size of manholes
Depth of sewer
Depth of flow
Depth of deposition
Type of deposition
Pipe size
Structural condition of sewer
Length of manhole section
Intruding building sewers
Requirement for transportation and disposal
of material removed from sewer
Distance to disposal site
Traffic control requirement
Availability of water
Degree of root intrusion
Random vs. successive manhole section
Weather condition
Mobilization distance
Availability and cost of labor
IX-11

-------
TABLE IX.6. SEWER CLEANING COSTS (EPA, 1975)
Size (in.)
Cost
($/foot)
6
0.30
-
1.10
3
0.25
-
0.90
10
0.30
-
1.30
12
0.35
-
1.70
15
0.40
-
2.10
18
0.50
-
2.25
21
0.70
-
3.50
24
0.80
-
4.25
30
1.15
-
5.50
36
1.45

6.80
Realistic cost estimates have been developed from the EPA Handbook
(EPA, 1975). Data from Table IX.6 are plotted in Figure IX.1. A curve of
best fit for average cleaning costs was developed in the following manner.
An arithmetical average was determined for each range of given pipe diame-
ters. Then a linear regression analysis of the averages was performed.
The curve of best fit on Figure IX.1 is the result of this analysis. The
equation of the resulting line is:
C - 0.115D - 0.311
where:
C = sewer cleaning cost in dollars per foot
D =» pipe diameter in inches.
This equation is a fair representation of the costs involved in clean-
ing segments of the Hopewell sewer system, and includes the cost of residue
disposal. The costs do not include any additional costs required to account
for the contaminated nature of the residues.
A detailed breakdown of trunk line diameters and lengths for the Hope-
well sewer system is not available. City routing maps and design specifica-
tions were lost in a fire and comprehensive information is lacking. There-
fore, it was necessary to estimate pipe dimensions using standard design
practices and knowledge of the flow between pump stations. The resulting
estimates of sewer dimensions and associated cleaning costs are given in
Table IX.7.
EC-12

-------
7
6
Best Fit of Average Cost
3
I
1
Pipe Size (Inches)
FIGURE IX.1. Sewer Cleaning Costs

-------
TABLE IX.7. COST OF CLEANING SEWER LINES IN HOPEWELL
Pipe Diameter
(in.)
18
Pipe Length
(ft)
18,700
Cost of
Cleaning ($)
33,700
24
1,800
4,500
32
2,400
Total
8.200
$46,400
It is noteworthy that the single area of Hopewell sewered by combined
storm sewers is the Station Street segment containing the old Life Science
Products plant. Recent EPA efforts have focused on persuading the city of
Hopewell to separate this last combined sewer and discharge storm runoff
directly to the James River. However, analysis of storm runoff in and
around the old plant site reveals high levels of Kepone contamination
(50 to 687 ug/£-ppb). These are greatly in excess of the 6.6 ug/& (ppb)
criteria. Therefore, the following two options should be considered:
1. Separation should be delayed until Kepone levels are reduced in
2. Separation should be accompanied by construction of a facility to
remove Kepone from the runoff prior to discharge.
DISPOSAL SITES AND LAGOON
As noted previously, there are several discrete deposits of Kepone and
Kepone-laden wastes in the Hopewell area. These may constitute additional
sources of Kepone to the James River. One of these deposits is the Kepone
sewage sludge lagoon constructed at the old sewage treatment plant in 1975.
Data developed to date indicate that this lagoon may be leaking Kepone to
Bailey Creek through subsurface leachate. Given sufficient time, a signifi-
cant portion of the estimated 100 kg (220 lb) of Kepone in the lagoon could
find its way to the creek. While this amount is too small to meet the total
quantity criteria and is not subject to direct public contact, the seeps
generated through percolation exceed all runoff criteria.
The most obvious alternative for rectifying a leakage problem would be
to remove the lagoon water and destroy the Kepone. However, current plans
will not provide an acceptable means of Kepone destruction for several
years. Consequently, physical removal will result in little more than
transfer of the sludge to a new lined site (EPA, 1975).
A second option is to eliminate the transport routes of the Kepone.
Current water levels in the lagoon are a direct reflection of precipitation
runoff.
IX-14

-------
and runoff piped from the barrel storage area at the treatment plant to the
lagoon. An alternative for eliminating the possible lagoon seepage is to
dewater the lagoon and cover it to prevent future inputs of water. This
should isolate the Kepone until facilities are available to destroy it.
Future percolation can be prevented with grouting or other sealants,
but eliminating the entrance of water with an over cover would minimize the
need for subsurface sealing. Runoff from the barrel storage area will have
to be released, but visual inspection should be adequate to guard against
leaking drums. The cost of sealing dewatered lagoons was regarded as being
similar to costs for lining new lagoons or ponds. EPA reference material
was the prime source for developing estimates (Pound et al., 1975).
As with the soil scraping estimates, the EPA Sewer Construction Cost
Index was updated from 194.2 to 288.0. Adjusted EPA data were plotted
graphically and a linear regression analysis performed. The resulting
linear equation is shown in Table IX.8. Note that the factor "m" in the
equation is a function of the type of sealing material. If a material
other than those shown (for which adjustment factors are listed) is used,
then "m" should be modified accordingly.
TA3LE IX.8. LAGOON SEALING COST EQUATION
L = m |7121.9 (V) + 1415.6j
where:
L = Cost of lagoon sealing in dollars
m =» Materials adjustment factor as follows:
bentonite = 0.86
asphaltic = 1.00
PVC (10 mil with soil blanket) = 1.21
soil cement = 1.21
Petromet = 1.24
Butyl neoprene (30 mil) = 1.97
V = Storage volume in millions of gallons
This modification can be made by plotting materials costs and normaliz-
ing to asphaltic material which has an "m" factor of 1. Alternatively,
ratios to other known material costs can be made.
IX-15

-------
Based on these data, costs for sealing the lagoon against precipitation
are estimated at $15,000 per 10 mil PVC sheeting and $24,000 for 30 mil
butyl neoprene. Costs for sealing the bottom or grouting are summarized in
Table IX.9.
TABLE IX. 9. COST SUMMARY FOR SEALING OR GROUTING THE DISPOSAL LAGOON
	Mode		Cost ($)
Surface Seal
PVC (10 mil)	15,000
Butyl Neoprene	(30 mil) 24,000
Bottom Seal
Bentonite	10,000
Asphalt	12,000
Soil Cement	15,000
Petromat	15,000
Two specific disposal sites were studied as reservoirs of residual
Kepone in addition to the lagoon. These are the Pebbled Ammonium Nitrate
(PAN) plant and the landfill. The PAN site was found to contain only a
small volume of Kepone spread through an extensive and deep pattern. The
total quantity is less than the working mitigation criteria of 1000 kg
(2200 lb). Runoff levels leaving the site are also below the cleanup
criteria. Only a few, isolated surface soil samples had Kepone concentra-
tions in excess of 10 Ug/g (ppm). with the high soil concentrations being
at subsurface levels. Consequently, the PAN site does not meet any of the
mitigation criteria.
In contrast, the marsh below the bulk discharge area in the landfill
exceeds the total quantity criteria. Over 1350 kg (3000 lb) of Kepone
have been found in a 1012 (0.25 acre) area to a depth of 10 cm (4 in.).
The area has been shown to produce high concentrations of Kepone in runoff
and includes surface sediments with over 3.5% Kepone. Hence, mitigation
would be considered in accordance with the sample criteria.
The heavy trees in the area and swampy consistency of sediments rule
out scraping, whereas a mode of excavation would be more acceptable.
Excavation could range from a dragline operation to manual removal. As
noted earlier, shallow excavation costs $2.10 to 2.50/yd^ in the Hopewell
IX-IS

-------
area. Under these adverse conditions, the costs could double to $5.00/yd-^.
At that rate, the total cost of mitigation at the landfill would run to:
$5.00/yd3 x 140 yd3 = $700
APPRAISAL
There are several options available for mitigation of Kepone residuals
in the Hopewell area in addition to the no action alternative. Costs differ
between alternatives. Efficacy differs with the site of application. It
is therefore necessary to look at the options in the context of each site
and select the best on a case-by-case basis. The following discussion
focuses on identifying the optimal alternative for each site and assessing
associated environmental impacts.
Nitrogen Park
Analysis of soil samples from Nitrogen Park has revealed significant
levels of Kepone in surface layers to a depth of 2.5 cm (1 in.). Simul-
taneous analysis of runoff waters verified the transport of Kepone from
the soil surface. However, the present topographic configuration in that
area does not allow for movement of the runoff down Poythress Run. Instead,
it collects in a low swampy area and dissipates through evaporation and
percolation. Hence, the Kepone in Nitrogen Park is of concern from the
standpoint of direct contact with the soil and potential contamination of
ground water. Historical well data (Table III.3) reveal variable concen-
trations of Kepone in the underlying local aquifer with a maximum level of
0.08 ug/£ (ppb) reported.
The alternatives evaluated and cost estimates for amelioration of this
contamination are summarized in Table IX.10. The least expensive option is
the use of lime to accelerate Kepone desorption in runoff. However, there
is no means of assessing the effectiveness of this approach and potential
effects on existing grass and trees could be severe. The uncertainties
dictate against this alternative. Scraping is not feasible in the Nitrogen
Park area because of the tree cover.
TABLE IX.10. COST SUMMARY FOR NITROGEN PARK ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
Cost ($)
Lime Treatment
365
Scraping
2,200
Soil Cover and Seeding
3,500
Amine Accelerated Photolysis
4,000
Synthetic Amendment
10,000
IX-17

-------
The alternative of choice is therefore the addition of 5.1 cm (2 in.)
of uncontaminated soil and replanting of grass. This will eliminate direct
contact for the public with the contaminated soil and minimize uptake of
Kepone in runoff. If clay-type soils are utilized, percolation will be
minimized. Vertical distribution studies revealed an order of magnitude
reduction in Kepone concentration of natural soils between the 1- and 2-in.
levels. Upward migration would be expected to be less effective than the
downward percolation reflected by these data. The amine photolysis alterna-
tive is associated with similar costs, but uncertainty about effectiveness
and unknown ecological effects dictate against its use as this time. Photo-
decomposition may also be retarded as a result of the tree cover.
Other than minimal effects of noise and dust during application, no
adverse impacts are associated with the application of a soil covering to
contaminated areas. However, it is important to consider potential effects
on ground-water quality of leaving Kepone residuals in place. As noted
earlier, the occurrence of Kepone in a nearby monitoring well has been
reported as transient and low level in nature. Hence, to date, soil
attenuation has prevented any major ground-water quality impacts. Use of
clay soils for the covering process should continue to minimize ground-water
impact potential.
Life Science Products
The Life Science Products plant site area has been cleaned once during
the shut-down activities. However, recent sampling has revealed that a
portion (400 m^) of the site was not sufficiently cleaned and currently
maintains a high amount of Kepone (1535 ug/g-ppm). Additionally, runoff
from the site has been found to contain 687 Ug/2. (ppb) Kepone. Consequently,
the site has been considered for additional mitigating activities. Costs
for alternatives considered are summarized in Table IX.11.
TABLE IX.11. COST SUMMARY FOR LIFE SCIENCE PRODUCTS SITE ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
Cost (3)
Lime Treatment
20
Scraping
300
Soil Cover and Seeding
440
Amine Accelerated Photolysis
500
Synthetic Amendment
1250
Hi-is

-------
As noted earlier, uncertainties about the effectiveness of lime treat-
ment and potentially, harmful impacts override the cost advantages of this
alternative. Therefore, scraping is deemed optimal. The contaminated area
does not have vegetative cover and consequently is well suited to scraping.
The impact implications of soil removal are discussed in the next section.
The estimated 28 m^ (1000 ft^) of contaminated soil could be stored in the
present disposal lagoon or sealed in industrial drums. Since the latter
option offers greater flexibility in the future, it is employed here for the
purposes of cost estimation. An estimated 150 drums would be required.
This would add $750 (assuming used 55-gal drums are available at $5 each)
to the overall cost of mitigation.
A discussion of potential impacts associated with the scraping alterna-
tive is provided in the following section.
Station Street Neighborhood
The land around the Cavalier Ice Plant, Norfolk and Western Railroad,
and Hopewell News facilities has been found to have concentrations of Kepone
in surface soils in the range 10 to 1000 ug/g (ppm). This exceeds the sur-
face soil level employed as a working criteria for areas where public con-
tact occurs. A summary of mitigation costs is presented in Table IX.12.
It is clear that lime treatment is the least expensive option. Once again,
the uncertainty concerning effectiveness and side effects dictates against
implementation. The scraping option appears most viable for these open
spaces.
TABLE IX.12. COST SUMMARY FOR STATION STREET NEIGHBORHOOD ALTERNATIVES
	Alternative		Cost($)
Lime Treatment	165
Scraping	2,200
Soil Cover and Seeding	3,500
Amine Accelerated Photolysis	4,000
Synthetic Amendment	10,000
With respect to anticipated impacts, it is apparent that cleanup of
Kepone surface contaminated soils requires some environmental management
precautions. The areas of major concern are associated with minimizing
the movement of Kepone into the environment. Lack of control can result
in increased atmospheric suspension and increased land and water concentra-
tion levels.
IX-19

-------
Releases Co Che atmosphere can result from scraping and loading trans-
portation, and unloading of contaminated soils. Sources of contamination
are from dust, spillage, and wind suspension of loosened soil materials.
It is important that fugitive dust be minimized by wetting and covering
unstabilized materials.
It is suspected that impact resulting in release of Kepone could come
from lack of care in the scraping operation. Overfilling of scrapers and
spillage of unconsolidated materials can result in land and runoff contamina-
tion. Transporting vehicles need to be covered enroute and care must be
exercised in unloading vehicles to prevent dust release and spillage.
The contaminated spoil can have various impacts on the environment but
the primary concern is the containment of Kepone to minimize its redistri-
bution to air, land, and water. Certain control measures will need to be
implemented to minimize Kepone losses depending on type of placement. Losses
to Che atmosphere can be minimized by placing a permanent covering over the
spoils. The covering should also prevent infiltration of precipitation.
Losses to ground water can be minimized by bottom sealing of the spoils or
placing them in an area of m-tn-tmmn ground-water flow. The Kepone lagoon
appears to be a prime candidate for spoils containment. There is presently
sufficient volume for the estimated 426 m-3 (15,000 ft^) of contaminated soil
which would be removed from the Station Street neighborhood. However, the
soils to be scraped are not sufficiently contaminated to warrant incinera-
tion along with the contents of the lagoon. The major reason for their
removal is to eliminate public contact. Consequently, burial at the land-
fill would suffice. The total quantity of Kepone residuals in this soil is
smaller than the working guidelines, so the buried residues would not create
a new problem. However, care should be taken to select higher ground and
surround the contaminated soils with clay materials. This will minimize
potential future problems from runoff and leachate.
No particular health impacts have been identified with the disposal
option, providing fugitive dusts are controlled, the contaminated spoils
are properly managed, and workers wear protective clothing and masks. This
management alternative appears quite feasible and effective with minimal
short- and long-term impacts to a productive environment.
Landfill
As noted in Chapter V, the marsh below the bulk discharge area of the
Hopewell landfill has been found to contain over 1350 kg (3000 lb) of Kepone.
The only feasible means of addressing this deposit is removal. Excavation
will be hampered by periodic flooding during high tide and the excensive
tree growth in the area. Manual removal may be the most feasible alterna-
tive under these circumstances. In either event, the costs will be higher
than normal for excavation.
Sediments in this area are contaminated to levels in excess of 3.5%
Kepone. Hence, destruction of removed soils is warranted. Since placement
IX-20

-------
of these residuals in Che lagoon could aggravate existing leakage problems,
drummed storage prior to incineration is appropriate. This will require
approximately 500 drums and will bring the total cost of mitigation to an
estimated $5,000. (This total includes a cost of $5 per drum and $1700 for
conveyance of loaded drums to a storage site.)
Proposed Separation of Combined Storm Sewers
The drainage area around the Station Street pump station is presently
served by combined storm sewers. As noted earlier, current plans call for
separation of these lines and subsequent discharge of storm sewage. Two
options are considered to minimize the potential impact of contaminated
runoff on ultimate receiving waters.
The first alternative involves delaying the separation until local
decontamination measures are completed. This would allow storm runoff from
the Life Science site and the surrounding area to continue to be routed to
the sewage treatment plant for an extended period. The result would be a
negative impact from further release of sewage wastewater into surface
streams during periods of high runoff from potentially two sources:
(1) pump station overflow and (2) decrease detention time.
As explained in Chapter V the Station Street pump station receives the
sewage from the area around the Life Science site. During rainy periods,
it receives the surface runoff as well. At these times the combined sewage
and runoff flow exceeds the pumping capacity of the station. During par-
ticularly heavy storms this excess capacity delivers a discharge of raw
sewage/rainfall mixture into Poythress Run.
It is probable that this would occur several times as a result of the
Kepone mitigation proposal to delay sewer line separation. It is difficult
to quantify the magnitude and frequency of the impacts as they would be a
function of the actual precipitation pattern during the months in which the
delay takes place. However, even during an extremely wet period, the result-
ing adverse environmental impacts would not be measurable. No new stresses
would be placed upon the environment since the overflow situation described
is the present condition and one which has occurred for many years. Although
it is desirable to eliminate this source of pollution, an additional delay
of a few months would not have a detrimental environmental impact on Poythress
Run.
A delay in separating the storm sewer line could also negatively impact
the quality of the effluent discharged from the Hopewell primary sewage
treatment plant (STP). When the runoff from the Station Street area reaches
the treatment plant, the detention time for settling out the solids from raw
sewage in the clarifiers is decreased due to the higher flow. As a result,
the supernatant, which is then chlorinated and discharged, is of slightly
poorer quality.
IX-21

-------
Delaying the sewer separation would allow this situation to exist for
an additional period of time. The extended time would not create any addi-
tional significant adverse impacts to the receiving waters. This is par-
ticularly so considering that since August 1977 the primary sewage treatment
plant has not discharged its effluent into Bailey Creek. The effluent is
now being routed to a large regional treatment facility where it undergoes
further settling and secondary treatment.
The second alternative for minimizing Kepone contamination resulting
from sewage line separation involves treating the runoff collected before
discharging it into the natural waterways. Although the details of the
specific treatment facility are not available, it is assumed that it will
be similar to a small-scale municipal water treatment plant. This would
involve some filtering mechanism and an activated charcoal treatment process.
The treatment facility should not result in any liquid or gaseous
effluents that could potentially impact the surrounding environment. However,
the disposal of the Kepone-accumulating medium will require proper management
to avoid adverse impacts. Burial of the spent activated charcoal in a
lined pit would be considered adequate from an environmental standpoint
and would demand a commitment of a small area of land.
A land commitment will also be associated with the site of the treat-
ment facility Itself. Although no more than a few acres at most would be
Involved, such a commitment could have a significant Impact. This can occur
in residential areas where the addition of even a small-scale, clean
industrial-type activity is considered an intrusion into the character of the
neighborhood. In siting a facility for treating the Kepone-contaminated
runoff this fact must be considered. A majority of the drainage area around
the Life Science site is a commercial/industrial zone, where, with proper
planning, potentially conflicting land use problems can be avoided.
Based on these impact considerations, it is deemed advisable to delay
separation of combined storm sewers until the contributing soil areas have
been cleaned. This alternative involves no cost and no new environmental
impacts. In essence, the "no action" alternative has some merits for this
particular set of circumstances.
The Sewer System
Two options were considered for restoration of contaminated sewer lines:
(1) caustic dissolution; and (2) mechanical or hydraulic cleaning. The
first would require up to S5000 in chemicals and perhaps an equal amount
in labor. It involves a technique which has not been demonstrated and
which, if not conducted properly, could have acute impacts on the new sewage
treatment plant and subsequent receiving waters. Mechanical cleaning is
estimated to cost up to S47,000 if all trunk, lines are addressed.
IX-2 2

-------
In both cases, costs are excessive for the estimated 0.11 kg (0.24 lb)
of Kepone associated with the sewer slimes in trunk lines which could be
cleaned. Conventional cleaning could not possibly address the collector
system. Hence, subsequent flow will be able to recontaminate lines from
Kepone in the smaller feeder lines and storm sewage from the Station Street
area. The combination of these factors (uncertainty, high costs, incomplete
removal, and small total inventory of Kepone which would be removed) is
considered adequate justification for taking no major action on the sewer
system.
The Sewage Treatment Plant
Some concern has been expressed that with operation of the new regional
treatment plant, Kepone discharges from the old plant will contaminate sludge
and in so doing raise the cost of disposal. It is currently estimated that
under dry weather conditions old treatment plant effluent carries 6.5 g/day
(0.014 lb/day) of Kepone. Under wet weather conditions, this increases to
37.6 g/day (0.0829 lb/day). The new regional plant will handle 87,670 kg
(193,280 lb) of dry sludge per day and 50 million gallons of water. This
corresponds to 0.07 Ug/g (ppm) Kepone dry weather and 0.43 yg/g (ppm) Kepone
wet weather concentrations in solids, if all Kepone is concentrated in the
sludge. If all Kepone remains in the wastewater, the associated concentra-
tion would be 0.03 yg/£ (ppb) and 0.19 yg/& (ppb), respectively. Grab sam-
ples taken on 1/12/78 were found to contain 0.057 yg/Jl (ppb) Kepone in the
influent and 0.072 ug/& (ppb) Kepone in the effluent. The biological por-
tion of the plant was not functioning well at that time, and therefore
uptake on solids was likely to be less than that anticipated when the plant
is operating properly. These levels are at the margin of detectability.
The sludge will be incinerated in a multiple hearth facility operated at
1400°F with a solids residence time of 30 min. This facility will not
destroy the Kepone because the temperature is too low for destruction.
Instead hot exit gases will volatilize Kepone from the sludge and carry it
from the chamber.
The Lagoon
As noted earlier, sampling to date strongly suggests that the disposal
lagoon at the old sewage treatment plant is allowing additional Kepone to
reach Bailey Creek. The alternatives available for sealing the lagoon will
cost $10,000 to 24,000. Those alternatives utilizing a bottom seal or grout
will stop inflows but will not prevent storm inflows and subsequent overflow.
Consequently, a surface seal is advised. The 10-mil PVC sheeting will be
least expensive and should maintain integrity until an ultimate disposal
option is available.
Minimal adverse impacts can be attributed to covering the lagoon. During
rainstorms there would be an increased amount of runoff from this area which
would tend to increase erosion locally, particularly since the lagoon sits
on top of a steep bank above Bailey Creek. However, this incremental increase
of erosion is insignificant relative to the total amount of erosion in the
nearby landfill area and to the suspended sediment load in Bailey Creek.
IX-23

-------
Man-made lagoons often support a variety of biota. This i3 the case
with the Kepone lagoon based on observations made during the summer of 1977.
Birds were often seen feeding among the rich vegetation growing in the
sludge. Insects and algae were also abundant throughout the summer and
for a few weeks a turtle made its home in the lagoon. Covering the lagoon
to inhibit rainfall intrusion would eliminate the lagoon as a habitat. In
light of the knowledge of Kepone uptake in the food chain and its toxicity,
this habitat elimination would actually be a positive environmental impact.
Stnrnnary of Mitigation Activities
Based on the working criteria presented in this scenario, mitigation
would be deemed advisable in five areas: Nitrogen Park, the former Life
Science Products plant site, open lots in the Station Street neighborhood,
the marsh below the bulk discharge area at the Hopewell landfill, and the
Kepone disposal lagoon. The no action alternative appears justified for
the contaminated sewer lines, the proposed separation of combined storm
sewers in the Station Street area, and the Pebbled Ammonium Nitrate Site.
A summary of costs associated with these actions can be found in Table IX.13.
These costs do not include the cost of ultimate disposal for the highly con-
taminated soils and sediments (>1000 ug/g-ppm Kepone). Soils contaminated
at less than 1000 Ug/g (ppm) Kepone can be buried in clay lined pits at the
landfill.
TABLE IX.13. THE COST OF PREFERRED MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES
Site
Alternative
Cost
Life Science Products Plant
Scraping - drum residuals
S 1,050
Nitrogen Park
Cover and reseed
3,500
Station Street Neighborhood
Scrape and bury
2,200
Lagoon
10 mil PVC cover
15,000
Landfill
Excavate and drum
5,000

Total
$26,750
DISPOSAL
While an evaluation of technology for the disposal of Kepone was not
within the scope of the work reported here, it is obvious that in the long
term, the alternatives evaluated for Hopewell require some means of ultimate
disposal. Consequently, a survey of available technology was conducted.
IX-24

-------
Studies directed to this subject have also been performed by others and
should be reviewed if a detailed evaluation is desired (Flood & Associates,
1977). The following is a brief summary of oxidation processes as a means
of destroying Kepone contaminated residues.
Kepone Destruction
The recommended procedure for the disposal of organic pesticides is
incineration at 1000°C (1832°F) for a 2-sec retention period. Other tem-
perature and retention time combinations resulting in complete destruction
of the material are permissible. The thermal properties of Kepone indicate
that molecular destruction should occur under such conditions.
Research on the thermal degradation of Kepone revealed that the parent
material is essentially destroyed in 1 sec at 500°C (Carnes, 1977). Thermal
decomposition products exist at elevated temperatures and are subject to
complete breakdown under favorable conditions. Figure IX.2 gives the thermal
destruction pattern for Kepone. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene, Ka, hexachloro-
benzene (HCB), Kc, and an unknown, K^, are the major decomposition products
in air.
E
u
a;
iSi
c
o
a.
(/>

aj
a.
"3
S_
o>
o
K Kepone
0.03-
0.01
1000
200 400 600
Temperature, °C
FIGURE IX.2. Thermal Destruction Plot for Kepone (Carnes, 1977)
IX-2 5

-------
Thermal properties of Kepone were determined through tests on the gas
phase at varying exposure temperatures. Analytical grade Kepone was vapor-
ized in the temperature range 200 to 300°C. The sample was then passed
through a high temperature quartz tube. Degradation products were trapped
after passage through the quartz for analysis by gas chromatography. Dif-
ferences in thermal degradation, noticed at temperatures above and below
600°C, are primarily due to variations in the degradation products (Carnes,
1977).
Any thermal disposal method must ensure complete combustion of the
degradation products as well as the parent compound. Hexachlorocyclopenta-
diene is a toxic material with a threshold limit value of 0.01 ppm or
0.11 mg/m3 (Sax, 1975). During the thermal testing of Kepone, temperatures
of 700°C effectively destroyed the hexachlorocyclopentadiene. Hexachloro-
benzene produces toxic chlorine fumes when heated. Other potential combus-
tion products are HC1 and COCI2 (Scurlock et al., 1975). Incineration is
an acceptable disposal method, preferably after mixing with another com-
bustible fuel to assure complete combustion. Trace amounts of HC3 were
still present at 900°C (Carnes, 1977).
Kepone has been found to be slightly more thermally stable Chan DDT.
DDT was thermally tested in the same fashion as described above. In the
p,p'-DDT form destruction of parent and decomposition products was complete
at 900°C. Safe DDT incineration has been established as 1000°C for 2 sec
or primary combustion at 815°C (1500°F) for 0.5 sec and secondary combus-
tion at 1205°C (2200T) for 1.0 sec (Powers, 1976). Any incineration
requirements for Kepone should, at a minimum, meet those for DDT. Fig-
ures IX.3 and IX.4 give the destruction pattern for DDT and compare the
thermal destruction of Kepone and DDT.
The Capabilities of Current Incineration Technology
As a general rule most organic hazardous materials can be completely
destroyed at 1000°C with a dwell time of 2 sec. Actual wastes are generally
mixtures or solutions and may be mixed with other materials. Incinerators
vary in their application, combustion temperatures, residence times and
economics. Only a few are suitable for Kepone destruction, partially
because combustion of Kepone may produce chlorine. Halogens, such as
chlorine, act as activity suppressants on catalysts thereby limiting their
use. Chlorine is difficult to remove with secondary abatement methods.
Sufficient hydrogen, in the form of natural gas or other combustible mate-
rials for reaction with chlorine to produce HC1, will allow wet scrubber
removal. However, HC1 corrosion must be considered in the incinerator
design and equipment.
The following are descriptions of the different incinerator types and
their suitability for Kepone disposal. The process principle, its range of
application, combustion temperatures, and residence times for each is given.
More detailed descriotions are given in Scurlock et al. (1975) and Powers
(1976).
IX-2 6

-------
100
p, p'-UOT
_sP, p' -ODE
C71
0.03
0.01
0
400
600
800 1000
Temperature, °C
FIGURE IX.3. Thermal Destruction Plot for DDT (Carries, 1977)
100
-
-
ao
\ 1
, Kepone -

\ r
p, p ' -DDT
60
n

40
\
-

\
tf = 1.0 sec
20
\
-
0
ii i i
	
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Temperature, °C
FIGURE IX.4. Comparison of Thermal Destruction of the
Two Pesticides (Carnes, 1977)
IX-2 7

-------
Rotary Kiln
Combustion temperatures of 810 to 1650°C (1500 to 3000°F) are achieved
in the slowly rotating cylinder mounted at a slight incline to horizontal.
Residence times of several seconds to several hours accommodate the gases,
liquids and solids that can be handled. Tumbling action improves the
efficiency of solid waste disposal. Past applications include adaption for
obsolete chemical warfare agents and munitions.
Rotary kiln incineration is adaptable for Kepone destruction. Auxil-
iary fuel can be added, and times and temperatures are capable of complete
combustion. Most installations, particularly those handling hazardous
wastes, are equipped with wet scrubber emission controls. Caustic scrub-
bing solution would be most effective.
Multiple Hearth
In a multiple hearth furnace, solids move slowly through vertically
stacked hearths. Liquids and gases are fed through side ports and nozzles.
Retention time may be up to several hours depending on the solid waste.
Incineration temperatures are from 760 to 980°C (1400 to 1796°F). Emission
control devices are usually integral to system design.
Pilot test burns on pesticides have been completed. Mixed with sewage
sludge, the pesticides 2,4,5-T and DDT were incinerated at 870 to 930°C
(1600 to 1700'F) with destruction ratios of 99.9%. Modification for Kepone
destruction should be feasible, but would require entry at the fire box
rather than from the normal feed port. Entry at the feed port will allow
hot exit gases to volatilize Kepone and sweep it from the system prior to
reaching the necessary temperatures for combustion.
Liquid Injection
Although combustion temperatures and retention times would meet require-
ments for 1000°C for 2 sec for incineration, the process is limited to pump-
able liquids and slurries. Liquids with a viscosity of 10,000 SSU or less
(reduced to 750 SSU or less for vaporization) are mixed with an atomizing
gas for combustion at temperatures of 650 to 1650°C (1200 to 3000°F) at
retention times of 0.1 to 1.0 sec in the vertical or horizontal reaction
vessels.
Liquid combustion incinerators constructed specifically for chlori-
nated hydrocarbons have effectively handled pesticides. Incineration of
Kepone would require auxiliary fuel, but Kepone in solution could be
handled.
Fluidized Bed
Wastes are injected into a hot agitated bed of inert granular parti-
cles. Heat is transferred to the wastes, either solid, liquid or gas,
IX-28

-------
from the bed material. Auxiliary fuel must be added to materials with low
heating values. Solids are retained longer than gases which take several
seconds to move through the bed material. Design limits the bed temperature
to 1090°C (2000°F) while usual combustion temperatures range 750 to 870°C
(1400 to 1600°F). Application to herbicide orange has been effective.
Temperatures limit use of fluidized beds for incineration of Kepone.
Auxiliary fuel would be necessary. Removal of inert ash from the vessel
is also a potential problem. The major concern is the degradation of
hexachlorobenzene and its presence at 900°C after 1 sec. Chlorine con-
taining wastes have been incinerated but no details were given to sub-
stantiate a recommendation.
Molten Salt
Combustion occurs in a bed of molten salt (usually sodium carbonate)
where the salts may retain some of the decomposition products. Combustion
temperatures of 900 to 950°C are maintained in the salt. Complete combus-
tion of combustible gases occurs in a second reaction zone. Average reten-
tion times of 0.75 sec has proven acceptable for solid, liquid, and gaseous
organic wastes.
Molten salt incineration has been modified for pesticide disposal in
the past. Combined with an oxygen source, the pesticide is decomposed in
the salt and second reaction zones. The evolved gases are essentially
carbon dioxide, water vapor, oxygen and nitrogen (Powers, 1976). Contami-
nated containers can also be handled.
Several quantities of Kepone-contaminated waste were produced during
the laboratory portions of the work reported in this document. Some of the
aqueous wastes were concentrated on activated carbon and processed in a
small laboratory molten salt incinerator for destruction. Analysis of
emissions indicated over 99.6% destruction in one of two salt mixtures
tested. Details of the work are presented in Appendix N.
Wet Oxidation - Zimmerman Process
Soluble and water miscible materials are oxidized under high pressure
at moderate temperatures. Breakdown products, including halogens, are
retained in the liquid effluent. Temperatures of 150 to 340°C (300 to
650°F) are used and pressures range from 316,000 to 1,758,000 kg/m^ (450 to
2500 psig). Average residence times are 10 to 30 min.
Standard wet oxidation is not advisable for Kepone incineration.
Specific studies would be required to ascertain the ability of the process
to destroy Kepone and its decomposition products. Kepone is not readily
soluble at pH values lower than 10 and high pH values are reported to
decrease the process reaction rates, requiring compensating increases in
temperature and pressure.
EC-29

-------
However, recent work at Allied has indicated that under proper condi-
tions wet oxidation can be an effective means of destroying Kepone at less
expense than incineration (Patterson, 1977). Kepone, Mirex and Kepone
cleanup wastes were mixed with water to form solutions or slurries of up
to 5%. These were charged with sufficient sodium hydroxide to provide a
0.5 molar solution at the completion of the reaction. The solution was
then pressurized in the presence of oxygen for 2 to 10 tnin at 300 to 350aC.
Pressures of 1.4 to 1.5 x 10^ kg/m2 (2000 to 2200 psi) were required to
keep the water in a liquid state. The alkali aided dehalogenation and
helped prevent the formation of a substantial carbon dioxide gas phase.
While experimental variables were not exhaustively explored, the condi-
tions described were sufficient to reduce effluent Kepone concentrations to
levels below the detection limit of electron capture gas chromatography.
The rate of disappearance for both Kepone and Mirex was estimated at three
orders of magnitude per minute. The enclosed nature of the process facility
is considered a major advantage since it precludes releases resulting from
incomplete reactions.
Discussions with technical staff at Zimpro indicate operational prob-
lems may result from wet oxidation of Kepone. Zimpro has conducted inhouse
work on Kepone and they determined at that time that hydrogen chloride
release posed a corrosion problem for steel systems and hence directed
their attention to titanium. The use of titanium dictated acid conditions
which were not effective for Kepone oxidation (30% reduction at 280°C).
According to Mr. Robert. Eely of Zimpro, caustic solutions are incompatible
with titanium. Consequently, corrosion problems exist for both materials
currently used in wet oxidation equipment. No economic alternatives have
been identified to date. In general, if wet oxidation is employed it will
cost in the range of 1.32c/£ ($0.05/gal) for operation, maintenance and
amortization. Basically, wet oxidation units have capital costs three
times those for incineration but operating costs are one tenth.
Plasma Destruction
A gas, such as helium or air, is exposed to microwave energy and in
the excited state forms a plasma. Degradation of organic bonds occurs from
the transfer of energy as a result of collisions between reactant molecules
and electrons in the plasma. Gases, liquids and solids have been processed
in the 150°C (300°F), 5 to 150 torrs, and 3.7 to 4.7 kW oxygen plasma
environment (Oberacker et al., 1977). Residence times range from 0.1 to
15 sec.
Using microwave plasma techniques, conversion of solid and liquid
Kepone to CO2, CO, HC1, and H2O was 99% complete (Oberacker et al., 1977).
Solids decomposed in 15 sec at 7 to 54 torrs in 42 to 4.6 kW plasmas. A
commercial, clay-supported Kepone of 80% was used. Differences in pressure
and oxygen flow will govern the retention time which can range from 10 to
30 sec for solids. Decomposition of Kepone at pilot plant scale is
feasible.
IX-30

-------
Multiple Chamber
Wastes are combusted on a grate in an ignition chamber. Off-gases
travel through mixing and secondary combustion chambers. The process is
limited to solids and cannot handle liquids, slurries, and powders. Solids
react in minutes, while gases react in seconds to the 540°C (1000°F).
Municipal and industrial solid wastes are the common materials handled.
Multiple chamber incineration alone is not suitable for Kepone disposal.
Suitability can be achieved, however, if appropriate afterburner devices are
included in the design.
Gas Combustion
Flare, direct flame and catalytic oxidation are the three basic types
of gas incinerators. Flares are not suited for hazardous materials as burn-
ing is performed in the open. Direct flame combusts gases with Btu values
less than 25% of the lower flammable limit at elevated temperatures (450 to
810°C or 350 to 1500°F) for 0.3 to 0.5 sec. Materials are preheated prior
to exposure to a catalyst bed where oxidation occurs. Gases are combusted
in 1 sec at 320 to 540°C (600 to 1000°F).
Gas combustion is not suited for Kepone incineration. Conversion of
solid Kepone to gas is unnecessary since other methods exist capable of
solids destruction. Retention times and temperature for direct flame would
require increases to assure total breakdown. Halogens are not compatible
with catalysts because they foul the reaction sites, thereby eliminating
use of catalytic oxidation.
Pyrolysis
Thermal decomposition in the absence of oxygen converts organics into
solid, liquid, and gas constituents. Temperatures of 480 to 810°C for
period of 12 to 16 min provide thermal decomposition.
There has been no unit testing of pyrolysis on hazardous wastes or pesti-
cides. Tests verifying the ability of the process to decompose pesticides
would be required before recommendations on applicability could be made.
Cement Kilns
Some work has been performed recently on the destruction of PCBs in
cement kilns (Black, 1977). Results show promise of providing an alternate
incineration method which would be much more widely available than current
waste incinerators designed for this purpose. Normal operation of cement
kilns is in the range of 1370 to 1450°C with a very long residence of about
10 sec, more than adequate for decomposition of most chlorinated hydro-
carbons including Kepone. The alkaline substances in the raw material fed
to these kilns act as efficient scrubbers for the HC1 produced. No work
has been performed directly with Kepone, and facilities may require modifi-
cation to accommodate the variety of waste forms presently awaiting disposal.
IX-31

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
REFERENCES
Black, M. W. and 0. Usher. 1977. "Safe Disposal of PCB's." Proceed-
ings of the 1977 National Conference on Treatment and Disposal of
Industrial Waste - Waters and Residues. Houston, TX, April 26-28, 1977.
Carnes, R. A. 1977. "Thermal Degradation of Kepone." News of Environ-
mental Research in Cincinnati. EPA - Municipal Environmental Laboratory.
Flood and Associates of Virginia, Inc. 1977. Kepone Facilities Plan.
Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Health, Kepone Task Force.
Oberacker, D. A. and S. Lees. 1977. "Microwave Plasma Detoxification
of Hazardous and Toxic Materials." News of Environmental Research in
Cincinnati. EPA - Municipal Environmental Laboratory.
Patterson, A. R. 1977. Allied Chemical Kepone Investigation.
Chesapeake Bay Program II, Easton, MD, September 21, 1977.
Peterson, P. L. 1975. Temporary Storage and Ultimate Disposal of
Oil Recovered from Spills in Alaska. U.S. Coast Guard, Washington,
D.C.
Pound, C. E., R. W. Crites, and D. A. Griffes. 1975. Costs of Waste-
water Treatment by Land Application. U.S. EPA Technical Report
430/9-75-003.
Powers, P. W. 1976. How to Dispose of Toxic Substances and Industrial
Wastes. Noyes Data Corp., Park Ridge, NJ. pp. 55-133.
Sax, N. I. 1975. Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials. 4th
Ed. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, NY. pp. 803.
Scurlock, A. C., A. W. Lindsey, T. Fields, Jr., and D. R. Huber. 1976.
Incineration in Hazardous Waste Management. EPA-Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs.
Shuckrow, A. J. and G. L. Culp. 1977. Appraisal of Powdered Activated
Carbon Processes for Municipal Wastewater Treatment. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Handbook for Sewer Svstem
Evaluation and Rehabilitation. U.S. EPA Technical Report 430/9-75-021.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975a. Office of Pesticide
Programs Criteria and Evaluation Division. Kepone¦ Monograph,
unpublished report, 24 pp.
IX- 3 2

-------
'¦*! S	S /c-Z
C/J«/S, //, J
CHAPTER X - ALTERNATIVES FOR THE MITIGATION
OF KEPONE IN THE JAMES RIVER
SUMMARY
Content
Chapter X evaluates alternatives for mitigating or eliminating the
adverse impacts of Kepone in the James River. The work reported in this
chapter focuses on the evaluation of alternatives other than large-scale
dredging, and treatment and/or fixation processes complementary to dredging.
Three types of alternatives are presented including those which could be:
1) used to fix dredge spoils for disposal; 2) employed to treat elutriate
from spoils; and 3) applied in situ as substitutes to dredging. Individual
options within each of these categories are discussed as well. Analysis
of these options leads to a comparison of costs for alternative clean-up
approaches for the James River.
Findings
•	In laboratory studies, two stabilization agents (molten sulfur and an
organic epoxy grout) offered up to 1 order of magnitude reduction in
Kepone leachate levels.
•	Silicate-based stabilization agents available at the time of testing
were found to be ineffective in reducing Kepone leachate concentration.
•	Application of activated carbon to contaminated sediments decreases
the availability of Kepone to the surrounding aquatic system.
•	In laboratory studies, coal did not significantly inhibit Kepone transfer
from contaminated sediment to the overlying water.
•	Retrievable sorbents are capable of removing Kepone from contaminated
sediments.
•	Polymer film laid over the sediments in Bailey Bay is an insufficient
mitigative action since perforation necessary to allow venting of
degradation gases will also allow the escape of Kepone.
•	Activated carbon and UV-ozone treatment are each effective in removing
Kepone from certain aqueous solutions.
•	Application of the laboratory tested options to the contaminated portions
of the James River would cost in excess of $3 billion.
X-l

-------
• Unit Coses for mitigation alternatives in the James River were estimated
to be:
-	Application of Retrievable Carbon - $0.52/ft^ sediment
-	Application of Retrievable Sorbent in Situ - $0.90/ft3 sediment
-	Oozer Dredge with Ocean Disposal - $1.07/ft^ sediment
-	Oozer Dredge with Sulfur Stabilization - $1.37/ft^ sediment
-	Oozer Dredge with Incineration - 1.57/ft^ sediment
X-2

-------
INTRODUCTION
Currently, dredging constitutes the most developed and best understood
means for removal of contaminated sediments. A review of worldwide dredging
technology and/or engineering analysis of application of dredging to the
James River problem is given in a companion report by the U.S. Corps of
Engineers, Norfolk District - "Capturing, Stabilizing, or Removing Kepone
in Bailey Bay, Bailey Creek and Gravelly Run," as a part of the overall U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Mitigation Feasibility project. Coverage in
that work includes advanced Japanese technology in dredging and fixation of
contaminated sediments.
This chapter evaluates the existence of alternatives to dredging as well
as the consequences of taking no corrective action in the river, thus allow-
ing natural dilution and dispersive mechanisms to cleanse the river over time.
For the purposes of evaluating scope and costs of applying individual alter-
natives, it was necessary to determine the extent of the contamination and
the size of the areas to be treated. From historical data and the field
investigations reported in this report, it has been shown that over 113 Km
(70 linear miles) of the James River have sediments with detectable levels
of Kepone covering about 630 km^ (243.1 mi^). The fractional distribution
of concentration regimes has been defined as follows:
Concentration of Kepone (yg/g-ppm)	>10	1-10	0.1-0.99 0.02-0.09
Approximate Percentage of Total Area	0.1% 1.0% 45.18% 53.7%
Approximate Percentage of Total Kepone
(1 ft depth) Kepone has been detected
as low as 1 meter, but 1 foot is
employed as an average for costing
purposes	3% 164	73 A	B/o
Area in Square Miles	0.243 2.43 109.8	130.5
Similarly, contamination by	river reach has been identified as:
Richmond co	Jordan Pome to	Jamestown Island to
Jordan Point	Jamestown Island Newport Sews	 Hampton Road Total
Area (mi~) 4.6	44.9	132.7 60.9	2-3.1
Percent of Total Area
(i) 2	13	55 25	LOO
Keoone (lb) (1 ft
deptn) 5,033	13,160	21,000 2,400	ii,593
Percent of Total
Kepone (X) L2	32	50 6	100
X-3

-------
DREDGE SPOIL FIXATION
While dredging is a recognized approach co che removal of in-place
toxics, it was not the purpose of this 3tudy to compare available dredging
technology. Such a comparison is offered in a companion report to this
document, "Capturing, Stabilizing, and Removing Kepone in Bailey Bay, Bailey
Creek and Gravelly Run at Hopewell, Virginia," by the Norfolk District Corps
of Engineers. This work addresses the disposal of resultant spoils.
It has long been known that the disposal of toxic liquids or sludges onto
land disposal sites can lead to ground-water and airborne contamination due to
leaching and resuspension by wind. Consequently, various materials have been
identified as stabilization or fixation agents capable of solidifying these
wastes and minimizing subsequent movement of contaminants. Candidate materials
include asphalt, tar polyolefins, epoxy resins, silicates, and elemental sulfur.
The desirability of any one fixation agent is based on the characteristics of
the contaminant to be bound as well as stresses to which the fixed mass may
be exposed (e.g. pressure, thermal changes, etc.).
In the past, fixation processes have largely been applied to wastes con-
taining inorganic contaminants such as heavy metals (Anonymous, 1975). In
this context, the silicates have been relatively successful. Cadmium from
electroplating sludge leached at much slower rates when fixed than it did
from raw sludges. Success has also been reported using a polybutadiene
binder resin and a polyethylene encapsulating agent on toxicants such as
copper, chromium, zinc, nickel, cadmium, mercury and oonosodlum methane-
arsenate (Wiles and Lubowitz, 1976). However, little has been done to
measure the effectiveness of these agents to retard the leaching of persis-
tent organic contaminants. Therefore, it was necessary to conduct a series
of laboratory studies to evaluate the effectiveness of fixation agents on
reducing leachate Kepone concentrations from contaminated sediments.
Procedures
Each fixation agent evaluated was subjected to two types of standardized
tests: (1) a short-term elutriate test and (2) a longer term leach test. The
results of these were employed to assess the overall effectiveness of a par-
ticular set of fixation agents. High levels resulting from the elutriate
assessment reflects potential to cause immediate impact. Contamination of
leachate carries long-term implications. All fixation work was performed
on a "standard" sediment prepared through homogenization of a large sample
of Bailey Bay sediments. The Kepone concentration in these samples has been
measured at 1.17 ± 0.13 2-ug/g (ppm).
The standard elutriate test employed for these studies was modeled
after a procedure described by Keeley and Engler (1974) from work at the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Specific changes
include an increase in the sediment to water volumetric ratio from 1:4 to
1:19 as recommended by Lee et al. (1975). This reduction to a 5%
X-4

-------
slurry is made to accommodate lower total contaminant levels in the elutriate
as a result of reduced solubilities characteristic of chlorinated hydrocar-
bons. The elutriate pH was also modified. Based on work by Esmen and Fergus
(1976), distilled water with an adjusted pH of 4.5 was employed to simulate
rainfall. Adjustment was accomplished with HC1, and hence, buffering action
was not increased.
Based on these modifications, elutriate tests were conducted as follows:
1.	All samples were held at 4°C prior to testing.
2.	Fixed sediments were ground to pass through a 10 mesh screen.
3.	Distilled water at pH 4.5 was added to the ground sediment at 19 parts
water to 1 part sediment (5 %).
4.	The slurry was mixed vigorously for 30 min on a horizontal dis-
placement mechanical mixer.
5.	Mixtures were allowed to settle for 1 hr.
6.	Settled slurries were centrifuged at 3500 rpm for 30 min and
centrate filtered through a 0.7-2 u Gelman glass fiber filter.
7.	Finally, the filtrate was analyzed for Kepone and compared to results
obtained with unfixed sediments.
Similar considerations were made in designing the leach test employed.
Specific steps Included:
1.	All samples were held at 4°C prior to testing.
2.	Blocks of fixed sediments were weighed and reduced in size to the
diameter of pea gravel or less.
3.	Approximately 70 g (0.154 lb) of particles were placed in sealed leaching
bottles and 500 ml (0.132 gal) of distilled water at pH 4.5 were added.
4.	At each sampling time interval the water was removed from the vessel and
a new pH 4.5 500 ml (0.132 gal) aliquot was added.
5.	Removed aliquots were split. Half were sent for Kepone analysis, and
-half were collected as a composite to assess total Kepone losses.
6.	Sample intervals were selected as 1, 4, and 24 hours; 7, 14, 28, and
84 days.
Results
Only commercially available fixation agents were employed for the studies
reported here. To identify candidates and avoid arbitrary exclusion of any
options, an attempt was made to contact all companies currently marketing
fixation processes. Firms identified for this purpose and their subsequent
response are detailed in Table X.l. All companies were offered the oppor-
tunity to participate, but not all chose to do so. "Standard" sediments were
employed for all fixation trials as well as for blanks.
Data were obtained on all samples for both elutriate and leach tests.
These are presented in Table X.2. Many of the agents employed are proprie-
tary in nature and therefore not identified here. The first samples are from
fixation tests performed by Ontario Liquid Waste Disposal Ltd. Their process
X-5

-------
TABLE X.l. CANDIDATE FOR FIXATION AGENT TESTING
	Company	
Chemf ix-Nat ional
Environmental Controls, Inc.
'l'JK Ind.-U.S. Representatives
for Takenaka
1U Conversion System
Protective Packaging
John Sexton Landfill Contractors
Werner and Pfluidores, Corp.
Wehran Engineering Corporation
Ontario Liquid Waste Disposal
Systems
TRW Inc.
Manchek Colorado
Key Chemicals
Dowell Division, Dow Chemical
llallemlte Division, Sterling
Drug Co.
Randustrial Corp.
Tidewater Terminal Co.
Sorcoat
	Address
Metairle, LA
7407 Fulton Ave.
North Hollywood, CA
91605
Plymouth Meeting, PA
Louisville, KY
Oakbrook, 1L
Waldwick, NJ
Middletown, NY
470 Collier MacMUlan Dr.
P.O. Box 1060
Cambridge, Ontario
Redondo Beach, CA
P.O. Box 30737
Santa Barbara, CA
4346 Taeony St.
Philadelphia, PA
Tulsa, OK
225 Suouuit Ave
Montvalc, N.J 07645
13311 Union Ave
Cleveland, Oil
Pasco, WA
Chevron
San Francisco, CA
KEP0NE CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS
	Response	
Fixed samples at company
Fixed samples at company and Bent
chemicals for ln-house fixation
No response
Not developed enough for testing
on sediments
No response
No response
No response
Fixed samples at company
Not developed enough for testing
on sediments
Fixed samples at company
Sent samples of sediment,
fixed at company
Sent chemicals for fixation and testing
Sent chemicals for fixation and testing
Sent chemicals for fixation and Lestlng
Sent asphalt sample for fixation and
„	testing
No response

-------
TABLE X.2. KEPONE CONCENTRATIONS IN ELUTRIATE AND
LEACHATE SOLUTIONS (ug/£-ppb)
Conooslt*
Tlmt tn Hours	of
fixation Tvm

Elutriate
1 "
1
M '
m

ill
1344
SffiL
Leacnatc
Silicate 9asa











Ontario Liquid Olioosal No.
2

0.07
o.oa
0.094
0.166
0.524
0.30

0.26
0.17
Ontario liquid Olsposal No.
3

0.05
0.05
0.111
0.157
0.306
0.26

0.51
0.26
Ontario liquid 01ioo«l-P1clile liquor

4.10
4.04
3.55
1.75
3.S6
1.39
1.59
1.24
2. XI
Kancftak Colorado do. 2

3.52
1.04
0.99
1.01
1.81
t .74
2.09

3.9
1.90
flancftok Colorado No. 3

1.27
1.34
2.64
0.90
1.30
1.18
0.78

1.76
1.40
Nanchok Colorado No. 4

1.91
' 1-33
1.38
1.31
1.42
1 04
1.02

3.36
2.20
Maneftoft Colorado to. 5

1.31
0.39
0.54
1.00
1.18
1.27
1.41

2.59
1.49
Chcnflx CT-77-W

0.12
1 90
3.30
2 27
2.93
3.58
3.58
43.9
3.77
1 95
Ctaaflx 1-4

0.012
1.52
2.44
1.62
1.64
2.10
1 42
1.96
2.42
1.50
TJK, Inc. 101

0.078
0.095
0.068
0.059
0.15

<0.21
0.31
0.77
0.77
TJK, Inc. 102

0.0S5
0.088
0.083
0.088
0.14

0.11
0.49
2.34
0.45
TJK, Inc. 201

0.069
0.21
0.24*
0.21
0.16

0.096
0.14
0.31
0.83
TJK, Inc. 301

0.037
0.35
0.13
0.073
0.065

0.073
0.18
3.30
2.01
TJK, Inc. 302

0.0S5
0.12
0.18
0.14
0.079

0 096
1.39
0.33
0.46
Tunnal foldings 44

1 29
0.35
0.45
54.3
0.41

0.53
1.32
2.24
0.36
Tunnel Holdings 48

0.24
0.046
0.088
0.068
0.67

0.033
0.11
0.15
0.24
Organic Salt











Por *ok Eooxy Grout

<0.037
0.042
0.075
0.021

<0.0!5
0.034
0.057
0.021
<0.049
EkMll Ml79

29.3
C.086
0.044
0.018
0.053
0.095
0.21
0.23
0.083
0.074
Sulfur 3aie











J^olten Sulfur


0.013
0.012
0.017
0.010
0 05
0.029
0.032
3.15
0.17
Sulfasat

0.14
0.5
0.22
0.095
0.20

0.28
0.31
0.29
0.45
Gvosian Base











Por 3ok

Oocoopostd
0.52
0.47
0.52
0.91
o.e2
o.ao
1 01
3.74
0.99
Blank to. 1

0.042
<0.066
<0.066
0.076
0.058
0.050
0.22

1 04
0.10
Blank to. 1


0.117
0.04
0.104
0.081
0.11
2.30

0.14
0 26
involved the addition of an acidic agent followed by an amending agent with
dosing controlled through observation of pH levels. Sample 3 included the
addition of soil to assist the binding process. Sample 4 employed pickle
liquors for the acid component. All samples showed Kepone concentrations in
leachate in excess of those for untreated sediment. The soil amendment
enhanced fixation slightly for short exposure periods but did not have a
positive effect on Kepone levels in the cumulative leachate.
The second set of samples was prepared by Manchek-Colorado, Inc. They
employ an oxidizing agent, a fixative agent, and an amendment using tempera-
ture changes for process control. Sample 2 did not include the amendment.
Sample 3 included the amendment and was prepared at 130°F. Samples 4 and
5 were also prepared at 130°F but received increasing amounts of amendment.
Leachate from these four samples generally contained ten times the concentra-
tion of Kepone than did leachate from the untreated sediment.
X-7

-------
Two mixtures of the Chem Technics patented fixative called Chemfix were
evaluated. These samples, labeled 1-4 and CT-77-2A, never had a leachate
within an order of magnitude of the blank leachate. It is assumed that
because of the high pH occurring during the mixing and curing steps of fixa-
tion, Kepone was dissolved and released from the sediment. During the leach
tests the free Kepone readily migrated to the leachate water.
Five samples were obtained from TJK, Inc. Each is a variation of a
basic silicate based fixation agent developed by Takenaka of Japan. Three of
the formulations displayed higher leachate concentrations than standard sedi-
ments much as the other silicate based fixation agents. Two of the formula-
tions produced leachate Kepone levels roughly equivalent or slightly lower '
than those from standard sediments for specific sampling times, but all
cumulative leachate levels exceeded Kepone concentrations for the unfixed
sediments. Additional samples have been provided TJK for in-house development
Two samples of silicate based agents were obtained from Tunnel Holdings
Ltd, Inc. of the United Kingdom. Both displayed leachate Kepone levels in
excess of those produced by the sediments alone.
In general, the silicate based agents rely on high pH conditions to
set the stabilized material. Kepone is solubilized under these conditions
and therefore is present in leachate at equivalent or higher levels than
is found with natural sediments. There is also some adverse action from
the low pH (4.5) simulated rainwater on the fixation agent itself.
Por Rok and Por Rok Epoxy Sealant are both grout materials manufactured
by Hallemite, Inc. Por Rok is a gypsum base material and consequently will
not retain much structural integrity when "Immersed in water. When compar-
ing the leach results with those of the natural sediment there was generally
ten times the Kepone leached from the fixed sediment than from the blank.
The Por Rok Epoxy Sealant is a synthetic epoxy material which is mixed with
a coarse aggregate material and used as a grout or surface sealant. It pro-
duces leachate with Kepone concentrations, an order of magnitude lower than
those of standard sediments. This stabilization agent shows promise as a
means of reducing Kepone releases from spoils.
Dowell M179 is a soil sealant material. It is primarily comprised of
a polyacrylamide polymer which resists water percolation. Its action is
dependent upon formation of a filia-like coating. The crushing employed in
the elutriate test therefore compromised the integrity of the agent. The
test was performed, however, to maintain uniformity in testing procedures.
The poor response to the elutriate test reflects the breaking of the surface
film and subsequent leaching from exposed surfaces. Short term leaching on
the other hand (1 to 4 hr) yielded Kepone levels similar to those from
untreated sediments. After 24 hr of exposure the M179 leachate had a
concentration of 0.018 yg/Z (ppb), or approximately 1/10 of che concentra-
tion found in the blank. Subsequent leachate samples revealed a similar
pattern. Consequently, the Dowell agent is considered well suited for its
intended use as a surface seal and percolation control agent. Extended use
for spoils stabilization is not recommended in that long-term immersion and
physical stress could lead to puncture of the film and release as reflected
by the elutriate data.
X-8

-------
Two sulfur-based approaches were evaluated. The "sulfur sludge" combina-
tion involves the inclusion of spoils with molten elemental sulfur. This is
a technology that has been evaluated for use on radioactive wastes and is
employed for patching pavements. Sulfur is shipped commercially as a molten
material. For stabilization the two are rapidly mixed upon contact and
allowed to set. The Sulfaset is a proprietary agent distributed by
Randustrial, Inc. and appears to include both sulfur and cement in the for-
mulation. As is evident from Table X.2, the molten sulfur approach offered
1 order of magnitude reduction while the Sulfaset was less effective. The
Sulfaset produced leachate intermediate between pure silicate based agents
and molten sulfur. It produced high pH in leachates which are capable of
solubilizing Kepone as was the case with the silicate agents. The composite
Kepone concentration for the molten sulfur appears to be an anomaly since
it is higher than any contributing leachate sample for a specific test
period. Comparison of leachate levels at each test interval reveals a
ten-fold reduction of Kepone constructions with molten sulfur.
Of the 21 proprietary and generic agents tested, two were found to
show good potential for use on Kepone contaminated dredge spoils: Por Role
Epoxy Grout, and molten sulfur. The costs for use of these fixation agents
have been calculated based on the following considerations:
Application Rate - Molten sulfur-equal volume sulfur to dry sediment
Epoxy Grout 14.5 gal/ton of sediment
Unit Costs -	Molten sulfur $38-42/ton
Epoxy Grout $1.58/lb, $14.41/gal
Application Labor.. etc. $0.10/yd3
Dredging $2.95/yd^, $2.21/ton (oozer dredge)
This yields a composite cost for stabilization of $45.90/m^ (31.30/ft-^) for
molten sulfur and $442.30/m3 ($12.53/ft^) for Epoxy Grout. Based on these
costs, the cost of implementation for various segments of the river have been
calculated in Tables X.3 and X.4. It should be noted that additional pilot
and field studies are needed before extensive application of any fixation
agent to Kepone contaminanted sediments.
TABLE X.3. COMPARATIVE COST OF IMPLEMENTING DREDGE AND STABILIZATION
OPTIONS IN VARIOUS KEPONE CONCENTRATION REGIMES ON THE
JAMES RIVER
River Segment by Kepone	>10	1-10	0.1-1.0 ' 0.02-0.1
Concentration (ug/g-ppm)
Dredge Volume (1 ft deep)
(ft3)
Dredge Cost ($)
Molten Sulfur Cost ($)
Epoxy Grout Cose ($)
6.3
X
106
6.3
X
107
3.0
X
109
3.6
X
109
3.1
X
105
8.1
X
106
3.7
X
io3
4.3
X
103
8.9
X
106
3.9
:<
io7
3.8
X
109
4.7
X
109
8.5
X
io7
8.5
X
10s
3.5
X
IO10
4. 5
X
1010
X-9

-------
TABLE X.4. COST OF IMPLEMENTING DREDGE AND STABILIZATION OPTIONS
IN VARIOUS REACHES OF THE JAMES RIVER
Ucbaond co Jordan ?olnc Co Jaaeacown Island co
Jordan Point Janeacoun Island	Nawaport Sawa	Haaoton Roads Tocal
Uvar Sagnanc by Flow
Scratch
Dredge Voluae-1 fe lapels
(fc^)
Oradga Coat ($)*
Moicaa Sulfur Cose ($)
Zpaxj Croue Coat ($)
1.7 x 109
1.3 x 105
2.2 x 109
*Thas« figures do aoc compare directly with dredging coaca developed by cha Corps of
Engineers, Norfolk Dlscrlct, aa a part of cha EPA Kapoua Mltlgaeion Feasibility
Project slnea chair coac evaluation included overboard disposal and a dredging
dapch of 13 in.
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
Microorganisms play aa important role in the fate of many organic com-
pounds in the environment. Bacteria (Guenzi and Beard, 1967; Hill and
McCarty, 1967; Johnsen, 1976; Bollag et al., 1968; Tiedje, 1969; Duxbury,
1970) fungi (Kallman) and Andrews, 1963; Focht, 1972) and algae (Canton
et al., 1977) have all been implicated in these interactions. Basically,
positive microbial action can be divided into three categories: (1) degrada-
tion/utilization; (2) degradation/co-metabolisa; and (3) bioconcentration.
Utilization can be either aerobic or anaerobic. Co-metabolism is the degra-
dation of a substrate from which no growth of the organism occurs. The
process of bioconcentration can be either active or passive.
If there is a positive Kepone-microorganism interaction, it most likely
involves one of the above processes. Furthermore, it is possible that these
processes could be exploited to facilitate the collection and/or removal of
Kepone from the James River.
There is much information in the literature concerning Kepone. However,
little is devoted to the delineation of microbial interactions. To obtain
more information for the purposes of evaluation, available data on microbial
interactions with analogous chemicals and systems were also reviewed.
Mirex, and Kelevan, like Kepone, are prepared from hexachlorocyclopenta-
diene (He?) (Figure X.l). Kepone and Mirex should be similar in their physi-
cal and chemical characteristics (Table X.5). Kepone is much more soluble in
water than Mirex and the solubility shows a marked pH dependence (higher
solubility with increased alkalinity). This factor alone may have profound
significance due to local pH of the water or to the pH of the microenvironment
since most microorganisms tend to alter the pH of their immediate environment.
X-10

-------
\






\
C7
10
Ke levari
1 +
1*2 = -CI
(r-,r2) = o

R2 = -OH

R1 3 -CH
Mirex
Kepone
FIGURE X.l. Structures of Mirex, Kepone and Kelevan
TABLE X.5. SOLUBILITIES OF MIREX, KEPONE AND KELEVAN
(ALLEY, 1973; SMITH, 1976; MAIER-BODE,
1976)
Solubilicv
Solvent
*2°
NaCl
h2o
H2°
MaOH
H,0
H.,0
Conditions
25*C
0.5Z, 25'C
23.5"C
pH i-6
pH 9-10
0.001 M
20°C
ZO'C
Mirex
1 ppb*
0.2S ppb
Kepone
*ppb ¦ parts per billion (ug/i)
"ppm - parts per million (mg/l)
6.8 ppm"
(Maier-Bailey,
1976)
1.5-2 ppm
(Smith, 1976)
5-70 ppm
(Smith, 1976)
Keievan
176 ppm
5.5 ppm
(Kelevan)
67.0 ppm
(Kalevan
acid)
X-ll

-------
An organism tolerant of Kepone under acidic conditions may become adversely
affected if the pH becomes alkaline. Conversely, a drop in pH might render
the Kepone inaccessible to the organism.
Microbial Interactions
Brown et al. (1975) was unable to isolate any organisms which would grow
solely on Mirex. An organism was obtained which would grow in the presence
of hexane and Mirex but not on the individual compounds themselves. Brown
et al. (1975) also reported that no degradation of Mirex was observed. It
was their opinion that essentially all of the Mirex in aqueous solution
would be removed by adsorption on particulate matter (clay and dead bacterial
cells) and would resist degradation. They also state that there was no bio-
concentration of Mirex. Analysis of their data shows that live cells
accumulated as much as dead cells. A fine distinction can be made in that
there is bioconcentration but that it is passive. No attempt was made to
determine if the adsorption on clay and cells was preferential. In addition
these authors omitted a large sector of the microbial population in their
studies. Anaerobic bacteria, fungi, actinomycetes, and algae were not
examined. All bioconcentration experiments with Mirex were performed using
a single strain of Beneckea rather than a representative group of
microorganisms.
Brown et al. (1975) shows that while 1000 mg/2, (ppm) Mirex was not
inhibitory to the mixed microbial populations tested, 1 to 10 mg/£ (ppm)
Kepone inhibited primary productivity and the growth of Beneckea, a marine
bacterium.
The research of Jones and Hodges (1974) supports the findings of
Brown et al. (1975) that mirex is resistant to microbial degradation. Vind
(1976) was unable to show any degradation of Kepone in sea water incubated
aerobically and anaerobically over a 12-month period. This correlates closely
with results of shorter term experiments conducted by Gulf Breeze (Garnas
et al. 1977) and Battelle (see Chapter IV).
Kelevan, which is synthesized by reacting ethyl levulinate with Kepone,
is an interesting exception to the resistance to degradation seen with Kepone
and Mirex (Gilbert et al, 1966). In soil the half life of Kelevan is between
6 and 12 weeks, depending on the soil. One of the intermediates of Kelevan
degradation is Kepone (actually thought to be "Kepone-L-argine"). The loss
of Kelevan is so rapid in the soil that residues are measured as Kepone.
Before further examining the feasibility of Kepone amelioration by micro-
organisms, some insights gained during research on pesticides and related
toxic compounds should be considered. Ahmed and Focht (1972, 1973) have
reported that bacteria are incapable of degrading the higher chlorinated
PCBs when no unsubstituted vicinal carbons are present. If this is in fact the
case, a compound such as Kepone must undergo some degree of dehalogenation
before oxidation can begin.
X-12

-------
Dehalogenation has been shown to occur Co a greater extent in anaerobic
systems than aerobic systems (Andrade and Wheeler, 1974; Hicks and Corner,
1973). This is of particular interest since the heavily Kepone-contaminated
areas of Bailey Creek and Bay are anaerobic. The deeper sediments in the
James River carrying Kepone are also anaerobic and hence conducive to this
type of chemical attack.
As yet, there is no evidence of the dehalogenation of Kepone in the
environment. Consequently, subsequent bacterial degradation of the compound
itself is not likely. Mono and dihydro derivatives have been identified in
environmental samples, but this does not necessarily indicate dehalogenation.
The latter may have been by-products released along with batches of Kepone
and hexachlorocyclopentadiene. Studies sponsored by the Commonwealth of
Virginia have revealed apparent Kepone degradation in sludge digesters
(Design, Partnership, 1976). This suggests that all possibilities of degrada-
tion in the environment cannot be ruled out.
Role of Fungi and Mold in Biodegradation
The fungi have long been known for their metabolic diversity. They are
also known to survive in harsh environments. Fungi, therefore, have been used
by researchers to study the biodegradation of many recalcitrant organic com-
pounds. Researchers at the Atlantic Research Corporation, Alexandria, Virginia
maintain a collection of fungi and molds capable of degrading recalcitrant
compounds. According to Ralph Valentine of that organization over 40 fungal
and mold Isolates were tested for their ability to grow on solid base media
using Kepone as a sole carbon source. The identity of these media was not
disclosed. Five cultures showed growth. One isolate showed a 41% disappear-
ance of Kepone in 22 to 31 days. Disappearance was tested by gas-liquid
chromatography using the method of the Commonwealth of Virginia for the
analysis of Kepone in shellfish.
Although these results appear interesting, the data obtained by the
Atlantic Research Corporation is preliminary and data do not give any indica-
tion of the applicability of fungi to the problem of in situ degradation.
These are laboratory tests only and have not been applied in the field. Since
the majority of Kepone in the Bailey Bay sediments is in a highly anaerobic
environment, it is unlikely that the five aerobic fungal isolates of the
Atlantic Research Corporation, would be capable of growth or Kepone degrada-
tion in that environment. Their use in the aerobic portions of the James
River is a possibility, but competition from natural bacteria could be a
limiting factor. Atlantic Research has stated that in situ applications
appear unlikely at this time.
Co-metabolism (Co-oxidation)
As noted previously, no comprehensive information is readily available
on the microbial degradation of Kepone. Data on Mirex degradation is scant
and contradictory (Brown et al., 1975; Jones and Hodges, 1974; Andrade et al.,
X-13

-------
1975; Andrade and Wheeler, 1974). However, based on past information con-
cerning che multitude of organic compounds degraded by microorganisms, the
degradation of Kepone is a possibility. There is still a question of whether
or not degradation is an actuality in the Bailey Bay environment. In concert
with biological effects there are many possible chemical effects. The slow
effect of photochemical decomposition cannot be ignored (Alley et al., 1973;
Ivie et al., 1974), although the turbidity of the water and depth of Kepone
contamination will minimize any possible effects. Surface catalyzed reactions
carried out on the surface of organic or inorganic particles are also factors
which must be considered. Finally, the contribution from indirect biodegrada-
tion (co-metabolism) must be analyzed.
In ecosystems that have had long standing or continuous inputs from
industrial and agricultural (pesticides) sources, the probabilities for
degradation or co-metabolism are enhanced. In addition, fungi and algae,
which normally synthesize organohalides may be a good possibility for carrying
out cometabolism (Chapman, 1976).
Bioaccumulatlon
Microorganisms
Bioaccumulation, whether active or passive, may be a method for con-
centrating Kepone for harvest and thus simplifying disposal. Active accumula-
tion of pesticides is most often seen where the pesticide is metabolized or
when it is an analog of a chemical which is normally transported. In active
accumulation the process is energy-mediated such that the compound once inside
the cell will be maintained inside and will not escape by simple diffusion.
Passive accumulation is dependent on the chemical nature of the microbial
capsule, wall, or membrane.and is an adsorption phenomenon.
Bioaccumulation becomes an attractive option when it is easier to remove
the accumulating biota than to remove the Kepone from the system. Algae would
be the most simple to remove. Growing in mats, the algae could be skimmed off
the surface. Bacteria and fungi would probably work best as immobilized cells
in a filtering system. Some bacteria and fungi form floes and extensive
mycelial networks, respectively, which could be harvested in a manner similar
to that of algae. Numerous examples exist which demonstrate the microbial
accumulation of pesticides (Canton et al., 1977; Hicks and corner, 1973;
Chacko and Lockwood, 1967; Johnson and Kennedy, 1973; Leshniowsky et al.,
1970). Used alone or in conjunction with microbial Kepone degrading systems,
bioaccumulation could be an attractive option. It is apparent from the litera-
ture that the process of bioaccumulation occurs in hours rather than the
months needed for degradation. Bioaccumulation is not limited to the microbiota.
3ahner et al. (1977) have reported bioconcentration of Kepone in mysids,
grass shrimp, oysters, sheepshead minnows and spot. If treatment of the
Kepone is to be handled in situ, then the use of an easily harvested bio-
accumulation system may be necessary to reduce accumulation in higher life
forms or biomagnification through the food chain. Bioaccumulation could also
be used in the- treating of Kepone spoils in order to concentrate and isolate
the Kepone.
X-14

-------
Plants
Plants may also bioconcentrate chlorinated hydrocarbons and other con-
taminants either through uptake from water or soils. As noted earlier,
Newbauer tests with barley revealed no apparent uptake of Kepone from soil.
Similar results are reported for PCBs. Mr. Paul Griffen of General Electric
Company in his research on bioconcentration of PCBs has been unable to demon-
strate the uptake of PCB from contaminated sediments by the water hyacinth
(Griffen, 1977).
The research of Suzuki et al. (1977) supports to some extent the results
obtained by General Electric in PCB studies. The Suzuki group observed PCB
accumulation on roots of soybean sprouts. The lower chlorinated PCB isomers
are preferentially accumulated by the soybean roots. This process is
directly related to the water solubility of the PCB isomers. The more water
soluble an organic compound the easier for plants to take it up and accumulate
it. The lipophilic nature of many organic compounds enhances the transport
of these compounds across biological membranes but decreases the possibilities
of uptake by root systems. Hence, the less soluble (higher chlorinated)
compounds are not readily taken up by the roots.
The maximum solubility of PCB in neutral waters is approximately 1 mg/2,
(ppm) and that of Kepone is 5 to 6 mg/Jl (ppm). However, the highest concen-
tration of Kepone found during the June sample period was 0.042 mg/% (ppb)
and the majority of concentrations seen were less than 0.006 ug/£ (ppb). In
sediment, the concentration of Kepone is considerably higher: in the parts
per million range. This situation is analogous to that seen with PCBs and
reflects the strong affinity of sediments for the contaminant which produces
a partitioning heavily skewed to the sediment phase. This is discussed in
detail in Part IV - Physical Chemical Properties of Kepone - under sorption-
desorption.
For these reasons, the use of water hyacinths or other aquatic plants
to remove Kepone from the contaminated sediments does not appear to be
feasible. The plants cannot take up significant amounts of Kepone directly
from the sediments where most of the contamination resides (see Chapter IV).
They may sorb Kepone from water, but this will represent only a small portion
of the Kepone available. Even though the Kepone in water can be removed,
the water will remain contaminated as long as the sediment is contaminated.
This results from desorption of Kepone from sediments to maintain a constant
ratio (partition coefficient) between the sorbed and dissolved states.
IMPLICATIONS
In Situ Amelioration
The use of any biological alternative to treat the contaminated water
of Bailey Bay would be practical only if the sediment is also undergoing
treatment. The Kepone concentration in the water is significantly less
X-15

-------
Chan chat in the sediment. Any method directed solely at treating the water
will only serve to allow more Kepone to go into the solution from the sedi-
ments. Furthermore, since the Kepone concentration in water is so low it
may be below the effective concentration needed to warrant the use of a
biological method.
Benthic organisms that routinely ingest particles or filter feed accu-
mulate Kepone (Collins et al., 1973; Bookout and Costlow, 1975; Bookout and
Costlow, 1976). Any disruption of the contaminated sediments or reduction
in the partition coefficient would serve only to enhance the dispersion of
Kepone and create new areas of contamination.
Therefore, any biological alternative that reduces or inactivates the
Kepone in intact sediments should receive a high priority. However, the
majority of the biologic options discussed in this report are inoperative
in these sediments.* Fungi responsible for degrading other recalcitrant
compounds do so aerobically and cannot compete with natural bacterial popu-
lations. Algae would not be amenable to use under reducing conditions or
in the absence of light in the sediment of areas such as Bailey Bay. The
most promising alternative would be the use of the anaerobic bacteria if
strains could be identified which could degrade Kepone biochemically. If
in situ anaerobic bacterial degradation were successful, it would reduce
the Kepone concentration in the water as well as in the sediments. Hence
reduction in sediment levels would lead to further adsorption from water
until a new equilibrium was established. As noted in Table X.6, no bio-
logical approaches have been identified with the potential for reducing
Kepone levels in situ.
Elutriate Treatment
Bioconcentration and biodegradation are two areas that might show
promise for treatment of elutriates. Bioconcentration is less desirable
in that the Kepone is only being transferred to a different compartment.
If in the process of bioconcentration a transfer is made to a compartment
from which it is easier to dispose of Che Kepone, then bioconcentration
offers an advantage. Similarly, any bioconcentration which concentrates
the Kepone above environmental concentrations may be of value. In addition,
bioconcentration may offer indirect advantages such as disruption of the
biological chain of contamination. Also bioconcentration might aid or
enhance the degradation of Kepone.
Algae and fungi have been shown to concentrate many refractory organic
compounds. Bacteria and fungi can be useful but they have drawbacks. The
harvesting of the bacteria is the most difficult step and makes the utiliza-
tion of bacteria, in what is otherwise an efficient system, impractical.
Water hyacinths which are simple to harvest are not chat efficient in accu-
mulating organics. Therefore, algae and fungi would be preferred for use as
free living organisms in a holding or treatment pond. Use of bacteria would
involve biologic filters. These filcers may contain either immobilized
whole cells or extracts of membranes.
* Plants do not accumulate organic compounds such as Kepone from sediments.
X-16

-------
TABLE X.6. POSSIBILITIES FOR BIOLOGICAL AMELIORATION
OF KEPONE IN BAILEY BAY
Organism
In Situ
Higher plants e.g.
(water hyacinth)
Fungi
Bacteria
Algae
A11 of the above
Water
(1) Leaf surfaces may
accumulate Kepone
However, this Is
not a practical
alternative
(2) Not know) to meta-
bolize Kepone
(1) Because of low
Kepone concentra-
tion in water the
use of possible
aerobic fungi
which degrade
Kepone Is not
feasible
Sediment
(1)	Roots not known to
accumulate similar
compounds. Not
feasible (Roots
normally free
floatl ng)
(2)	Not known to metab-
olize Kepone
(1)	The sediments of
Bailey Bay which
are highly anaero-
bic and reducing
will not permit
the growth of the
majority of fungi
which are aerobic
(2)	Anaerobes are not
likely to be of
any value
Water
Secondary Treatment
(1) Surface area/volume
required is prohibitive
Sediment"
(1) Not feasible
Anaerobes show
best potential
for dechlorination
of Kepone in Bailey
Bay sediments but
no species have
been identified
(1) Aerobic Fungi would
require large shal-
low ponds for degrad-
ation. May be neces-
sary to achieve 100X
degradation
(2) Accumulation of Kepone
by fungi used as biologic
filters is possible
(1) Bacteria used as biologic
filters is possible
(1) Not feasible
(1) Anaerobic digesters
snow potential for
optimization of
degradation
(2) Aerobes necessary to
achieve 100X degradation
(1) Not feasible
(1) Because of low	(1)
Kepone concentra-
tion effective
degradation or
accumulation may not
be possible while the
organisms can effec-
tively accumulate
Kepone many times,
quantitatively the
amounts removed would
be small compared to
current environmental
levels.
(1) Low Kepone concen- (1)
tration reduces
effectiveness of
bioaccumulatlon while
the organisms can
effectively accumu-
late Kepone many
times. Quantitatively
the amounts removed
would De small com-
pared to current
environmental levels.
Because of the many interactions possible, it is not possible to predict how all four would relate
order to achieve maximal amelioration.
The following generalizations can be made:
(1)	Anaerobes and aerobes must interact so tnat optimum degradation will be achieved.
(2)	Normal organism antagonisms may decrease the posslblities of amelorlation.
Not feasible
(though algae can
accumulate carbohy-
drates anaerobic-
ally)
(1) Have snown excellent bio-
accumulation of similar
compounds
Secondary treatment facilities that relied on anaerobic digesters might
provide a solution if anaerobes capable of attacking Kepone could be identi-
fied. An advantage of such a system over in situ degradation is that in a
treatment facility many physical parameters can be controlled and a degree
of optimization is possible. As noted earlier, some data have been reported
suggesting that Kepone is degraded in the anaerobic sludge digestion process
(Design Partnership, 1976).
X-17

-------
A summary of Che possible biologic alternatives chat might be used to
ameliorate the Kepone contamination of Bailey Bay is given in Table X.6.
The higher plants and algae offer a means of concentrating Kepone in a form
which can subsequently be harvested. This mechanism is largely restricted
to soluble Kepone, however, and is of limited value since most Kepone resides
in sediments. Uptake and concentration from sediments has not been demon-
strated. Nor has bacterial degradation been demonstrated to date. Fungal
species have been shown to be capable of degradation but are not competitive
with natural biota and would be restricted to application in a controlled
environment such as a treatment plant. In general then, to date, no bio-
logical approaches show promise for in situ amelioration and only fungal
systems have shown promise for application to Kepone waste treatment in
laboratory studies.
PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL ELUTRIATE AND SLURRY TREATMENT
Numerous means exist for the physical-chemical destruction of organic
materials. A wide range of these were evaluated for application Co Kepone
contaminated water and sediments. Subsets of these include approaches designed
around the use of oxidizing chemicals and processes utilizing electromagnetic
waves of various frequencies.
Photochemical Degradation
The simplest option classified as physical-chemical destruction is photo-
degradation with sunlight. No data were found on the effect of electromagnetic
radiation on Kepone degradation. Some work has been performed on Mirex. In
these studies it was determined that Mirex is not subject to photolysis co
any great extent (Brown et al., 1975; Carlson et al., 1976; Ivie et al., 1974).
However, significant enhancement of the photolysis process was achieved when
the Mirex was placed in an aliphatic amine solution (Brown et al., 1975).
The decomposition product appeared to be a mixture of monohydride derivatives.
A set of simple exposure tests was designed to investigate the photolysis
of Kepone in sediments exposed to sunlight. Closed systems were employed co
keep a mass balance on the entire system (i.e., sediment, water from the sedi-
ment, and the atmosphere above the sediment) throughout the exposure period.
Four enclosed dishes were constructed to test various modes of sunlight expo-
sure:
•	standard sediment - static,
•	standard sediment with a flow-chrough system,
•	standard sediment with a flow-through system plus weekly tilling,
•	standard sediment covered with 1 in. of water.
X-18

-------
The "landfarm" vessels were 30 cm x 20 cm x 7.6 cm (12 in. 8 in. x
3 in.) pyrex dishes with an 0.16 cm (1/16 in.) lucite cover. Each cover was
perforated for insertion of: (1) a temperature probe, (2) an adsorptive
column filled with XAD-4 resin or Filtrasorb activated carbon, and (3) a
closed vent or tubing connected to a tubing pump for flow-through charac-
teristics. The "landfarm" apparatus is illustrated in Figure X.2. The
cover was sealed to the pyrex dishes and the "landfarms" were exposed to
the sun for 12 weeks.
Outlet
Sorbent Column
Temperature Probe
Air Inlet
1/16" Plexiglas Plate
3" Oeep Pyrex Dish
FIGURE X.2. Experimental Apparatus Employed
in "Landfarm" Evaluations
In all cases, no significant changes in sediment Kepone content were
recorded. Small amounts of Kepone were found in sorbent traps: 0.03 to
0.39 x 10~6 yg. This minor fraction of the total indicates a low level loss
due to volatility (M).l%) but is overstated in that the plexiglas chambers
caused a "green house" effect and sustained temperatures higher than ambient.
The absence of a decrease in Kepone concentration also indicates a lack of
degradation in the system. Hence, the studies both confirmed the persistency
of Kepone in soils and sediments, and cast doubt on the efficacy of photo-
chemical degradation using incident sunlight.
Amine Photosensitization
As noted previously, work with Mirex showed that, in the presence of
ultraviolet light and an aliphatic amine, Mirex is apparently photosensitized
and subsequently degraded. Since Mirex and Kepone are similar in structure,
it was decided to test the effect of aliphatic amines on Kepone
pho todegrada tion.
To test the applicability of amines to Kepone degradation, 100 and 10%
solutions of ethanolamine, triethylamine, and ethylenediamine were placed
in quartz tubes, spiked with Kepone, and exposed to a photofloodlight for
1 hr or direct sunlight for 23 hr as illustrated in Figure X.3. Resultant
X-19

-------
UV Light Source
Quartz Tube
Amine Solution
FIGURE X.3. Experimental Apparatus Employed to Test Amine
Activated Photodegradatlon
levels of residual Kepone are presented in Table X.7. The amines apparently
interferred with analysis such that absolute values are not as important as
relative numbers in determining Kepone degradation. On this basis, the
ethylenediamine demonstrates what appears to be a marked trend toward
degradation.
TABLE X.7. EFFECTS OF SUNLAMP IRRADIATION ON AMINE SOLUTIONS
Kepone
Concentration in
ppb After
Solvent Svscem
Strength of
Solvent (It)
Photoflood
1 hr
Sunlight
23 hr
Rexane
10
1,640
6,040

100
3,700
530
Ethanolamlne
10
2,230
7,970

100
6,520
2,530
Triethylamine
10
54.4
13,620

100
2,240
i77
Ethylenediamine
10
1.715
117

100
<22.9

X-20

-------
Subsequently, a fourth solution using tert-butylamine was tested. Tert-
butylamine is a large molecule which will resist the formation of complexes
and any complications associated with complexation. With the "landfarm"
apparatus, the presence of tert-butylamine was found to sponsor photochemical
degradation leaving residual Kepone levels of 0.86 Ug/g (ppm) from an initial
sediment level of 1.27 ug/g (ppm). This constitutes a 32% reduction.
In a related test, a solution of. ethylenediamine was sprayed on dry
sediments contaminated at 0.95 Ug/g (ppm) with Kepone and allowed to stand
in the direct sun in an open beaker. After 10 days, the sediment was found
to contain only 0.21 ug/g (ppm). This constitutes 78% destruction.
Due to the reliance on photolytic action, the approach here is limited
to action at or very near the surface. It, therefore, may be of little use
on the large volumes of contaminated spoils associated with any dredging
activity. Continual tilling could circumvent some of these difficulties,
but land area requirements would still be massive. On the other hand, the
approach may be quite appropriate for use in the Hopewell area where soil
has been contaminated by atmospheric deposition of windblown particulates.
This option was considered separately in the preceding section on alterna-
tives for Hopewell (Chapter IX). Caution is warranted, however, since no
attempt has been made to identify degradation products or their toxicity.
Chlorine Dioxide
Chlorine dioxide is known as a powerful oxidizing agent capable cf react-
ing with many organic compounds. The oxidant occurs as a gas at normal tem-
peratures (25°C) but is produced as Oxine in a 2% aqueous solution by Biocide
Chemicals of Norman, Oklahoma. That organization markets Oxine as an indus-
trial and hospital disinfectant. Chlorine dioxide is toxic in pure form.
When diluted, it dissociates into hypochlorous and oxygen ions. The oxidiz-
ing action results from reaction with the oxygen ion. Since low pH condi-
tions stimulate dissociation, acid conditions are desirable. Ultraviolet
radiation also appears beneficial.
Biocide has been successful in oxidizing phenolic materials with
Oxine, suggesting that similar action on Kepone may occur. Consequently,
a series of tests were conducted to measure specific oxidation of Kepone
with Oxine. A 0.1 mg/2. (ppm) solution of Kepone in distilled water was
split and adjusted to pH 1.7 and pH 7. These were then treated with suffi-
cient Oxine to yield doses of 1:1 and 1:0.004 CIO2:Kepone. Results are
presented in Table X.8.
For the most part, the tests were negative. The apparent reduction
in the one low pH solution is difficult to interpret since it corresponds to
the lowest CIO2 dose. A second set of tests was initiated to extend this
information to contaminated sediments and to test the increased efficiency
available from exposure to sunlight. In this case, 500 g (1.1 lb) standard
X-21

-------
TABLE X.3. KEPONE RESIDUALS (jig/2 - ppb) AFTER
APPLICATION OF C102
C102
Dose (mg/£
- ppm)
PH
0.1
0.004
1.7
75.2
8.2
7.0
74.9
71.1
Blank
66
66
Bailey Bay sediments (1.17 yg/g-ppm Kepone) were treated with 100 ml (34 oz)
of 2% and 1% Oxines and allowed to stand in the sunlight for 1 week. Subse-
quent analyses revealed 1.07 and 1.34 ug/g (ppm) Kepone in the 2 and 1% tests,
respectively. This constitutes an average of less than 10% reduction in
Kepone. The apparent increase in Kepone during this exposure is believed
to represent an analytical anomaly. The results reflect sampling differ-
ences rather than degradation. In either case, the oxidizing action is
nonspecific and too limited to warrant its application to the Hopewell
problem at this time.
Ozonation
Ozone, like chlorine dioxide, is noted for its ability to oxidize mate-
rials. Ozonation has been employed in a variety of applications such as dis-
infection of wastewaters and accelerated oxidation of wastewaters in an
activated sludge configuration. The ozone itself leaves no noxious residues.
It has been hypothesized that ozone could be used to oxidize Kepone in a
similar fashion either through forced contact in situ or through confined
treatment in a process configuration.
To evaluate the above possibilities, a contact vessel was arranged to
allow ozone to bubble through sediments contaminated at 1 ug/g (ppm). After
4 hr of such contact, no reduction in Kepone was noted. This confirms similar
work by Ralph Valentine at Atlantic Research. Atlantic Research has also
noted, however, that ozonation of chlorinated hydrocarbons is facilitated
by concurrent irradiation with ultraviolet light.
Research on combined ozonation and ultraviolet irradiation has been
most fully explored by Westgate Research Corporation in West Los Angeles.
There a small facility capable of treating solutions in this configuration
has been produced. To test its applicability to the treatment of Kepone, a
solution of 5.172 mg/I (ppm) Kepone was submitted for treatment. Subsequent
effluent samples were found to contain 20.9 ug/l (ppb) after a batch expo-
sure period of 1.5 hr.
X-22

-------
As noted previously, ultraviolet irradiation processes are limited
in that degradation can occur only at exposed surfaces receiving direct
irradiation. Hence, these results will not necessarily translate to solids
or slurry systems and may in fact be greatly affected by the presence of
solids or turbidity in natural waters. This is illustrated by results pre-
sented in Table X.9. The addition of carbon particles to synthetic scrubber
waters reduced removal in both the 1- and 2-hr exposure periods. Work on
turbid waters is continuing at Westgate Research.
TABLE X.9. EFFECT OF WESTGATE PROCESS ON SYNTHETIC SCRUBBER WATER
Exposure Period,	hr Residuals Level, ug/I	Removal %, hr
0	1 2	_1	_2
Clear Solution 11,415	1,765 476	85	96
With Carbon
Particles 10,300	2,000 1,056	81	90
In studies with wastewater effluent from the Hopewell sewage treatment
plant, UV-ozonalysis was found quite effective for reduction of Kepone levels
as noted in Table X.10.
TABLE X.10. THE EFFECT OF UV-OZONALYSIS ON THE KEPONE LEVEL
IN WASTEWATER EFFLUENT FROM THE HOPEWELL SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANT
Exposure Period,	Kepone Concentration,
minutes			Ug/£ (ppb)		Removal, %
0	0.77
15	0.66	14
30	0.24	69
45	0.11	86
60	0.096	88
Based on these data, it is concluded that the Westgate process is
effective in reducing Kepone levels in aqueous media and could be an effec-
tive means of treatment for elutriate, wastewater, and contaminated natural
waters. However, it should be noted that no attempt was made to identify
degradation products or their potential toxicity.
X-23

-------
Cost projections developed by Westgate Research indicate a capital
cost of $125 to 140,000/MGD capacity and operating and maintenance costs
(including amortization) of $0.11 to 0.12/1000 gallons treated. Details
of estimates for use of the Westgate system to remove 1 ug/2. (ppm) Kepone
from runoff water are given in Tables X.ll through X.15.
TABLE X.ll. PRELIMINARY COST ANALYSIS FOR ULTR0X SYSTEM
(COURTESY OF WESTATE RESEARCH CORPORATION,
1977)
ULTROX9 Treatment Plants (Automated)
Co Remove I ug/i Kepone from Runoff Water
Snmman?
Capital Coat	50 agd	100 mgd	130 :ngd
ULTSOX9 Plane In-
stalled, Including
Engineering	57,920,000 514,610,000 519,030,000
S/gal/ain	223	210	133
Annual O&M Costs
Amortization	5 855,000 5 1,580,000 5 2,055,000
(82 - 10 yr)
Ozone Generation
Power Cost	307,000	606,000	913,000
UV Light Power Co.st	438,000	876,000	1,314,000
Maintenance Cost	631,000	1,300,000	1,300,000
TOTAL	52,231,000 5 4.,362,000 3 6,082,000
O&M Cost;1000 gal	SO.12	SO.12	SO.11
If a small capacity elutriate treatment plant were constructed, unit
costs would increase considerably. For a 3 MGD plant, the capital costs
are $1,353,000 ($438,000/MGD treated) and the operating costs are $0.23/
1000 gallons ($0.14/1000 gal amortization, $0,051/1000 gal maintenance).
Radiation
Oxidation can also be achieved through direct bombardment with radia-
tion. Given a sufficient dose, virtually all organic materials can be car-
bonized. The specific action results from excitation of molecular bonds
to a point where the bond breaks. Mo toxic residues are produced when
carbonization is carried to completion, as a physical destruction
methodology.
X-24

-------
TABLE X.12. CAPITAL COST FOR ULTROX SYSTEM
(COURTESY OF WESTGATE RESEARCH
CORPORATION, 1977)
Design
50 mgd
100 mgd
X50 mgd
Reactor Res Time
Flow
ULTROX Basin Vol.
ULTROX Basin Size (ft)
No. of STAC's (3x)
Ozone Gen
30 min
34,700 gpm
139,000 fc3
70 x 140 x 15
3,200
4,200 lb/day
30 min
69,400 gpm
278,000 ft3
100 x 200 x 15
6,400
8,300 lb/day
30 min
104,200 gpm
417,000 ft3
120 x 240 x 15
9,600
12,500 lb/day
Basin (installed)
ULTROX STAC's
Ozone Generator
Electrical
Misc
Engineering
TOTAL
$ 300,000
4,320,000
2,000,000
100,000
500,000
700,000
57,920,000
S 600,000
7,680,000
3,800,000
200,000
1,000,000
1,330,000
514,610,000
$ 900,000
9,600,000
5,000,000
300,000
1,500,000
1,730,000
519,030,000
TABLE X.13. OZONE GENERATION POWER COST (COURTESY OF
WESTGATE RESEARCH CORPORATION, 1977)
50 mgd
100 mgd
150 mgd
T-°<<
day 3
4,200
8,300
12,500
Installed kW
1,750
3,460
5,210
kWh r n j
— for 0_ prod
day	3
42,000
33,000
125,000
cost
day
@ $0.02/kWh
$840
$1,660
$2,500
X-25

-------
TABLE X.14. UV LIGHT POWER COST (COURTESY OF WESTGATE
RESEARCH CORPORATION, 1977)
50 mgd
100 mgd
150 mgd
No. of 65w Lamps
38,400
76,300
115,200
Installed kW
2,500
5,000
7,500
60,000
120,000
180,000
5===- @ $0.02/kWh
day
$1,200
$2,400
$3,600
TABLE X.15. MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE COST FOR ULTROX
SYSTEM (COURTESY OF WESTGATE RESEARCH
CORPORATION, 1977)
50 mgd 100 mgd 150 mgd
UV Lamp Replacement
Ave. Cost/day	$1,580 $3,160 $4,420
Monitoring & Maint.
Labor & Misc. Parts
Ave. Cost/day	150	300	450
To evaluate the use of radiation for destruction of Kepone, standard
3ailey Bay sediments containing 1.17 yg/g (ppm) Kepone were placed in glass
containers and exposed to varying amounts of y radiation. Results are
given in Table X.16.
While effective removal can be obtained, large doses are required, and
gas chromatographs revealed the presence of a large peak representing degra-
dation product. The latter appears to be partially dechlorinated Kepone,
but positive identification was not made.
$1,730 $3,460 $4,870
X-26

-------
TABLE X.16.
EFFECTS OF y RADIATION ON KEPONE
CONCENTRATIONS IN SEDIMENT
Dose, megarod
0
Residual Kepone, yg/g
1.2
Removal, %
1
0.58
52
10
0.51
57
54.7
0.15
87
144
0.035
97
As an initial appraisal it appears that degradation efficiencies are a
function of radiation penetration. The vials used in this test were 2.5 cm
(1 in.) diameter containers with an effective 1.3 cm (1/2 in.) penetration
radius. If the penetration distance can be reduced, the degradation effi-
ciency can go up. At the present time there insufficient data are available
to pursue radiation as an immediate treatment process. Further evaluations
of penetration distances and dose may result in an effective unit operation
for Kepone amelioration.
Related work has been performed by the Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology using electron beam radiation (Trump, 1977). While this work was
largely focused on disinfection of municipal sludges, some analytical work
was performed to determine the effects of the electron beam bombardment on
toxic constituents. High pressure liquid chromatography revealed-that 3,
4, 2' PCB, monochloro PCB, and Monuron at saturation levels in water are
totally destroyed when irradiated at dose levels as low as 10 kilorads.
PCB in a solution with 0.5% soap was virtually eliminated by a dose of
400 kilorads. This suggests that positive results may also be obtained
with more highly chlorinated organics such as Kepone. No investigations
with an electron beam source have been conducted to date, however. Conse-
quently, no definitive appraisal of effectiveness can be made at this time.
Catalytic Reduction
It has been suggested that one means of destroying chlorinated hydro-
carbons would be the use of catalysts to facilitate reduction of the chlorine
functional groups to free ionic chloride in solution. This would leave behind
a bare organic skeleton less toxic and more amenable to biochemical attack.
Envirogenics is studying such a process for the destruction of PCBs and
Kepone. This approach utilizes a copper-iron catalyst in a reductive column
with sand as the working substrate. Contaminated wastewaters are put through
the column at a low pH and allowed to undergo reduction at the halogenated sites.
X-27

-------
Initial reports indicated a high level of success. Subsequent analysis,
however, has reduced optimism considerably. Original plans for implementation
at General Electric in upstate New York have been terminated. Researchers
there report that what had been thought to be PC3 removal appears now to
have been adsorption of PCBs on the substrate. Once capacity is reached,
the column is no longer capable of removal (Griffen, 1977). Similar results
have been seen at the EPA Gulf Breeze Laboratory. When reduction was observed
it was only partial and left many halogenated residues. Work conducted on
Kepone for the EPA revealed similar patterns of numerous by-product peaks.
Attempts to obtain samples for independent evaluation have been unsuccessful.
Due to these negative findings, the approach was abandoned from further
consideration.
CARBON ADSORPTION
During the decontamination efforts in early 1976, the EPA mobile spill
treatment trailer was brought to Hopewell to help decontaminate washwaters
and liquid wastes. At that time it was noted that carbon adsorption was
effective in removing Kepone from solution. Because of this prior work, no
specific laboratory studies were conducted on activated carbon applications
to elutriate waters. However, adsorption isotherms produced during evalua-
tion of sorbents for in situ application confirm the efficacy of this
approach. Therefore, this option is considered viable if treatment facili-
ties are to be constructed. Specific data on carbon capacity for Kepone are
given in subsequent sections on sorbents.
Several of the engineering options for Bailey 3ay developed by the
Corps of Engineers may require a treatment facility to remove Kepone from
contaminated runoff. The size of such a facility would depend on the size
of the holding reservoir and the desired drawdown time. A detailed break-
down of unit process sizes for various components of a granular activated
carbon treatment plant is given in Table X.17. Associated capital costs
are presented in Table X.18. Operating and maintenance costs for a 50 MGD
plant are given in Table X.19.
Field studies have revealed that Kepone in Bailey Creek is largely asso-
ciated with particulate matter. Consequently, some degree of treatment can
be achieved by construction of coagulation facilities to remove solids with
no subsequent carbon adsorption. If this approach is taken, costs are
reduced substantially as illustrated in Tables X.20 through X.22. Costs are
compared in Table X.23. However, it must be repeated that transport out of
Bailey Bay and down the James River is dependent on soluble Kepone. Hence,
solids removal will not be universally effective.
Both carbon adsorption and solids removal are directed to removal from
water. They do not constitute disposal. Disposal is accomplished with
activated carbon if regeneration is employed in a furnace capable of
destroying Kepone, otherwise, additional processing or burial is required.
X-2S

-------
TABLE X. 17. GRANULAR CARBON SYSTEMS UNIT PROCESS SIZES*
MGD
Rapid Mix, fc^
Flocculator, ft"*
Claririer, ft"
Filter, Ec2
Primary Sludge ^
Thickener, ft
Vacuum Filcer, ft2
Incinerator, ft^
Chemical Feed
Wastewater
Alum, ib/hr
Poly, lb/hr
Primary Sludge
Lime, lb/hr
Primary Sludge Pumping, gpm
Carbon Influent Pumping, MGD
Effective Carbon Contactor
Vol., rt^
Carboo Regeneration Furnace, fc-
1
5
10
25
50
93
465
930
2,325
4,650
1,395
6,975
13,950
34,375
69,750
1,302
6,510
13,020
32,550
65,100
140
700
1,400
3,500
7,000
207
1,035
2,070
5,175
10,350
37
185
370
925
1,850
50
250
500
1,250
2,500
45
225
450
1,125
2,250
0.09
0.45
0.90
2.25
4.50
35
175
350
375
1,750
20
100
200
500
1,000
1.5
3.5
15
37.5
75
3,069
15,345
30,690
76,725
153,450
75(1)
270
540
1,350
2,700
•Minimum size furnace. Run 50Z of time. Ret. Shudrov, A. J. and G. L. Cuip,
"Appraisal of Powdered Activated Carbon Processes for Municipal Waste Water
Treatment," Environmental Protection Technology Series EPA-600/2-77-156.
September 1977.
TABLE X.18. CAPITAL COST FOR	GRANULAR CARBON SYSTEMS
	 J- "ltd	5 agd	10 -agd	2S mgd	50 .ngd
Precreacmenc 1,665,770	3,632,630	5,323,340	3,854,060	14,134,720
Carbon 1,713.190	3.272.260	5,192.930	10.148.740	15.400.000
Subcocal 3,378,960	6,904,940	10,516,300	19,002,300	29,534,700
Yardwork 565,531	993.533	1.511.640	2.728.070	4.641.620
Total Construction
Cost 3,944,490	7,398,470	12,027,900	21,730,900	34,176,300
Eng. Fiscal Legal 552,422	970,364	1,477,210	2,665,393	4,962,000
Interest During
Construction 410,368	308,579	1,231,008	2,221,577	4,135,017
Total Capital Cost
vich Precreacment 4,907,300	9,677,910	L4,736,100	26,613,400	43,273,300
Total Capital Cost
Without Pretreatmenc 3,241,530	5,945,230	9,412,760	17,764,340	29.138,530
X-29

-------
TABLE X.19. OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR A 50 HCD GRANULATED
ACTIVATED CAR110N TREATMENT PLANT
X
I
OJ
o
Hap Id Hlx
Ktuct'iiluiot
Clui lllcr
Killui
l*rlm.*ry
Thlcl'.ikcUb
V«h:uiiiq Kill cf
I lu* liiui ulor
(Uicmical Kccil
AI uiu
Vu|ymur
l*i Iiu.ii y Slutl^c
l.iuic Kciul
Slutlgu hiiu|i(iib
iv 		
litibl «»l «i I I'l C I I UUlUltlill
Oai Ima Ail:.oi |>| I Oil
Hcn^noi at I*>ii
SiiUot .* 1 c;ui
Tl'iMl Weill
'I'ul.il Tl o.il uii'iil
Annua I
l.abur, lir
UUO
iiO
5,000
H.UOU
I.100
I6,000
IJ,000
2,000
24 0
2./00
	4 00 _
i4.i>'J0
6,000
2*,000
/(j,syo
Cout-I.abor
at
$ 12,000
5.250
75,0110
1 JO.000
16,500
240.000
2/0,000
110,000
6, 100
40,500
b.OOO
821,550
•JO, 0l)O
	185,000
U5,000
$i. m.'iio
Annual I'owur
Cuiitiiiiuiii Inn.	kW/lir
1,200,000
HO,000
1 J,200
27,000
26,000
11500,000
1,750,000
6,000
5,000
52,000
	2jo,ony	
4.889.200
1,500,000
Cost Pouur
at 0.02/kU/lir
$24,000
1,600
264
540
520
10,000
15,000
120
100
1,040
	4.600	
Annual Fuel
Conuuupllun,
SCF
97,784
70,000
12.000
110 x 10
110 x 10
1111 x 10
Cabl-Fuul Annual Coat of
at $2/SCF Maintenance
5 3.424
4,769
12,229
24,458
2,568
122,290
$260,000	16,687
2,445
465
1,424
260,000
162,000
224,988
14,087
19.566
Totul Annual Coat
of Unit Operation
$ 19,424
11.619
87,491
144.998
19,588
192,290
601.687
12,565
6,865
44,964
22,829
1,404.122
I 74.087
698,566
5,100,000
9,989,200
102,000
$199,784
181 * 10
111 x 10
162,000
$622,000
31,651
$258,641
872,651
$2,276,9)5

-------
TABLE X.20. SIZING REQUIREMENTS FOR SOLIDS REMOVAL SYSTEM
Coagulation
Unit Process or Component
1
5
10
25
50
2
Primary Sedimentation (ft )
1,250
6,250
12,500
31,250
62,500
Rapid Mixing (ft^)
93
465
930
2,325
4,650
Flocculation (ft2)
1,395
6,975
13,950
34,875
69,750
Clarifler (ft2)
1', 302
6,510
13,020
32,550
65,100
Primary Sludge Pumping (gpm)
15
75
150
375
750
Chemical Sludge Pumping (gpm)
5
25
50
125
250
Gravity Thickening (ft2)
253
825
1,650
4,125
8,250
2
Vacuum Filtration (ft )
113
210
420
1,050
2,100
TABLE X.21. CAPITAL COSTS FOR SOLIDS REMOVAL SYSTEM
Fourth Quarter, 1975 (June)
Coagulation - Capital Costs. MGP
Process Component
1
5
10
25
50
Primary Sedimentation Tanks
70,000
260,000
440,000
940,000
1,600,000
Rapid Mixing
10,000
23,000
37,000
76,000
130,000
Flocculation
13,000
38,000
55,000
100,000
160,000
Clarifler
85,000
230,000
440,000
1,100,000
2,200,000
Primary Sludge Pumping
44,000
93,000
140,000
200,000
290,000
Chemical Sludge Pumping
40,000
70,000
100,000
170,000
220,000
Cravity Thickener
70,000
105,000
130,000
180,000
230,000
Vacuum Filter
200,000
280,000
420,000
300,000
1,300,000
Subfotal
532.000
1,099,000
1,762,000
3,566,000
6,130,000
Yardwork
74.530
153.835
246,606
499,090
858,133
Total Construction Cost
June 1975
Total Estimate August L977
(Cost index ratio 1.1856)
606,530
719,102
1,252,835
1,485,361
2,008,606
2,381,403
4,065,090
4,819,571
6,988,183
3,285,190
Engineering, Fiscal, Legal
86,292
178,243
285,768
578,349
995,223
Interest During Construction
71.910
148,536
233.140
481,957
- 828,519
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
877,304
1,812,140
2,905,311
5,879,377
10,107,932
X-31

-------
TABLE X.22. PLANT MAINTENANCE COST FOR 50 MGD
COAGULATION
Process Conoonenc
Annual Labor,
hr
Annual Power
Consuaoclon, kWhr
Annual Cost of
Maintenance
Materials. S
Primary Sedimentation Tanks
4,900
20,000
9,500
Sapid Mixing
800
1,200,000
2,300
Flocculaclon
350
30,000
3,900
Clarlfler
5,000
13,200
10,000
Primary Sludge Pumping
340
15,000
9,000
Chemical Sludge Pumping
220
66,000
4,000
Gravity Thickening
o
o
12,000
1,300
Vacuum Flltraclon
14.000
1.400.000
105.000

27,010
2,306,200 J
une 451,100
1975
Estiaate for August L977
(Macerlal cose index
racio 1.2229)
551,650
TABLE X.23. COST COMPARISON FOR A 50 MGD ACTIVATED
CARBON FACILITY AND A 50 MGD SOLIDS
REMOVAL FACILITY
Granular Carbon Coagulation
Tocal Construction Costs
(August 1977)
Engineering, Fiscal. Legal
Interest During Construction
Total Capital Costs
Annual Operating Materials
Costs
41,350,171
4.962,020
4.135.017
50,447,208
262,924
3.2S5.190
994,223
323.519
10,107,932
551,550
IN SITU PROCESS
In situ processes as a category are the newest of the approaches to
removal/mitigation of in-place toxic materials. As such, they are under-
standably less fully developed than other approaches, and may offer benefits
as yet unmeasured. Several of the more promising options were selected for
X-32

-------
testing in the laboratory. As noted previously, biological approaches
appear to offer little with respect to the removal of Kepone from the
James River System. Work, therefore, focused on two types of approaches:
use of sorbents and use of polymer films.
Sorbents
Natural sorbents such as activated carbon and synthetic sorbents such
as the macroreticular resins have been shown to be effective in concentrat-
ing organics similar to Kepone. In that process, sorbents act much as
natural sediments do in maintaining levels of Kepone much higher than those
in adjacent waters. At equilibrium, a dynamic system of sorption and
desorption comes to balance such that sorbed molecules of Kepone leaving
the substrate are just offset by the molecules of dissolved Kepone being
adsorbed. The magnitude of the difference in water and substrate concen-
trations — the partition coefficient or K^ — is a function of the ratio
of the sorption and desorption rate constants. Substrates with different
characteristic sorption-desorption rate constants will display a different
partition coefficient. Consequently, some media can maintain high levels
of Kepone without commensurately higher levels of dissolved Kepone in the
adjacent waters while others cannot. Materials capable of numerically
smaller partition values (concentration in water:concentration in substrate)
than those exhibited by natural sediments will therefore reduce the levels
of dissolved Kepone in the water if introduced to the system by establish-
ing a three-phase equilibrium with the highest concentrations of Kepone on
the new material, a lower concentration on the sediment, and the lowest con-
centration in the water.
The use of sorbents is based on this phenomenon. Selective or strongly
sorbent media can be placed in a natural system to effectively reduce dis-
solved levels of contaminant and create a new equilibrium partition between
water and solids. The lower dissolved levels then stimulate desorption
from contaminated sediments as the system moves to a new equilibrium state.
Desorption will continue until all three phases reach concentrations which
maintain the constant partition ratios between any two phases. This approach
has been attempted using powdered activated carbon to prevent water supply
contamination in a reservoir (Hyndshaw, 1969). The efficacy of a similar
approach to the Kepone problem is dependent on the nature of the sorbent
selected and its specific action for Kepone.
To screen media for application in areas where sediments are contami-
nated with Kepone, candidate sorbents were employed in batch adsorption
evaluations. The evaluations were conducted using dilutions mixed from a
stock Kepone solution (116 mg Kepone in >12 pH caustic — 100 mg/£ -ppm).
Aliquots of stock solution were added to distilled water and brought up to
200 ml (0.053 gal) volume in a 500 ml (0.132 gal) glass bottle. Concen-
trated HC1 was added to bring the pH to 7. A 1 gram sample of sorbent was then
added to each bottle and entire apparatus placed on a horizontal displacement
shaker for 24 hr. Samples were then removed, filtered through u Gelman glass
filters and analyzed. Results of these batch adsorption tests are presented
in Table X.24.
X-33

-------
TABLE X.24. REMOVAL CAPABILITIES OF SORBENTS TESTED
FOR KEPONE SORPTION
Residual
Sorbent	ppb
Blank	3374
ES 863*	2.86
C 464*	705
S 37*	812
S 761*	1071
XAD-7**	50.2
XAD-4**	3.15
XAD-2**	4.99
Carbon Mlcroballooas	1283
Filcrasorb 3000++	3.21
Magnetic ES863	18.0
Blank II	2400
Anthracite	1515
HI Volatile	2010
Bituminous
Subblcuolnous	1520
Lignite	607
Blank III	765
Aaberaorb XE	17.9
*	Produce	of	Diamond Shamrock
** Product	of	Rohm and Haas
*	Produce	of	Bently Laboratories
Product	of	Calgon
Partition
/ Con. In Water
Z Removal I Con. In Sorbent
99.9
4.2
X
10-6
79.1
1.3
X
io"3
75.9
1.5
X
io-3
68.3
2.3
X
IO"3
98.5
7.5
X
IO"5
99.9
4.7
X
IO"6
99.8
7.4
X
1
o
61.9
3.1
X
io"3
99.9
4.8
X
io-6
99.5
2.7
X
io"5
37
8.5
X
m
1
O
H
16
2.6
X
10~2
37
8.6
X
io"3
75
1.7
X
10~3
98
1.2
X
1
O
Based on these results, ES863, XAD-4, XAD-2, and Filtrasorb 300 were
selected for further study. The three synthetic products are macroreticular
synthetic sorbents produced commercially. The Filtrasorb 300 is a commer-
cial activated carbon. In addition to these, a specialty carbon product
formed around iron particles became available in time for subsequent evalua-
tions. Allied Chemical had also performed work on anthracite coal.
As noted earlier, sorbents applied to sediments in situ are capable of
reducing the availability of a material to the water column, but they do not
destroy or remove the contaminant. Removal can be achieved, however, if
media are made to be retrievable. Work at Battelle indicates that this is
possible through the inclusion of magnetite or iron particles in the sorbent
matrix which will render the media particles susceptible to magnetic fields.
X-34

-------
Recognizing this potential for actual removal of Kepone with sorbents,
subsequent experiments were designed to evaluate sorbents in a way which
would predict effectiveness for a retrievable design. This was achieved
through use of a series of test aquariums. A 500 ml (0.232 gal) sample of
"standard" Bailey Bay sediment (1.17 mg/fl, ppm Kepone) was placed in each
2000 ml beaker and covered with 1000 ml of water as illustrated in Fig-
ure X.4. A set of beakers was designated for each sorbent and for control
purposes so that a discrete group of beakers could be sacrificed at the end
of each observation period. Each sorbent beaker received 5 g of sorbent and
was allowed to sit for 2 weeks. At that time, the first group of beakers
(a control and one for each of the sorbents) was sacrificed for analysis.
Sorbents were then mixed down into the sediment in the remaining beakers
for the 4, 8, and 12-week analyses. Results of sediment analysis after
sacrifice and removal of sorbents are presented in Table X.25. The trans-
fer of Kepone from sediments to sorbents was verified through analysis of
regenerate solutions for each sorbent.
1 Liter Distilled Water
500 g Sediment
Oispersed Sorbent Material
Electromagnet
FIGURE X.4. Beaker Test Showing Sediment, Sorbent, and Water Representation
of Magnetic Retrieval of Sorbent Using Electromagnet
X-35

-------
TABLE X.25. EFFECTIVENESS OF SORBENTS IN ACCUMULATING
KEPONE FROM"BAILEY 3AY SEDIMENTS
Kepone Cancencraeion In Sedlaenca. ug/g-pnm
Maximum	Parcaac of Maximum
Maximum Theoreclcal Theoretical Removal
Sorbenc
2 uk.
4 wk
8_
wk
12 wk
Removal Z
Removal. "
Achieved.
XAD-2*
0.30
0.53
1.
.19

65
60
100+
TAD-4*
1.13
1.06
0.
.99

32
67
48
363**
0.39
0.72
1.
.21

54
72
75
FILTRASORB*
1.21
1.06
1,
.00
1.33
32
67
48
Magnetic Carbon
1.56
1.23
1.
.2 4
1.04++
21
—
—
Blank
1.56
1.56
1.
.16

—
—
—
Magnetic 363
0.77

0.
.32

31
25
10CH-
Blank
0.92

1.
.13



	
*	Produce of Rohm and Haas
**	Produce of Diamond Shamrock
+	Produce of Calgon
++	Analysis of the spent carbon revealed 1.Q7 ug/g Kepone
Insufficient time was available Co prepare magnetically retrievable
sorbents other than the one magnetic carbon and the ES863. Consequently,
other means of separation were needed to proceed with the analysis of sedi-
ments and sorbent regenerant solutions. During the course of work it was
found chat the most satisfactory method of removing synthetic sorbents from
the sediment was to draw off all water, then dry the sediment at 103°C. This
caused the resin beads to dehydrate. It was then possible to rewet the sedi-
ment and resin. Due to differences in wetting kinetics, the sediment would
sink, but the resin would float. The floating resin was then skimmed from
the top of the liquid. Once the floating layer was removed the resin was
again dried and residual media separated from floating sediments by rolling
the spherical resin beads away from the irregular sediment particles. The
magnetic carbon and resin were removed with electromagnets as illustrated
in Figure X.4. Filtrasorb was removed manually.
Based on the partition coefficients	calculated for Bailey Bay sediments
and the sorbents used, it is possible to	predict the maximum theoretical
removal and residual sediment levels for	each sorbent. This is accomplished
in Che following manner:
1) Consider A, B, and C as Che unknown concentration of Kepone in each phase
at equilibrium: A is Kepone in sediment (yg/g); B is Kepone in water
(Ug/1); and C is Kepone in media (yg/g).
X-36

-------
2)	Construct the three known relations for these unknowns:
a)	B/A = partition coefficient	for Bailey Bay sediments
b)	B/C = partition coefficient	for media
c)	AX (mass of sediments) + BX	(volume of water) + CX (mass of media)
= total Kepone in system.
3)	Solve for the three equilibrium concentrations.
To illustrate, consider the use of XAD-4 in the aquarium studies employed
here. The partition coefficient for Bailey Bay sediments has been observed to
be 5 x 10~4. Hence:
B/A = 5 x 10 ^
The partition coefficient for XAD-4 is approximately 5 x 10~^, therefore:
B/C = 5 x 10"6.
The aquarium contained 250 g of dry sediments, 1.5 £ of water, and 5 g
of XAD-4. Total Kepone was 250 ug. Hence:
250 A + 1.5 B + 5 C ¦ 250.
Solving the three simultaneous equations, it can be dete'rmined that at
equilibrium, Kepone concentrations will be:
0.33 Ug/g (ppm) in sediment
0.165 ng/S, (pptr) in water
33.0 Ug/g (ppm) in media
This constitutes 66% removal with a single application. In like fashion,
theoretical maximum removal concentrations have been predicted for each
media employed in the aquarium studies. These are reported in Table X.25.
Reviewing these data, it is apparent that the XAD-2 and magnetic 863 came
closest to reaching their theoretical limits. It should be noted that the
inclusion of magnetite in the magnetic 863 adds significant weight to the
particles. Therefore, the weighed amount of resin added to tests is misleading
since it is not the weight of active resin but includes the magnetite
(30% by weight). On a weight of resin basin, the magnetic 863 is
comparable to commercial grade ES863.
A key to the effectiveness of use of sorbents, the nature of equipment
which would be needed for application, and the dose requirements of sediments
lies in the distance over which the media can accumulate the contaminant. As
contaminant is depleted around an individual sorbent particle, a gradient is
X-37

-------
established across which Che contaminant will move. Without mixing, the
migration soon becomes the rate limiting feature and accumulation slows con-
siderably. If media is applied only to the surface of the contaminated
sediments, these rates will ultimately determine the depth to which contami-
nant levels will be depleted.
To Investigate these parameters, three 18-in. segments of 5 cm (2 in.)
diameter cellulose acetyl butyrate cylinders were charged with standard
Bailey Bay sediments (1.17 yg/g~PPm Kepone) placed on a clay plug. The
columns were covered with 15 cm (6 in.) of distilled water. One column was
selected as a blank. The remaining two were treated with 1 g of XAD-4 and
863 sorbents. (The XAD-4 resin was selected prior to receipt of aquarium
results and does not reflect its performance relative to XAD-2). Relative
proportions are illustrated in Figure X.5. The sorbent loadings constituted
1 g of media to 490 g sediment or 1 g of media to 573 ug Kepone. After 8
weeks, columns were frozen and cut into 1.3 cm (0.5 in.) segments for
analysis. Results are presented in Table X.26.
Blank
XAO-4
ES 863
la-
15" •
12"
9"
6"
3"
Base
Sediment
Clay
18"
12 1/2"
Mater
Sorbent 1/8"
Sediment
1 1/2"
Clay
18 1/4"
11 7/8"
11 3/4"
Mater
1 1/2"
Sorbent 3/8"
Sediment
Clay
18 3/8"
12 3/8"
12"
1 1/2"
FIGURE X.5. Dimensions Employed in Verticle Column
Tests for Sorbents
X-38

-------
TABLE X.26. EFFECT OF SURFACE APPLICATION
OF SORBENTS WITH DEPTH
Depth, in.
Blank
Kepone
Content,
ppm
Sorbent
ES863(a)
XAD-4
Kepone
Content,
ppm
Apparent
Z Removal
Kepone
Content,
ppm
Apparent
X Removal
0.5

0.25
59
1.11
—
1.0
0.61
0.27
56
0.44
28
1.5

0.27
36
0.40
5
2.0
0.42
0.64
—
0.42
—
2.5

0.24
43
0.20
52
3.0

0.58
~
0.32
24
3.5

0.10
76
0.48
—
4.0



0.24
43
4.5



0.53
—
5.0



0.34
19
5.5



0.44
—
6.0



0.53

Clay Support 0.58
(a)	Produce of Diamond Shamrock
(b)	Product of Rohm and Haas
The ES863 displays an ability to effect Kepone concentrations at a dis-
tance. The XAD-4 performance is lower than that for ES363 just as it was
lower in the aquarium studies and is believed to reflect inhomogeneity in sam-
pling rather than removal. Hence, surface application should be adequate
for treatment of shallow contamination in sediments. Deeper contamination
would require that media be mixed in.
During the course of the laboratory work, Diamond Shamrock produced a
sample of magnetically retrievable ES863 by incorporating iron in the sorbent
matrix during production. Subsequent testing revealed that the media is
readily retrieved through use of an electromagnet. Recovery is best when
retrieval is performed on slurried sediments rather than dried sediments.
In the latter case, extraneous matter is trapped among the particles and
retrieved along with the sorbent. In either case, natural magnetite and
iron are retrieved along with the media.
X-39

-------
The magnetic carbon test in the laboratory was produced by blending
carbon coating mix, a proprietary product of Union Carbide, with ferric-
ferrous oxide black. The coating mix contains a silicate base binder which
solidifies upon drying. If initial drying is performed at 103°C, the pro-
duct can easily be crushed to the desired size. Curing at 160 to 180°C then
sets the product into a hard form resistant to attack by water.
As noted earlier, Allied conducted laboratory investigations with
anthracite coal as an inexpensive sorbent. Results of this work have been
reported by Paterson et al. (1977). Initially, Allied researchers deter-
mined that Kepone is removed from solution by coal and that the removal,
while slow, will continue for at least 28 days. At that time, removal had
reached 70%. Details of subsequent tests are presented in Table X.27.
TABLE X.27. EFFECT OF ANTHRACITE COAL ON KEPONE
CONCENTRATIONS IN WATER (PATERSON
et al., 1977)
Initial Kepone
Concentration
Pareicle Size
Anthracite
Time
" Reduction
Stirring
96
ppb
-8.
+14
mesh
4 day9
24Z
3 hr
96
ppb
-8.
+14
mesh
12 days
35Z
3 hr
1.9
ppb
-8.
+14
oesh
IS Din
20Z
IS min
1.9
ppb
-8.
+14
oesh
3 hr
402
3 hr
1.9
ppb
-8,
+14
oesh
1 day
55J
1.5 hr
1.9
ppb
-8.
+14
mesh
7 days
652
1.5 hr
1.9
ppb
-8.
+14
mesh
15 days
727.
1.5 hr
A second set of evaluations was conducted with James River sediments
spiked with ^C labeled Kepone. Here the procedure involved adding antracite
granules to the surface of the sediment and monitoring the effect in result-
ing concentrations of Kepone in the water column. Results are summarized in
Table X.28.
TABLE X.28. EFFECT OF SURFICIAL APPLICATION OF COAL TO
KEPONE AVAILABILITY (PATERSON, 197 7)
Without Coal -	With Coal -
Kepone Concentration Kepone Concentration
Above Sediment (ppb) Above Sediment (ppb) Duration % Reduction
42	22	12 days	48%
44	19	4 days	57%
50	37	12 days	26%
63	40	1 day	36%
X-40

-------
Based oil Allied's promising results, batch adsorption tests were ini-
tiated at Battelle on a variety of coals. From the data in Table X.24, it
can be seen that coals tested had less affinity for Kepone than Bailey Bay
sediments. Consequently, these could not offer any protection to the system
if added. This differs from conclusions drawn from Allied's work and is
believed to be a function of contact time. The batch adsorption tests were
shaken overnight. Allied's tests were run over a period of days. As noted
earlier, the adsorption process on coal occurs very slowly. Consequently,
the shaker results may reflect a failure to reach equilibrium or a dif-
ference in coal stocks.
It has been noted previously that activated carbon has been successfully
applied in a contact facility to remove Kepone from solution. Hence, it
stands as a viable option for elutriate treatment. The same is true for any
of the sorbents found to be effective for in situ evaluations such as XAD-2
and ES863. Consequently, sorbents should be considered as candidates for
both elutriate and in situ application. Similarly, activated carbon can
be considered for application directly to the river without retrieval. This
application would be in the same manner as the application of coal, but
offers a higher degree of adsorption.
While in situ technology has not been employed in any large-scale appli-
cations, it is possible to estimate the likely costs involved from the work
performed here. The assumptions and unit costs employed are outlined below:
In Situ Application of Retrievable Media -
Dose Rate - 1.2 lb resins/ft^ sediment
Number of Applications = 2 (potential removal of 90% in highly contami-
nated sediments, greater in others)
Resin Loss Rate = 25% of resin
Cost of Resin = $120/ft^
Unit Resin Loss Costs = 0.51/ft^ sediment
Application and Retrieval Cost = 0.10/ft^ sediment
Regeneration Costs a $0.25/ft sediment
Disposal of Kepone Residuals = $0.04/ft^ sediment
Total Unit Cost = $0.90/ft^ sediment
In Situ Application of Coal -
Dose Rate =1.2 lb/ft^ sediment (This will reduce Kepone levels in water
up to 80%)
Cost of Coal = $20/ton
Unit Cost of Coal Applied - $0.012/ft^ sediment
Unit Cost of Application = $0.02/ft^ sediment
Total Unit Cost = $0.032/ft^ sediment
X-41

-------
In Situ Application of Activated Carbon -
Dose Rate ¦ 1 lb/ft^ sediment
Cost of Carbon » $0.50/lb	-
Unit Cost of Carbon Applied = $0.50/ft sediment
Unit Cost of Application =.,$0.02/ft3 sediment
Total Unit Cost * $0.52/ft sediment
No capital costs are offered at this time since conceptual designs have
not been determined for key items in the process chain. Based on the above
considerations, operational costs for these approaches are listed in
Tables X.29 and X.30.
TABLE X.29. COMPARATIVE COST OF IMPLEMENTING IN SITU APPLICATION OF COAL
AND RETRIEVABLE MEDIA OPTIONS IN VARIOUS KEPONE CONCENTRATION
REGIMES ON THE JAMES RIVER
Kepone Concentration
Regime (ug/g-ppm)	>10	1—10	0.1—0.99 0.02—0.09
i	fi	7	9 9
Volume of Sediments - ft	6.8x10	6.8x10	3.Ox 10 3.6x10
Cost of In-Situ Application	6	7	9 9
of Retrievable Media	6.1x10	6.1x10	2.7x10 3.2x10
5	5	7	8
Cost of Coal Application	2.9x10	2.9x10	9.7x10 1.2x10
Cost of Activated Carbon	7	9	9
Applications	3.5 x 10	3.5 x 10'	1.6 x 10* 1.9 x 10
TABLE X.30. COMPARATIVE COST OF IMPLEMENTING IN SITU APPLICATION OF COAL
AND RETRIEVABLE MEDIA OPTIONS IN VARIOUS REACHES OF THE JAMES
RIVER
Volume of Sediments - rt^
Cose of In Situ Application
of Retrievable Media
Cose of Coal Applicacion
Cost of Activated Carbon
Applications
Richmond
to
Jordan
Point
i.3 x icr
1.2	X 10s
4.3	x 10£
6.3 x 10
7
Jordan
Point
to
Jamestown
Island
1.3 x 109
9
1.2	x L0
4.3	X 107
6.3 x 103
Jamestown
Island
to
Newport
Mews
3.7 x 109
3.3 x 109
1.2 x 103
1.9 x 109
Hampton
Roads
9
1.7 x 10
1.5 x 109
5.4 x 10'
8.3 x 103
Tocal
5.3 x 10'
6.1	:c 10
2.2	x 10S
3.6 x 10'
X-42

-------
POLYMER FILMS
Use of nonretrievable sorbents constitutes a means of retarding or
limiting Kepone availability. Alternately, this can be achieved by physi-
cally sealing or burying sediments. Such an approach utilizing polymer
films has been tested on mercury-contaminated sediments (Widman and Epstein,
1972). Similar results have been obtained in Japan on PCB-contaminated
sediments when in situ stabilization was conducted (Takenaka Komuten Co.,
1976). An investigation was conducted to determine the feasibility of
utilizing films to seal Kepone contaminated sediments in Bailey Bay.
In selecting a film for sealing bottom sediments,'the following must
be considered; major physical film properties of tear strength (200 to
300 lb); tensile strength (>3000 psi); water resistance (impervious to
long-term total immersion); chemical resistance (specifically to Kepone or
other contaminants found in the sediments); and temperature resistance (no
embrittlement or softening over normal annual water temperature range). In
addition, the thickness (weight) and the width of the film are considered
important handling characteristics. The lightest film possessing the desired
physical properties (possibly 1 to 2 mils) and a width- of 6.1 m (20 ft) are
desired.
All commercially available films were included in initial considerations
for screening purposes. Many films were rejected from further consideration
because they lacked one important property; for example, biaxially oriented
polypropylene film possesses excellent tensile strength but poor tear
strength. In general, most films were rejected because of size limitations
(maximum width 72 in.). Raw material suppliers (pellets for casting film)
were contacted for candidate processes. End-use suppliers such as nursery
and agricultural product houses were rejected because of cost. However, a
major supplier of polyethylene film was located who possessed the fabrica-
tion capability for 6.1 m (20 ft) wide film and who maintained sufficient
inventory to be able to supply 3,340,000 m^ (36,000,000 ft^) in a reasonable
time.
The film selected is 5 mm (2-mil) low density polyethylene. Rolls are
6.1 x 61 m (20 x 200 ft) with 7.6 cm (3 in.) core and a weight (4000 ft^)
of 17.3 kg (38 lb) manufactured by Poly Tech of Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Physical properties quoted for the 5-mm (2-mil) film are about 17000 kg/
m^ (3500 psi) tensile strength and 91 kg (200 lb) transverse and 136 kg
(300 lb) machine tear strength. All other properties are also believed to
be acceptable for the application.
The film laying system is conceived around a shallow draft film-laying
barge. The film-laying barge traverses over the contaminated region of
Bailey Bay and places a plastic film cover (which is then partially covered
by gravel) over the bottom at the bay. The film-laying barge travels between
the bay shore and a service barge which is anchored in the bay at the edge of
the area to be coated with plastic film. The concept is illustrated in
Figures X.6 through X.8.
X-43

-------
Sravel Supply Hose
C3
Paly-film Deployment
3arge
Primary Curr«nc
View of deployed aolymer md :ravel
FIGURE X.6. Proposed Method of Deployment for Polymer Films
X-44

-------
Gravel
Conveyor
Gravel Suooiy
Pipe
Polymer Rolls
Perferator Soil
FIGURE X.7. Conceptual Design of Apparatus for Deployment of Polymer
X-45

-------
£fPt* iUA*D
T
PXGIIDV v.8
11	•*
j*«i i mv£*
0 4 *»Ui
COi/Afl t
5SZ
OBaktt fes-sr-
~ ."U'rficr ru\i. . '
unofMLtf cawzrr
toy"--- of "tor-Crt^lirrt r,liu

-------
Use of cohesive film covering requires perforation of the sheeting to
allow for escape of gas produced in the anaerobic sediments, and addition
of a ballasting material to hold the sheeting in place. Emplacement of the
film requires clearing operations to remove bulk debris and either dredging
of an access channel or stationing of support equipment in the margins of
the navigational channel. Further details on film selection, equipment design,
and operating and maintenance considerations can be found in Appendix F.
It must be noted that the polymer film is not a treatment technique in
itself. It merely retards availability of the Kepone. This can be advan-
tageous if natural degradation will subsequently reduce Kepone or if sedimen-
tation covers the film over and essentially buries the contamination too deep
to be available to aquatic communities. This will not be the case in Bailey
Bay, however. Data indicate the degradation is not likely, and sedimentation
would have to essentially fill the Bay before the Kepone would be rendered
unavailable. Therefore, at best, the film will keep the sediments from con-
tinually supplying dissolved Kepone to the water column. There is reason to
believe, however, that even this goal cannot be met. The need to perforate
the sheeting for gas release will reduce the integrity of the seal. An
upward flux of water through the sediments can continually bring dissolved
Kepone and possibly contaminated small particulate matter through the film
and thus contaminate the water column and new sediment above the seal. In
light of these considerations, the value of applying the film to Bailey Bay
is questionable.
The sediment-containment system described in this report can be devel-
oped and put into operation in Bailey Bay for a total cost of approximately
$3,016,000, if channel-dredging is allowed; or for approximately $1,612,000,
if channels are not dredged. The cost difference between the two approaches
is the estimated cost of dredging and the costs for an additional slurry pump
and extra slurry pipe if the nondredging approach is used. The costs asso-
ciated with the two approaches are presented in Tables X.31 and X.32.
APPRAISAL
A summary of the processes and alternatives evaluated in this study is
presented in Table X.33. In general, most alternatives were found to be
ineffective or inappropriate for use in Bailey Bay and the James River.
Several candidates, however, have shown promise and therefore merit further
evaluation and comparative analysis with dredging options and an assessment
of associated environmental impacts.
In limited laboratory studies, only two fixation agents were found to
be effective for use on spoils: molten sulfur and Por Rok Epoxy Grout. The
Dowell M179 displayed good resistance to leaching, but is sensitive to crush-
ing or stresses which would break the surface film. Consequently, it is
deemed more appropriate for percolation control (ground sealing) than spoils
fixation. Considerations pertinent to selection between the molten sulfur
and Epoxy Grout are summarized in Table X.34.
X-47

-------
TABLE X.31. FIRST APPROACH POLYMER FILM SEALANT - PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
BAILEY BAY
Race
Amount or Time
Cose
X
I
00
Site Preparation
Labor to Clear Shoreline
Dredging
Service Barge
Barge
Crane
Pump
Hose
Labor
Rr.ivcl Barges
3 Cravel Barges
Tug Service
§5/yd
$2.95/y <1'
§300/day
§70/hr
1
3500 ft
§20/hr
5300/day
§350/day
10 ft x 20,000 f t/(9 ft2/yd2)
500,000 yd^ mud
6 months x 30 day/mo
6 months x 172 hr/mo
Installation
§317/22 ft
6 months x 160 hr/mo x 5 men
6 months x 30 day/mo x 3 barges
6 months x 30 day/mo
$ 111,100
1,475,000
$ 54,000
72,200
20,000
50,400
96.000
$ 162,000
63,000
$ 225,000
Film Barge
Film Barge Less Retracting
l.'inches
Kit_ract: ing Winches and Laser
$ 100,000
55,000
Labor
$20/hr
6 months x 20 day/mo x 8 hr/day x 4 men
76,800
$ 231,800
Consnnables
Film
Cravel
$4.50/100
§3.00/ton
§4.50/1000 ft2 x 36,000,000 ft2 x 20/17
163,350 tons
§ 190,600
	490.000
§ 680,600
TOTAL COST
$},pi(j, 1^0

-------
TABLE X.32.
SECOND APPROACH POLYMER FILM SEALANT - PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
BAILEY BAY
Site Preparation
Labor to Clear Shoreline
Service Barge
Barge
Crane
Punp
Hose
Labor
Gravel Barges
3 Gravel Barges
Tug Service
Flln Barpa
Film Barge Less Retracting
Winches
Retracting Winches and Laser
Labor
Consumables
Film
Cr^vel
Rate
Amount or Time
Cost
$5/yd
10 ft x 20,000 ft/(9 ft2/yd2)
$ 111,100
$ 111,100
$300/day
$70/hr
2
7000 ft
$20/hr
6 months x 30 day/mo
6 months x 172 hr/mo
Installation
$317/22 ft
6 months x 160 hr/mo x 5 men
$ 54,000
72,200
AO.000
100,800
96.000
$ 363,000
§300/day
$350/day
6 months x 30 day/mo x 3 barges
6 months x 30 day/mo
$ 162,000
63.000
$ 225,000
$ 100,000
55,000
$20/hr	6 months x 20 day/mo x 8 hr/day x 4 men	76.800
$ 231,800
§4.50/100	$4.50/1000 ft2 x 36,000,000 ft2 x 20/17	$ 190,600
$3.00/ton	163,350 tons	490,000
$ 680.600
TOTAL COST	$1.611,500

-------
TABLE X.33. SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR CANDIDATE ALTERNATIVES IN BAILEY
BAY AND THE JAMES RIVER
Approach
Alceraa civ
Resales
Coanencs
Spoil Fixation
Elutriate or Ex
Situ Treatment
Silicate Baaas
Gypsum Baaas
Orgauic Bases - Epoxy
- Oowll
Sulfur 3aaes - ttolean
Sulfur
- Sulfaaae
Asphalt
Biological Degradation
Land faming
Amine photosensiclzation
Chlorine Oloxlda
Ozonation
Ultrox C-'escgaca)
Ozone and 'JV
v '.ad Lac ion
electron Seam Radiation
Catalytic Reduction
adsorption
Coagulation
In Situ Processes Retrievable Sorbents
Coal
Polymer Films
Activated Carbon
High ?H solubllizes iCepona
Physically breakdown with
iaaarsloQ
Yields 10-fold reduction in
Kapona Levels,
Resist leaching, poor response
to elucrlace ceac
Yields 10-fold reduction la
Xepone leachate levels
Incernediace becveen silicate
base and sulfur
Difficult to apply to wee
sediments
Promising strains of fungi
and sold
So degradation, photo or
biological
Degradaclon occurs ae exposed
surfaces
So degradation
So degradation
Cood decomoosiclon
Dechlorinaces, bv-produccs
unidentifled
Can infer from ?C3 work only
So apparent degradation
Carbon and synthetic resins
Removes particulate Kepone
Specific sorbents caoable
of reaoval
Initial daca suggests no
advantages
Holding action only, need to
perforate, may render
ineffective
Intermediate between coal
and retrievable sorbents
Ineffective
Ineffective
Effective
Effective for percolation control
Effective
Inappropriate
Sot sufficiently developed
Cnec fective
Inappropriate potential
cor use on surface soils
Ineffective
Ineffective
Effective for Solutions
Requires further testing
Requires direct testing
Inef fective
Effective
Effective for bulk reduction
Effective
Requires further study
[naporooriate
Ef receive
X-50

-------
TABLE X.34. COMPARISON OF SELECTED FIXATION AGENTS
Unit Cost,
Agent	$/ft^ fixed Availability
Effectiveness
Molten Sulfur	$1.30	Readily
Available
Good
^50% Solids
Epoxy Grout
$12.50 May Be Production
Limited
Slightly More £50% Solids
Consistent
Based on the considerations in Table X.34 molten sulfur is the preferred
alternative for stabilizing dredge spoils. At the same time it is recognized
that there may be environmental impacts associated with dredged spoils
fixation.
Management alternatives resulting in the placement of dredge spoils con-
taining high concentration of Kepone require consideration of the short- and
long-term effects as well as local and distance effects. These considerations
apply whether the spoils are placed on land above sea level, as underwater
dikes, or at intertidal sites.
Elemental sulfur is stable in water but readily changes to soluble and
potentially toxic forms when mixed with reducing as well as oxidizing sedi-
ments. Molecular compounds of concern include hydrogen sulfide and sulfur
dioxide; these should be handled carefully.
Gaseous forms such as hydrogen sulfides can cause significant odor
problems in the surrounding area. Gases in high enough concentrations can
be toxic to humans, animals and plants. Soluble aqueous forms can contami-
nate surface and ground water with significant impact on water quality and
biota. Consequently, application of this alternative would require that
treated dredge spoils be located topographically and physiographically to
minimize impacts to air and water quality.
Sulfur content in a radio of 1:1 sulfur to sediments would require
consideration of additional treatments. Particularly that of spoil surface
protection from precipitation and the establishment of a sealed bottom pad
to prevent sulfur compound leachates from contaminated ground and surface
waters. Surface sealing would minimize atmospheric suspension. The isolation
of terrestrial treated spoils can be effectively accomplished by application
of readily available sealants.
Treatment of spoils in intertidal areas which are intermittently exposed
to air and water could have serious effects on all aquatic forms within
several kilometers depending on currents and eddy pools. The application
of this treatment to intertidal spoils is probably the least desirable of the
placed spoils alternatives, primarily due to leachate distribution control.
X-51

-------
Treatment of submersed spoils should be expected to have a much reduced
impact on health and environmental quality because of reduced oxidation
potential. Prior to the application of sulfur to submersed spoils, more
lmformatlon is needed pertaining to degradation products and their solubility
in James River waters over a range of salinities. Further consideration
would need to be given to the erosion of submerged spoils and the possible
implications to water quality and biota as controlled by tidal waves and
downstream flow.
The application of sulfur Co any of the spoil placement locations would
require Intensive monitoring on a short-term basis In order to assess moni-
toring requirements in the long term as well assess possible undesirable
long-term environmental effects.
It is judged that this treatment method could be quite effective on
the condition that the redistribution of treatment chemicals be minimized
by application of mitigatlve measures.
Of the elutriate and/or slurry treatment processes, two were judged
effective; two require further testing before an appraisal can be made; and
one may be attractive for specific applications. The alternatives deemed
effective, the adsorption and the Westgate Ultrox processes, can be applied
to solutions of dissolved Kepone. Both would require clarification/filtra-
tion for slurries or turbid waters before they could be effectively applied.
(High solids content that could be tolerated for adsorption of powdered car-
bon were employed in place of a granular media, but recovery of the carbon
would be difficult in the presence of the other solids.) Coagulation would
be effective for clarification of waste streams where the removal of contami-
nated particulates is sufficient. Disposal of residuals would still be
required.
Destruction with y radiation or electron beam radiation cannot be ruled
out. Preliminary tests indicate dechlorination, at a minimum, with y radia-
tion; and tests with electron beam radiation of polychlorinated biphenyls
show promise. In order to fairly evaluate these options, it will be neces-
sary to perform empirical studies using Kepone. In the case of y radiation,
thin film exposure should be evaluated to determine necessary doses and the
nature of by-products. Until these data are available, irradiation options
cannot be properly evaluated. Considerations pertinent to the three effective
means of elutriate treatment are provided in Table X.35.
Based on the considerations given above, the ozone-UV process is deemed
best suited to elutriate treatment. Costs projected here will be appropriate
for application to relatively clear waters. If pretreatment is required as
would be the case for elutriate from dredging, capital costs must be increased
by $14.1 million for a 50 MGD plant and operating costs increased an addi-
tional $0.77/1000 gallons treated.
X-52

-------
TABLE X.35. COMPARISON OF SELECTED ELUTRIATE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
FOR A 50 MGD OPERATION
Process
Unit Cost
Without
Amortization, Capital Cost
$/1000 gal treated $ millions
Limitations
Ultrox (Ozone, UV)
0.074
7.9
Turbid waters require
pretreatment.
Carbon Adsorption
0.048
29.1
Turbid waters require
pretreatment. Regen-
eration system may
require modification
to ensure destruction
of Kepone.
Coagulation
0.055
10.1
Will remove only
Kepone associated with
particulate matter.
No major environmental impacts are anticipated with the application of
the ozone-UV treatment process other than those associated with construction
of the facilities and the increased demand for power. However, no work has
been performed to date to determine the presence of degradation products or
their toxicity.
Of the in situ approaches considered, all show some degree of effective-
ness. The polymer film is considered inappropriate, however, since it offers
little more than a delay in implementing an actual removal and/or destruction
alternative. The retrievable sorbents were found effective. The use of coal
remains in question. While Allied Chemical Corporation reported a reduction
in Kepone levels in the water column, adsorption tests and various coal sam-
ples at Battelle revealed partition characteristics essentially the same as
those for natural sediments. It must be determined if this reflects dif-
ferences in the coal samples, or artifacts in one of the experimental designs.
The assessment of the use of coal as an alternative will be incomplete until
that question is resolved. Activated carbon on the other hand will definitely
retard availability. A comparison between the characteristics of in situ
alternatives is given in Table X.36. Based on considerations of that com-
parison, activated carbon application is selected as the best in situ alter-
native unless subsequent data demonstrate the effectiveness of coal. In
that event, coal would be the alternative of choice in all areas but those
contaminated at -1 Ug/g (ppm) Kepone where retrievable media should be
employed. The exception is made to reflect the fact that at high sediment
Kepone concentrations, the potential reduction in availability with coal or
activated carbon would still allow unacceptable levels of Kepone in water.
X-53

-------
TABLE X.36.
COMPARISON OF IN SITU ALTERNATIVES
Unit Cost,
$/ft3
Alternatives
Limitations
Retrievable Media
0.90
Requires incineration of re-
generate and production of
media not currently commer-
cially available.
Application of Coal
0.032	Requires further proof of
efficiency.
Application of Activated Carbon 0.52
Will retard availability but
not remove Kepone.
Polymer Film
0.044	Applicable only to embayments
such as Bailey Bay.
Technology has been developed in Japan for in situ stabilization of
sediments with formulations produced by Takenaka (TJK, Inc.). Should these
formulations prove effective, in situ stabilization would also be a viable
option. All in situ approaches will require more testing and field evalua-
tion as well as a detailed assessment of potential impacts on benthic organisms.
Further information on this work can be found in the EPA report on the Kepone
Mitigation Feasibility Project.
Environmental impacts associated with in situ treatment are not well
understood. However, it is clear that these must be considered. A discussion
of the implications of applying coal and retrievable sorbents follows.
Coal. The effects of the coal deposition alternative have both physical
and chemical ramifications to the James River ecosystem.
Initially, the finest coal particles will be suspended in the water.
These suspended solids reduce light penetration, which inhibits algal primary
productivity by restricting photosynthesis. The particles can also directly
affect fish and gill-breathing macroinvertebrates by clogging or causing
abrasion of the gills.
Longer term impacts will be caused by the layer of coal covering the
sediments. Normally, the aquatic microorganisms in the sediments breakdown
the organic and inorganic material into compounds or nutrients that are
circulated by tidal action and currents. These decomposition products are
the base for aquatic food chains. The nutrients are required by algae and
larger aquatic plants, while the organic compounds are consumed by zooplankton,
clams, and snails. All of the above organisms provide a food source for
carnivores at the top of the food chain, such as fish. When these organisms
die, they fall to the sediments and the decomposition process begins again.
Thus, the sediments are the site of nutrient cycling and retention.
X-54

-------
The layer of coal placed over the sediments would cover existing orga-
nisms in the sediments, making these benthic organisms unavailable as a
food source to fish. The microscopic decomposers in the sediments, however,
would continue to anaerobically break down the sediments. Circulation of
decomposed material might be slowed, but turnover will eventually stir the
coal particles into the sediments.
Chemical changes due to the formation of acid by the pyrite in coal may
result in a negative impact on aquatic biota. This effect would be relatively
local due to the immense buffering capacity of the James River water.
The sulfuric acid created from the pyrite in coal can produce many other
water pollutants by secondary reactions with minerals and organic compounds
in coal or water. These pollutants include iron, aluminum, manganese, and
toxic trace elements. A few of the toxic trace elements analyzed in efflu-
ents from Pennsylvania anthracite coal refuse include nickel, copper, and
zinc. The pH of the effluent streams analyzed was as low as 3.0 (Martin,
1974). Since the pH effects are likely to be local, solubilized minerals
will quickly precipitate as they migrate outward.
Acid formation depends on oxygen for oxidation of the pyrites. In
areas such as Bailey Bay which have been receiving sizable discharges of
organic material and nutrients from industrial outfalls and municipal sew-
age discharges, little acid formation would occur in the first place.
Retrievable Sorbents. The retrievable sorbents found to be effective
in removing Kepone are quite uniform in size and inert to most biochemical
systems operable in the environment. Consequently, little effect is antici-
pated for downriver redistribution of fines or release of toxic materials.
Retrieval of the sorbent would be expected to have some impact on water
quality as a result of some bottom scouring and possible desorption of com-
pounds, some of which may affect water quality for a short period.
It is assumed here that the spent retrievable medium would be recovered
in part and that the possible impacts of the unrecovered sorbent medium
would require further study to determine its fate and impact to water quality
and biota. However, the inert nature of the media suggests minimal effects.
General Considerations for In Situ Treatments. There are several
aspects of in situ treatment needing further analyses. The most important
of these have to do with the effect of the hydrodynamics of the James River
and its features in relation to the stability, integrity, and behavior of
emplaced materials as well as obvious concern over the fate of benthic life
after addition of large quantities of materials to the sediments.
The coal adsorbent, depending on density, size, and particle statistics,
may undergo significant redistribution and stratification in time. This
effect may or may not have a significant impact on the effectiveness of the
treatment.
X-55

-------
The retrievable solid is assumed to have a higher density than that of
1.3 assumed for coal. Its placement may have a significant effect through
sediment gradation and possible channel armoring. Should channel armoring
occur in localized areas, there would be an effect on bed load movement and
distribution of fines. Furthermore, size-density could affect rates of
redistribution as veil as settling and entrapment of the medium in the
sediments.
Another important aspect concerns the movement dynamics of interstitial
water in the sediments. Upwelling due to variable rates of aquifer discharge
could have a significant effect on the behavior of treatment types. Sediment
to water flow where coal and/or the retrievable solute might be placed could
Increase the sorption efficiency. Downward migration of water would do the
reverse, reducing the effectiveness of coal and retrievable sorbent because
Kepone would be desorbed; solubilized Kepone would show some movement down
through the sediments.
The stability of coal particles in the fresh-water-salt wedge inter-
face poses additional concerns. As it is not possible to accurately predict
the location or migration of the salt wedge in time, the effect may have sig-
nificant impact on the downstream movement of contaminated coal. Optimally,
the coal should remain relatively localized for several years. A downstream
flush of contaminated coal could have severe effects on water quality and
biota not now exposed to high concentrations of Kepone.
It should be noted that these special considerations may not, in fact,
reduce the desirability for implementation of a particular treatment type
but they may affect method and location of treatment application.
A study of dredging technology was performed by the Norfolk District,
U.S. Corps of Engineers as a part of the overall EPA Kepone Mitigation
Feasibility Project. (See "Capturing, Stabilizing, or Removing Kepone
in Bailey Bay, Bailey Creek, and Gravelly Run," 1978.) Data from that
work are employed here to assist in the evaluation of alternative costs
associated with mitigation options. All dredging is assumed to use the
oozer technology recommended by the Corps of Engineers.
The cost of employing the oozer dredge and associated spoils disposal
alternatives are compared to those for use of retrievable sorbents and coal
in Table X.37. Costs are based on the unit costs developed in this report
as well as the following:
Oozer pump dredge - produces spoils at 50% solids unit cost is
$2.95/yd^ - $0.11/ft3 (Corps of Engineers, 1978)
3
Ocean disposal* - unit cost are $0.49/ft for 50% solids
* D. D. Smith and R. P. Brown, "Ocean Disposal of Barge-Delivered Liquid and
Solid Wastes from U.S. Coastal Cities," (Pillingham Corp., La Jolla, CA)
Contract No. PH 86-68-203, U.S. EPA 1971. This document cites high rate
values for Atlantic Coast disposal based on the assumption that wastes muse
be dispersed of off the continental shelf. If lesser distances are approved,
the cost may be reduced by a factor of 8.
X-56

-------
Incineration - unit cost if $1.50/ft for 50% solids
Stabilization - spoils can be stabilized directly if available at
50% solids
TABLE X.37. COMPARISON OF COSTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE JAMES RIVER ($)
Alternative
Ptrctncw of Kapone Raslduals. Z
Turk*? Island to Jordan Point to Jaoestovn Island to
Jordan Point Jamestown Island Navport Neva	Hampton Roads Total
14.5
10.9
1.8
100
Oozer-Dredge with Ocean Disposal
With Molten Sulfur
Stabilization^*)
With Incineration
In-aitu Application of Retrievable
Solvents
Application of Coal
Application of Activated Carbon
1.5 x 10
1.9 x 10
2.1 x 10'
a
9
1.2 x 10
4.2 x 10
6.3 x 10
1.6 x 10
2.0 x 10'
2.3 x 10
1.3 x 10
4.5 x 10
7.3 x 10v
4.2 x 10
5.3 x 10
6.0 x 109
3.3 x 10'
1.2 x 10
1.9 x 10'
1.9 x 10'
7.7 x 10
2.4
10'
9.8 x 10
2.3 x 10
5.4 x 10
8.3 x 10
1.1 x 10
6.2 x 10'
2.2 x 10
3.6 x 10'
10
(a) Does not include land acquisition for the final repository.
From the data, it is clear that the cost of disposal of dredge- spoils
overrides the cost of dredging and puts even these alternatives into a very
costly category. Only the application of coal can be undertaken for less
than a half a billion dollars if the entire river is to be treated. If the
less concentrated sediments near Hampton Roads are not addressed, 25% reduc-
tion in costs can be achieved. However, costs for application of coal would
still exceed $100,000,000, and coal has yet to be proven as effective. The
next closest alternative, application of activated carbon should cost over
three billion dollars. On a unit cost basis, the alternatives in ascending
order of costs are:
3
Application of Coal - $0.03/ft
Application of Activated Carbon - $0.52/ft sediment
Retrievable Sorbents in situ - $0.90/ft^ sediment
Oozer with Ocean Disposal - $l.ll/ft^ sediment
Oozer with Molten Sulfur Stabilization - $1.41/ft^ sediment
Oozer with Incineration - $1.61/ft^ sediment
While costs are high, the relative cost of retrievable media compared to
dredge and disposal options is of interest. This will be true for cases
where low contaminant levels persist and especially where the need to remove
contaminants dictates against application of nonretrievable agents. Other
options such as in situ stabilization which may be considered feasible after
further evaluation, should be costed and compared with these data when those
evaluations are complete.
X-57

-------
REFERENCES
1.	Ahling, B. and S. Jensen. 1970. "Reversed Liquid-Liquid Partition in
Determination of PC3 and Chlorinated Pesticides in Water." Anal- Chem.
42(13):1483-1486.
2.	Ahmed, M. and D. D. Focht. 1972. "Degradation of Polychlorinated
Biphenyls by Two Species of Achromobacter. Can. J. Microbiol. 19:
47-52.
3.	Ahmed, M. and D. D. Focht. 1973. "Oxidation of Polychlorinated Biphenyls
by Achromobacter PCS," Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 10(2):70—72.
4.	Alley, E. G. et al. 1973. "Photochemistry of Mirex." J. Agr. Food
Chem. 21(1):138.
5.	Andrade, P. Jr. and W. B. Wheeler. 1974. "Biodegration of Mirex by
Sewage Sludge Organisms," Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 11(5):415-416.
6.	Andrade, P. Jr., W. B. Wheeler and D. A. Carlson. 1975. "Identification
of a Mirex Metabolite," Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 14(4):473-479.
7.	Anonymous. 1975. "The Stabilization Game." Environmental Science and
Technology. 9(7):622-623.
3. Bollag, J. M., G. G. Briggs, J. E. Dawson and M. Alexander. 1968.
"2,4-D Metabolism: Enzymatic Degradation of Chlorocatechols," J. Agr.
Food Chem. 16(15):329.
9. Bahner, C. H., A. J. Wilson, Jr., J. M. Sheppard, J. M. Patrick, Jr.,
L. R. Goodman, and G. E. Walsh. 1977. "Kepone Bioconcentration,
Accumulation, Loss and Transfer Through Estuarine Food Chains."
Chesapeake Science. 113(3) :299-308.
10.	3ookout, C. G. and J. D. Costlow, Jr. 1976. Effects of Mirex. Methoxv-
chlor, and Malathion on Development of Crabs. U.S. EPA, Office of Research
and Development, Gulf Breeze Environmental Research Laboratory, Gulf
Breeze, Florida.
11.	Brown, L. R., E. G. Alley and D. W. Cook. 1975. The Effect of Mirex
and Carbofuran on Estuarine Microorganisms, National Environmental
Research Center, Office of Research and Development, U.S. EPA.
Corvallis, Oregon.
12.	Canton, J. H., G. J. van Esch, P. A. Greve and A. B. A. M. van Hellemond.
1977. "Accumulation and Elimination of Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) by
the Marine Algae Chlamydomanas and Dunaliella," Water Res. 11:111.
13.	Carlson, D. A. et al. 1976. "Mirex in the Environment: Its Degradation
to Kepone and Related Compounds." Science. 194(4268):939-941.
14.	Chacko, C. I. and J. L. Lockwood. 1967. "Accumulation of DDT and
Dieldrin by Microorganisms." Can. J. Microbiol. 13:1123-1126.
15.	Chapman, P. J. 1976. "Microbial Degradation of Halogenaced Compounds,"
Biochemical Soc. Trans. 4:463-466.
X-53

-------
16.	Collins, H. L., J. R. Davis and G. P. Markin. 1973. "Residues of
Mirex in Channel Catfish and Other Aquatic Organisms." Bull. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol. 10(2):73—77.
17.	Duxbury, J. M., J. M. Tiedje, M. A. Alexander and J. E. Dawson. 1970.
"2,4-D Metabolism: Enzymatic Conversion of Chloromaleylacetic Acid to
Succinic Acid," J. Agr. Food Chem. 18(12);199.
18.	Esmen, N. A. and R. B. Fergus. 1976. "Rain Acidity: pH Spectrum of
Industrial Drops." The Science of the Total Environment. 6^:223-226.
19.	Focht. D. D. 1972. "Microbial Degradation of DDT Metabolites to CO2,
H2O, and Chloride." Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 7^(1) :52.
20.	Focht, D. D. and M. Alexander. 1970. "Bacterial Degradation of
Diphenylmethane a DDT Model Substrate," Appl. Microbiol. 20(4):608-611.
21.	Garnas, R. L., A. W. Bourquin, and P. H. Pritchard. 1977. "Fate and
Degradation of Kepone in Estuarine Microcosms." Kepone Seminar II,
Easton, MD, September 20-21, 1977.
22.	Gilbert, E. E., P. Lombardo, E. J. Rumanowski and G. L. Walker. 1966.
"Preparation and Insecticidal Evaluation of Alcoholic Analogs of Kepone."
J. Agr. Food Chem. 14(2):111-114.
23.	Goldman, P. 1965. "The Enzymatic Cleavage of the Carbon-Fluoride Bond
in Fluoroacetate." J. Biol. Chem. 240(9):3434-3438.
24.	Goldman, P. 1972. in, Anon. Degradation of Synthetic Organic Molecules
in the Biosphere. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC,
pp. 147-165.
25.	Griffen, P. 1977. "Treatment of PCB Infiltration Dredge Materials."
Chesapeake Bay Program II, Easton, Maryland, September 21.
26.	Guenzi, W. D. and W. E. Beard. 1967. "Anaerobic Biodegradation of
DDT to DDD in Soil." Science. 156:116.
27.	Hicks, G. F. Jr. and T. R. Corner. 1973. "Location and Consequences
of l,l,l-trichloro-2,2-bis (p-chlorophenyl) Ethane Uptake," Appl.
Microbiol. 25(3):381-387.
28.	Hill, D. W. and P. L. McCarty. 1967. "Anaerobic Degradation of
Selected Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Pesticides." J. Water Pollut. Control
Fed. 39:1259.
29.	Horvath, R. S. and M. Alexander. 1970. "Cometabolism, a Technique
for the Accumulation of Biochemical Products." Can. J. Microbiol.
15(11):1131-1132.
30.	Hyndshaw, A. Y. 1969. "Use of Activated Carbon to Prevent Water Supply
Contamination." Water and Waste Engineering.
31.	Ivie, G. W., H. W. Dorough and E. G. Alley. 1974. "Photodecomposition
of Mirex on Silica Gel Chromatoplates Exposed to Natural and Artificial
Light." J. Agr. Food Chem. 22(6):933-935.
32.	Johnsen, R. E. 1976. "DDT Metabolism in Microbial Systems," in
F. A. Gunther and J. A. Gunther (eds) Residue Review. 61^1-26. Springer-
Verlag, New York, New York.
X-59

-------
33.	Johnson, B. T. and J. 0. Kennedy. 1973. "3iomagnification of p,p-DDT
and Methoxychlor by Bacteria." Appl. Microbiol. 26(1):66-71.
34.	Jones, A. S. and C. S. Hodges. 1974. "Persistence of Mirex and its
Effects on Soil Microorganisms." J. Agr. Food Chem. 22(3):435-439.
35.	Kallman, B. J. and A. K. Andrews. 1963. "Reductive Dechlorination of
DDT to DDD by Yeast." Science. 141:1050.
36.	Keeley, J. W. and R. M. Engler. 1974. Discussion of Regulatory Criteria
for Ocean Disposal of Dredged Materials: Elutriate Test Rationale and
Implementaion Guidelines. U.S. Army Report No. D-74-14. Dredged
Materials Research Program.
37.	Lee, G. L. et al. 1975. Research Study for the Development of Dredged
Material Disposal Criteria. Institute for Environmental Sciences.
Contract Report No. D-75-4. Dredged Materials Research Program.
38.	Leshniowsky, W. 0. et al. 1970. "Aldrin: Removal from Lake Water by
Flocculent Bacteria." Science. 169:993-995.
39.	Maier-Bode, H. 1976. "The Insecticide Kelevan." in F. A. Gunther and
J. A. Gunther (eds) Residue Reviews. £3:45-76, Springer-Verlag, New
York., New York.
40.	Maloch, J. L. 1976. Leachabillty and Physical Properties of Chemically
Stabilized Hazardous Wastes. US EPA 600-1976-015, pp. 127-138.
41.	Martin, J. F., 1974. "Quality of Effluents from Coal Refuse Piles."
First Symposium on Mine and Preparation Plant Refuse Disposal Coal and
the Environment, Technical Conference, October 22-29, 1974, Louisville,
ICY, National Coal Association.
42.	Paterson, A. R., R. J. Williams, D. E. Scheirer and J. Vitrone. 1977.
"Allied Chemical Kepone Investigations." Chesapeake Bay Program Seminar
II, Easton, MD.
43.	Smith, W. C. 1976. Kepone Discharges from Allied Chemical Company.
Hopewell, Virginia, National Field Investigations Center, U.S. EPA,
Denver, Colorado.
44.	Suzuki, M. N. Aisawa, G. Okano and T. Takahashi. 1977. "Translocation
of Polychlorobiphenyls in Soil into Plants: A Study by a Method of
Culture of Soybean Sprouts." Arch. Environ. Contamin. and Toxicol.
_5: 343-352.
45.	Takenaka Komuten Co., Ltd. 1976. Recent Developments in Dredged
Material Stabilization and Deep Chemical Mixing in Japan. Technical
Report.
46.	Tiedje, J. M., J. M. Duxbury, M. Alexander and J. E. Dawson. 1969.
"2,4-D Metabolism: Pathway of Degradation of Chlorocatechols by
Arthrobacter sp." J. Agr. Food Chem. 17(15):1021.
47.	Trump, J. G. 1977. Disinfection of Municipal Sludge by High Energy
Electrons. NSF-RANN Grant AEN24, 130/6401.
48.	Vind, H. P. 1976. "The Role of Microorganisms in the Transport of
Chlorinated Insecticides." in J. M. Sharpley and A. M. Kaplan (eds)
Proceedings of the 3rd International Biodeterioration Symposium.
X-60

-------
49.	Widman, M. V. and M. M. Epstein. 1972. Polymer Film Overlay System
for Mercury Contaminated Sludge-Phase I U.S. EPA, 16080 MTZ.
50.	Wiles, C. C. and H. R. Lubowitz. 1976. A Polymetric Cementing and
Encapsulating Process for Managing Hazardous Wastes. U.S. EPA
600/9-77-015, pp. 139-150.
X-61

-------

-------
APPENDICES

-------
APPENDIX A
THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTS TO DETERMINE
SORPTION AND VOLATILITY PROPERTIES
OF KEPONE

-------
APPENDIX A-l
THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT OF SORPTION-DESORPTION
CONSTANTS FOR KEPONE ON SEDIMENTS
(Concents consist of reports by S. Pavlou, URS Company-
consultant on sorption-desorption mechanisms.)
This report is a summary of the series of computations which provide an
estimate of the partitioning of Kepone between suspended particulate matter
and water in the James River. Due to the paucity of data on the physical
chemical properties of Kepone (a rather intensive survey of the literature
from 1950 to date produced no relevant information), the theoretical calcula-
tions by necessity rely on crude estimates of various physical chemical param-
eters. Whenever possible, these approximations have been obtained by compar-
ing the partitioning behavior of chemically similar compounds and by considering
additivity principles within homologous series.
From the limited data available it appears that Kepone is not a "well
behaved" molecule in terms of its solubility and liquid-liquid partition coeffi-
cients. These parameters depend on the chemical characteristics of the aquatic
system in question. For example, the solubility shows a very strong dependence
on pH with a pronounced discontinuity at high pH values (Meiggs, 1976). It
should be pointed out here that, due to the small number of measurements, the
reliability of the data is uncertain. Nevertheless, the available data was
used for conditions which approximate normal riverine systems, i.e., for a pH
range between 7 and 8, a temperature of 20°C and water of low ionic strength.
The preliminary theoretical calculations are based on the application of
a simple BET-isotherm equation assuming that 1) only London dispersive and
hydrophobic interactions constitute the primary forces controlling the distri-
bution of Kepone between aqueous and suspended phases, and 2) the system is
equilibrated at low aqueous concentrations (<10% saturation). Although a
detailed discussion of the approach has been presented elsewhere (Dexter,
1976; Pavlou and Dexter, 1977; Dexter and Pavlou, 1977), a brief review of the
fundamental definitions is presented below.
The general form of the component concentration ratio K can be expressed
as
•k
C , , AM
K =	= -S-g	 exp [ (E - E )/RT]	(A-l)
v(w) AC, .	S m
where As is the specific surface area of the ambient suspended particulate
matter (SPM), My is molecular weight of the adsorbate (cm^mol-^), and
Cy(w) refers t0 the solubility of the adsorbate (g g"1). cv(s) and Cy( )
correspond to the concentration of adsorbate on SPM and in solution (g g 1),
A-l

-------
respectively. E is the energy of interaction of Y with the bare surface
(formation of the first adsorption layer) and is the energy of interaction
of Y with covered surface (formation of multilayers); both quantities are in
units of cal mol~^-. R refers to the gas constant (cal deg-1 mol~l) and T to
the temperature (deg). These parameters were evaluated as follows:
My ana C°(rj). These quantities are the literature values. equals
491 g mol-1 and C?(w) equals 0.3 x 10"^ g cm~3. The solubility value was
obtained from EPA1s data (Meiggs, 1976) at 25°C in tap water and pH of 7.2.
Ay. This quantity was calculated from the appropriate molecular geometry
using tabulated data. A value of 1.61 x 10^ cm2 aol~l was obtained.
kZ and T. Due to the absence of suspended load and particle size data,
the specific surface for SPM in the James River was estimated to a first
approximation by using the value of 5 x 10^ cm-g-- measured in Puget Sound. A
value of 20°C was considered a reasonable representation of the mean tempera-
ture regime in the James River.
Eg and_Esa. The energetic terms were computed from adsorption frae
energies which in turn were obtained from interfacial free energies as pre-
viously described (Pavlou ana Dexter, 1977). Therefore, the energy term in
the exponential of equation (A-l) can be expressed as
E - E » a [a -a -a]	(a-2)
s m y sw sy yw
where o refers to the interfacial tension with the subscripts sw, sy, and
yw denoting the SPM/water, SPM/adsorbate and adsorbate/water interfaces,
respectively. The values for the interfacial tensions were calculated from
surface tensions based on the data and methods of Fowkes (1964). The follow-
ing aspects were considered in obtaining these quantities.
Surface Tension of Water (crT.,). The surface tension of pure water is
extensively documented; a value of 73 ergs cm~2 was used in these calculations.
A substantial fraction of this energy, about 22 ergs cm~2 (= ~^), is accounted
for by London dispersive forces, while the remainder results from hydrogen
bonding.
Surface Tension of the Solid Matrix (a,)¦ Previous discussions (Dexter,
1976; Dexter and Pavlou, 19 77) have shown that most aquatic particulate matter
is covered by at least a thin film of a relatively polar organic matrix, com-
prised predominantly of fulvic and/or humic acid residues. Due to the molecu-
lar configuration of the predominant moieties of these compounds, the surface
activity of this film should not differ substantially in magnitude from that
of a short chain alcohol, e.g., propanol. Therefore, the surface tension of
the adsorbing matrix, Gs, was taken as 24 ergs cm-2 with (the dispersive
interaction) providing the major contribution (22 ergs cm -) to this value.
A-2

-------
Surface Tension of Kepone (a ). The surface tension of Kepone has not
been directly measured, but was generated from additivity considerations based
on the behavior or similar organic compounds. Table A.l lists the surface
tensions of a homologous series of alkyl hydrocarbons. The unsubstituted
molecules show a fairly regular increase in ay with increasing carbon number.
Monochloro substitution results in increased values of due to greater
polarity, but the relative increase from the unsubstituted parent molecule is
less with longer carbon chains. Dichloro substitution again increased the
Oy values, but in this case virtually all differences within the homologous
series are eliminated. Similarly, the highly chlorinated Kepone precurser,
perchlorocyclopentadiene, has a ay nearly identical with those of the more
highly substituted n-paraffins. A chlorinated Kepone analog, (Mirgx) would
thus have a similar predicted surface tension a^ci) = 38 ergs cm
Kepone also has a ketone oxygen. Table A.2 lists surface tension values
for a homologous series of cyclic ketones. The incremental increase in 0y
associated with the carbonyl group (zz = 0) is of interest here. As was the
case with CI substitution, addition of the carbon-oxygen double bond reduces
the carbon chain effect, but there is also less variation of ay with
increasing numbers of carbons within the same cyclic series. Therefore,
for higher molecular weight cyclic compounds, the increase in ay due to the
presence of the carbonyl group is only about 7 ergs cm~~. The surface tension
of Kepone can then be~approximated as the sum of the effects of chlorine and
the =c = 0, i.e., a^ - 38 + 7 = 45 ergs cm~2. From analogy with other polar
organic compounds, the majority of this force is London dispersive
(o| - 40 ergs cm~^).
Calculation of Interfacial Tensions. Relatively few interfacial tension
measurements are available in the literature. However, the technique presented
by Fowkes (1964) can be used to estimate the London dispersive contribution,
while polar interactions can be accounted for by additivity considerations
from comparisons with similar organic moieties. The basic equation is simply
si
a +
s
aj_ ~ 2^/c
a a"? -
s 1
si
(A-3)
where asj_ is the interfacial tension between surface, s, and liquid, 1;
as, 
-------
TAIH.li A.I. Klil'UFSliNTATlVIL SUKFACIS TENSIONS AT 20"C UUFI) TO KST1MATK THIS niSPISNniSNCIS
OF U FOR Klil'ONIC ON U ECU lili OF CIILOUI NAT I ON'1 •h
CoihihhiikI
A. I'enLune
hcxane
lie|> Lane
(j c tune
noiiauc
U. pcrchlorocyclopantad icnu
n-paraf I" in
16.05
18.04
20. 14
21.62
22.85
1-rli tori)
2/.. y/i
26.94
27.02
27. 72
28.34
1 , n-dtcliloro
35.75
35.99
36.03
36.11
36.51
mill LIcli loro
37.50
Jasper, 1972
'"values arc In iiiiLLu of cry:) cm ^

-------
TABLE A. 2. REPRESENTATIVE SURFACE TENSIONS AT 20"C USED TO ESTIMATE
THE DEPENDENCE OF a FOR KEPONE ON THE KETONE GROUP3»b
	Compound		n-cyclo 1-keto
cyclopentane	23.34 33.35
cyclohexane	26.43 35.19
cyclohep tane	34.66
trans-hexahydro-2-indane	35.03
aJasper, 1972
^Values are in units of ergs cm ^
TABLE A.3. REPRESENTATIVE WATER-ORGANIC INTERFACIAL
TENSION AT 20°C USED TO ESTIMATE oj* a'b
Compound
c
—sw—
ad
—sw—
cH
—sw—
aniline
5.8
53.7
47.9
di-n-butylamine
10.3
51.0
40.7
octanoic acid
8.5
51.3
42.8
cyclohexanol
3.9
51.9
48.0
aFowkes, 1964
b	2
Values are in units of ergs cm
A-5

-------
between chese values represents the decrease in interfacial tension resulting
froin polar interactions, (column 3). For all of the compounds, c^w
(= agw) is quite invariant and averages about 43 ergs cm~2. For sterically
hindered polar groups as found in Kepone, the corresponding value should be
lower. Therefore, a value of 35 ergs cm~2 for a[jw was considered a reasonable
estimate.
TJ
No direct data is available ror	which in this case represents the
polar interaction between similar organic compounds. However, Table A.4
compares the strength of for water on a number of polar surfaces (metal
oxides) with the corresponding for propanol, a representative polar organic
compound (column 1). A comparison of the relative strengths of the inter-
actions (column 2) indicates that for propanol is about 20% of the corres-
ponding CT§S. Applying this value to the CgW obtained from Table A.3 yields
a value of ask - 9 ergs cm~2 (= 0.2 x 43). The required set of interfacial
tensions were then calculated, based on two different assumptions:
1)	the polar interactions are applicable to all interfacial tensions,
yielding the set of values presented in Table A.5.
2)	assuming the polar carbonyl group of Kepone would only be oriented
in one direction relative to the solid-Kepone-water interface, the
lowest net interfacial tension would require an orientation yielding
the highest value. This would occur when the Kepone molecule has
the carbonyl grdup facing away from the solid matrix (cr^w > uf^). Under
these conditions-, would not be applicable, and a different set of
interfacial tensions can be calculated (Table A.6).
Based on these data and using Equation (A-2), two values for the adsorption
energy terms were calculated:
Case 1. E - E = 1.61 x 109 (2 - 1 - 24) ergs mol 1
	 s m
=» -3.70 x lO1^ ergs mol 1
= -8.35 x 102 cal mol"1
Case 2. E - E = 1.61 x 109 (2 - 10 - 24) eras mol"1
	 s m
= -5.15 x lO1^ ergs mol 1
=¦ -1.23 x 103 cal mol"1
Subsequent to incorporation of these terms in Equation (A-l), two values
for the distribution ratios were obtained. These vary by the differences in
the predicted adsorption energies,
Case 1. K = 1.05 x 10^
Case 2. K = 5.69 x 10
A-6

-------
TABLE A.4. COMPARISON OF a^w and a^p (SURFACE-PROPANOL)
FOR SOME SOLID SURFACES a,b
Surface
anatase
silica
barium sulfate
stannous oxide
H
a
—sw
344
368
362
336
a11
-sp
56
84
96
54
H , H
a Jo
—sp SW
0.16
0.23
0.26
0.16
^owkes, 1964
b	""2
Values are in units or ergs cm
TABLE A.5. INTERFACIAL TENSION CALCULATIONS (CASE 1)
0 a = a + a - 2./ad ad - aH
sw s w V s w sw
=» 24 + 73 - 2^22 - 22 - 43
o	-2
= 2 ergs cm
r-T-—T"	r
b) a=o + a, - 2./a a, - a"
sk s k V s k s
H
sk
= 24 + 45 - 2 J 12 - 40 - 9
= 1 erg cm
¦>	-/ad
c) a, = a. + a - 2A/a, a - a.
kw k w V k w
H
kw
= 45 + 73 - 2^/40 - 22 - 35
o/	-2
= 24 ergs cm
A-7

-------
The first value appears to be mora reasonable since it recognizes the probable
preferred surface orientation of the Kepone molecules. It is interesting to
note that, even though Kepone is considerably more soluble than the chlorobi-
phenyl (CB), the predicted K value is very similar to that determined in
previous work (Dexter, 1976; Dexter and Pavlou, 1977). It must be remembered
that the adsorptirr. results frcr. ;he balance cf three basic interactions:
water-surface, surface-Kepone, and water-Kepone. In this case, while the
attractive forces between Kepone and water are greater than for the PCB
(as evidenced by Kepone's greater solubility), Kepone also has a greater
inherent affinity for the solid surface. In a very gross description, the
PCBs are forced into the interfacial position between two matrices for which
they have little inherent attraction by the overpowering repulsive forces
exhibited by the water (hydrophobic interaction). Kepone probably maintains
the same configuration but with lower interaction energetics.
The computations presented below represent the final modifications to the
original K equation (Equation A-l) to account explicitly for the variations in
natural particle sizes and content of organic matter. An attempt was made to
limit the requirements of the final equations to parameters which are commonly
measured. This has required the inclusion of certain empirical constants based
on available data, and not solely on a priori theoretical considerations.
Dependence on Organic Content:
Previous considerations of adsorption energies on various types of particle
surfaces indicate that pure inorganic surfaces should exhibit negligible adsorp-
tion of Kepone, while natural organic coatings on inorganic particles as well as
organic detritus will exhibit adsorption energies equal to what was calculated
previously. The problem then lies simpiv in correcting the surface area avail-
able for adsorption to reflect only that part which is organically coated.
The surface area occupied by a unit mass of natural organic matter, Ac,
was estimated from the values for a number of relatively simple alkanes,
alcohols, and acids, which can reasonably be expected to represent component
moieties of natural polyelectrolytes. These calculations are presented below:
TABLE A.6. INTERFACIAL TENSION CALCULATIONS (CASE 2)
a) a = 2 erss cm
sw	=
.d
-2
=> 10 ergs cm
_2
c)	- 24 ergs cm .
A-8

-------
where
A = irr^ No
Y y
r
y
3My
47TO No
' y
1/3
f	2
Ay 3 Ay/My (units of cm
The values of A' obtained for these compounds were relatively invariant, rang-
ing from ^0.7 ci£2/g to ^3.0 cm^/g. Therefore a rough average value of
a£ = 2.0 cm^/g was used for these estimates.
It was also recognized, however, that due to their polar nature as well
as an entropic contribution from steric effects (coiling and uncoiling), the
sorption of the natural organic matter would not be self-directing, i.e.,
accumulation is just as likely to occur on pre-sorbed organic matter as on
free surface. At the same time, sorption of organic matter on itself would
not alter the K-adsorption characteristics of the particle since it would not
significantly change the amount of organic surface area. As a result, the
effective specific surface area, i.e., that which is organically coated, A*,
can be expressed in terms of the total specific surface area, Ag, and the
fractional organic content, P as a logarithmic expression.
Ac = As I1 " exp (_AcP/VI	(A~5)
Dependence on Particle Size:
The simplest assumption one can make is that all of the particles are
sphe;
geometry:
hard spheres. In this case, the area per particle, As> is found by simple
As - 4irr||	(A-6)
However, it is well recognized that natural particles are not spherical and
generally have much larger surface areas than that predicted by Equation (A-6)
as a result of pores and surface irregularities. Unfortunately, the latter
contributions cannot be predicted from theory.
A-9

-------
From recent field studies in Pugec Sound, a correction factor, a,
could be obtained by comparing the actual particle surface areas of sediments
determined by N^-BET adsorption, with particle radii determined as seive mesh
sizes of the same sediment samples. Although it must be recognized that these
data provide only a rough estimate, the total specific surface areas could
generally be obtained by multiplying by 100 the surface areas calculated from
the mesh sizes and assuming spherical particles; i.e. a = 1 x 10-.
Using this figure, then,
/ 2
A 13 a4~r
s	s
m =
s 3 s s
and therefore
v* 3a	.
As-— or	(A-/)
s s
Combining Equations (A-5) and (A-7) and substituting these for A in the
original K equation yield the final form	s
*
_ Cv(s) Cv(s)3
* = c = 		(A-8)
y(w) Cy(w)
where
and
3 = exp |(Eg - Em)/RT|
A My 6aM I1-exo (—A' Pd C /6a
cy(s) ¦ y= —77=	(A"9)
A	d 0 £+
y	ssy
Based on these calculations and the energy terms presented" in the pre-
vious report, Equation (A-9) was solved for Kepone partitioning on various
sized particles at different organic loadings. The results are presented
in Table A.7, and are presented as iso-K lines on a plot of particle size,
ds, versus percent organic matter, %P, in Figure A.l.
A-10

-------
CALCULATED VALUES OF As, Ac, AND K FOR KEPONE BASED ON
VARIOUS PARTICLE DIAMETERS, ds, AND FRACTIONAL ORGANIC
CONTENT, P
TABLE A.7.
ds
1.OOOOE-05
1.0000E-05
1.0000E-05
I.OOOOE-05
1.0000E-05
1.0000E-05
1.OOOOE-05
1. OOOOE-05
1.Q000E-05
5.OOOOE-05
5.0000E-05
5.C000E-05
5.OOOOE-05
5.0000E-05
5. OOOOE-05
5.0000E-05
5.0000E-05
5. OOOOE-05
1.0000E-04
1. OOOOE-04
1.0000E-04
1.0000E-04
P
5.0000E-03
1.0000E-02
2.0000E-02
3.0000E-02
4.0000E-02
5.0000E-02
7.5000E-02
1.OOOOE-Ol
2.0000E-01
5.0000E-03
1.0000E-02
2.0000E-02
3.0000E-02
4.OOOOE-02
5.0000E-02
7.5000E-02
1.0000E-Q1
2.0000E-01
5.0000E-03
1.0000E-02
2.0000E-02
3.0000E-02
3.OOOOE+07
3.0000E+07
3.0000E+07
3.OOOOE+07
3.0000E+07
3.0000E+07
3.OOOOE+07
3.OOOOE+07
3.0000E+07
6.0000E+06
6.0000E+06
6.OOOOE+06
6.OOOOE+06
6.0000E+06
6.OOOOE+06
6.OOOOE+06
6.OOOOE+06
6.OOOOE+06
3.OOOOE+06
3.0000E+06
3.OOOOE+06
3.OOOOE+06
9.9834E+04
1.9933E+05
3.9735E+05
5.9404E+05
7.8943E+05
9.8352E+05
1.4631E+06
1.9343E+06
3.7448E+06
9.9171E+04
1.9670E+05
3.8696E+05
5.7098E+05
7.4896E+05
9.2111E+05
1.3272E+06
1.7008E+06
2.9195E+06
9.8352E+04
1.9348E+05
3.7448E+05
5.4381E+05
K
1.1975E+04
2.3911E+04
4.7663E+04
7.1258E+04
9.4695E+04
1.1798E+05
1.7551E+05
2.3209E+05
4.4921E+05
1.1896E+04
2.3595E+04
4.6417E+04
6.8491E+04
8.9841E+04
1.1049E+05
1.5920E+05
2.0402E+05
3.5021E+05
1.1798E+04
2.3209E+04
4.4921E+04
6.5232E+04
A-11

-------
TABLE A. 7. (Continued)
ds
1.0000E-04
1.0000E-04
1.0000E-04
1.0000E-04
1.0000E-04
5.OOOOE-04
5.0000E-04
5.0000E-04
5.0000E-04
5.OOOOE-04
5.000GE-04
5.0000E-04
5.0000E-04
5.OOOOE-04
1.0000E-04
1.0000E-04
1.0000E-03
1.0000E-03
1.0000E-03
1.0000E-03
1.0000E-03
1.OO0OE-O3
1.0000E-03
5.0000E-03
P
4.0000E-02
5.0000E-02
7.5000E-02
l.OOOOE-Ol
2.OOOOE-Ol
5.0000E-03
1.0000E-02
2.OOOOE-02
3.OOOOE-02
4.0000E-02
5.0000E-02
7.5000E-02
1.OOOOE-Ol
2.OOOOE-Ol
5.0000E-03
1.0000E-02
2.OOOOE-02
3.0000E-02
4.0000E-02
5.OOOOE-02
7.5000E-02
1.OOOOE-Ol
2.OOOOE-Ol
5.0000E-03
*
	As	
3.0000E+06
3.OOOOE+06
3.0000E+06
3.OOOOE+06
3.OOOOE+06
6.0000E+05
6.0000E+05
6.OOOOE+05
6.0000E-HD5
6.0000E+O5
6.OOOOE+05
6.OOOOE+05
6.OOOOE+05
6.OOOOE+05
3.0000E+05
3. OOOOE+05
3.0000E+05
3.OOOOE+05
3.OOOOE+05
3.OOOOE+05
3.0000E+05
3.OOOOE+05
3.0000E+05
6.0000E+O4
Ag
7.0221E+05
8.5041E+05
1.1804E+06
1.4597E+06
2.2092E+06
9.2111E+04
1.7008E+05
2.9195E+05
3.7927E+05
4.4184E+05
4.8667E+05
5.5075E+05
5.7860E+05
5.9924E+05
8.5040E+04
1.4597E+05
2.2092E+05
2.5940E+05
2.7915E+05
2.8930E+05
2.9798E-MD5
2.9962E+05
3. OOOOE+05
4.8667E+04
K
8.4234E+04
1.0201E+05
1.4160E+05
1.7510E+05
2.6500E+05
1.1049E+04
2.0^n2E-K)4
3.5021E-K)4
4.5495E+C4
5.3001E+04
5.8379E+04
6.6065E+04
6.9405E+04
7.1881E-HD4
1.0204E+04
1.7516E+04
2.6500E+04
3.1116E+04
3.3486E+04
3.4703E+04
3.5744E+04
3.5941E+04
3.5986E+04
5.3379E+03
A-12

-------
TABLE A.7. (Continued)
d^
5.0000E-03
5.0000E-03
5.0000E-03
5.0000E-03
5.0000E-03
5.0000E-03
5.0000E-03
5.0000E-03
1.0000E-02
1.0000E-02
1.0000E-02
1.0000E-02
I.0000E-02
1.0000E-02
1.0000E-02
1.0000E-02
1.0000E-02
5.0000E-02
5.OOOOE-02
5.0000E-02
5.0000E-02
5.0000E-02
5.0000E-02
P
1.0000E-02
2.0000E-02
3.0000E-02
4.0000E-02
5.0000E-02
7.5000E-02
1.0000E-01
2.0000E-01
5.OOOOE-03
1.0000E-02
2.0000E-02
3.0000E-02
4.0000E-02
5.0000E-02
7.5000E-02
1.0000E-01
2.0000E-01
5.0000E-03
1.0000E-02
2.0000E-02
3.0000E-02
4.0000E-02
5.0000E-Q2
A *
As
6.OOOOE+04
6.OOOOE+04
6.0000E-HD4
6.OOOOE+04
6.OOOOE+04
6.OOOOE+04
6. OOOOE-HD4
6.OOOOE+04
3.0000E+04
3.OOOOE+04
3.0000E+04
3.OOOOE+04
3.0000E+04
3.0000E+04
3.0000E+04
3.0000E+04
3.OOOOE+04
6.OOOOE+03
6.0000E+03
6.OOOOE+03
6.0000E-HD3
6.0000E+03
6.OOOOE+03
5.7860E+04
5.9924E+04
5•9997E+04
6.0000E+04
6.OOOOE+04
6.OOOOE+04
6.0000E+04
6.OOOOE+04
2.8930E+04
2.9962E+04
3.OOOOE+04
3.0000E+04
3.0000E+04
3.0000E+04
3.0000E+04
3.OOOOE+04
3.0000E+04
6.OOOOE+03
6.OOOOE+03
6.0000E+03
6.OOOOE+03
6.0000E+03
6.0000E+03
K
6.9405E+03
7.1881E+03
7.1969E+03
7.1973E+03
7.1973E+03
7.1973E+03
7.1973E+03
7.1973E+03
3.4703E+03
3.5941E+03
3.5986E+03
3.5986E+03
3.5986E+03
3.5986E+03
3.5986E+03
3.5986E+03
3.5986E+03
7.1973E+02
7.1973E+02
7.1973E+02
7.1973E+02
7.1973E+02
7.1973E+02
A-13

-------
TABLE A. 7. (Concinued)
	dg	
5.0000E-02
5.0000E-02
5.00C0E-02
i.0C00E-01
1. OOOOE-OI
1.OOOOE-OI
1.0000E-01
1.OOOOE-OI
1.OOOOE-OI
1.OOOOE-OI
l.'CCCOE-Ol
1.OOOOE-OI
p
7.500QE-02
1.OOOOE-OI
2.OOOOE-OI
5.G0OOE-O3
1.0000E-02
2.OOOOE-OZ
3.0000E-02
4.0000E-02
5.0000E-02
7.5000E-02
1.	OOOOE-OI
2.	OOOOE-OI
o. OOOOE-HD3
6.OOOOE+03
6.0000E+03
3.0000E+03
3.0000E-KD3
3.0000E+O3
3.0000E+03
3.OOOOE+03
3. OOOOE+03
3.OOOOE+03
3.0000E+03
'3.0000E+O3
5.0000E+03
6.OOOOE+03
6.OOOOE+03
3.0000E+03
3.OOOOE+03
3.OOOOE+03
3.OOOOE+03
3.0000E+03
3.OOOOE+03
3.0000E+03
3.0000E+O3
3.OOOOE+03
K
7.1973E+02
7.1973E+02
7.1973E+02
3.5986E+02
3.5986E-HD2
3.598&E+02
3.5936E+02
3.5986E+02
3. 5986E-HD2
3.5986E+02
3.5986&+02
3.5986E+02
A-14

-------
10-1
10-2
10-3
0
2
4
6
10
Percent Carbon
FIGURE A.l. Plots of K as a Function of Percent
Carbon and Particle Diameter
A-15

-------
The data indicate chat for small particles, K is primarily dependent
on the value of P. With the very large surface areas available on the
small diameter particles, the majority of the natural organic matter at low
values of P tends to accumulate on free surface, causing major changes in
, and thus K, with small changes in P. Conversely, with large particles,
even a small fraction of organic matter is sufficient for complece surface
coverage. As a result, A* and K are essentially dependent entirely on the
particle size, and independent of ?.
For rough calculation purposes, the values in Table A-l were reduced
to account for the predicted partitioning between the major size fractions
most commonly reported, sand, silt, and clay. This required that each of
the latter fractions be assigned an approximate representative size. In this
case, essentially median sizes were chosen: sand, ds = 0.5 mm; silt,
ds » 50 um; and clay, ds = 5 urn. Based on these radii, K values for a number
of organic loadings are presented in Table A.S. Obviously, the accuracy of
these latter values is highly dependent on the actual size distributions.
TABLE A.8. THE COMPONENT CONCENTRATION RATIO, X, AS A FUNCTION
OF THE PERCENT ORGANIC MATTER, %P, OF SAND, SILT,
AND CLAY SUSPENDED PARTICULATES AND SEDIMENTS
Particle
Size
0.5
%?•
10
Sand
Silt
Clay
720
5,800
11,000
720
7,200
20,400
720
7,200
35,000
720
7,200
58,400
720
7,200
69,400
A-16

-------
GLOSSARY
•k
A = effective specific area, i.e., the specific area organically
covered, cm*/gs
x	2
A^ = specific surface area of natural organic matter, cm /g^
*	2
As = total specific surface area, cm /gg
2
Ay = molar area of compound y, cm /mole
a = constant to account for increased surface area beyond that predicted
from spherical particle calculations, unitless
6 = BET energy term
dg = effective particle diameter, cm
gc » grams carbon/natural organic matter
gg = grams sediment or suspended particulate matter
gy = grams adsorbed organic compound, y
Mg = mass of particle, g
N° = Avogadro's Number, 6.025 x 10^
P = mass fraction of organic loading, §c/gg
3
Ps = density of sediment particles, gs/cm
rg = effective particle spherical radius, cm
M = molecular weight of compound y, g/mole
A-17

-------
REFERENCES
Dexter, R. N. 1976. An Application of Equilibrium Adsorption Theory to the
Chemical Dynamics of Organic Compounds in Marine Environments. Ph.D. Thesis,
Department of Oceanography, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Dexter, R. N. and S. P. Pavlou. 1977. Distribution of Stable Organic Mole-
cules in the Marine Environment: Physical Chemical Aspects Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons (in preparation).
Fowkes, F. M. 1964. "Attraction Forces at Interfaces." Symposium on
Interfaces, Chemistry and Physics at Interfaces. American Chemical Society,
Washington, D.C., pp. 1-12.
Jasper, J. J. 1972. "The Surface Tension of Pure Liquid Compounds." J.
Phvs. Chem. Ref. Data. 1_:841-1009.
Meiggs, T. 0. 1976. Memorandum Concerning the Solubility of Kepone in
Aqueous Solutions. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforce-
ment, National Enforcement Investigations Center, Denver, Colorado.
Pavlou, S. P. and R. N. Dexter. 1977. Distribution of Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCB) in Estuarine Ecosystems: Testing the Concept of Equilibrium
Partitioning in the Marine Environment (in preparation).
A-18

-------
APPENDIX A-2
THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS TO DETERMINE'
VOLATILITY LOSSES OF KEPONE THROUGH CODISTILLATION
Studies have shown that the rate of evaporation of relatively insoluble
refractory organics is surprisingly high (Neely, 1976; Mackary and Walkoff,
1973). In fact, traces of pesticide are found in areas far away from any
known applications. Two mathematical formulations have been developed to
facilitate the quantitative projection of vaporization effects, one by
Mackary and Walkoff (1973) and one by Liss and Slater (1974).
From the first of these, the rate constant for evaporation can be
expressed from the following equation:
E P M. .„6
k = ——~ 18 -£•	hr"1	(A-10)
where
E = grams of water evaporating per hour
P^ = vapor pressure of pure material
M^ = molecular weight
Cg = solubility of organic (ppm)
G = grams of water containing the chemical
= vapor pressure of water
18 = molecular weight of water
Using this method, the estimated losses of Kepone from surface waters
can be calculated. Appropriate values for insertion in the equations are:
A-19

-------
E = Evaporation rates of water for lakes in the middle latitudes vary
between 1.5 mm/day and 4.5 mm/day with a yearly average of 300 to
2200 mm. If 1000 mm/yr evaporation rate is assumed here, this
corresponds to an E value of 2740 g/m^ day or E = 114.17 g/m^-hr.
G = A depth of 1 meter was aopliad to unitize at" 1 nr^
G - 10° g.
M^ =» Molecular weight of Kepone ^ = 490 %.
Cs = Kepone solubility is 3 tag/I (ppm) at neutral pH. The presence of
solids leads to adsorption of dissolved Kepone until an equilibrium
is reached between sorbed ana dissolved concentrations. Hence,
Bailey Bay water displays soluble levels of 0.016 ug/1 (ppb) and the
River <0.006 ugli (ppb). The formulation requires solubility, not
soluble level, therefore C a 3 oom is emDloved.
-3			.			
P = Use vaoor pressure of water at 20°C, P = 17.535 mm H^.
w	r	' —W 	a"
P^ = Use vapor pressure for Kepone, P^ g 2.3 :< 10 J an H».
This yields k = 4.92 x 10 ^ g/hr (1.08 x 10 ^ lb/hr) from a cubic meter
(35 cubic feet) of water.
In the case of the second approach, Neely (1976) reports that the method
is designed "...to measure the flux of various gases across the air-sea
interface." Essentially, it calculates the rate constant for the movement of
a gas in either direction across this interface; the method is based on the
assumption that the exchanging gas obeys Henry's law (this assumption is also
true for Method 1). Two equations (A-ll) and (A-12) resulted from the
derivation:
K (liquid) -	(A-ll)
g 
K Ulr) " H k	(A-12)
where
K's are in units of (distance/tine)
H is Henry's constant
(cone in gas phase)/(cone in liquid)
kg and k are exchange constants
A-20

-------
The two exchange constants, estimated from field data taken in the
ocean by Schooley (1969) had a mean value of 3000 cm hr~^ for kgC^O) and
20 cm hr-1 for k (CO^)• In order to apply these constants to other materials,
they should be multiplied by the ratio of the square roots of the molecular
weights of H2O and CO2 with the gas in question.
The other parameter that needs to be evaluated is a number for Henry's
constant. For slightly soluble materials in water the following relation
is applicable:
P - f- Pv	(A-13)
s
where
P = partial pressure of the organic
p^ = vapor pressure of pure organic
X = weight fraction of organic in water
Xg = solubility of organic in water
weight of chemical P M
weight of air	P X M	(A-14)
t	cl
vtiPre
P 3 partial pressure of air
M = molecular weight of organic
M = molecular weight of air = 29
a
Substituting the expression for P (A-13) into (A-14) yields (A-15)
z , 3N	X P M , . „ .
(g/cm ) air = -—pV-jjq density of air	(A-15)
* s t
or H = (S/cm3' alr . |v -g densl" °f aic	(a-16)
(g/cm ) water t	s
For soluble materials the relation for P is given in (A-17).
p - x !(v> pv	(A.17)
A-21

-------
Again, substituting this expression for ? into (A-14) yields (A-18).
, , 3. . X 18 P.	...
(g/cm ) air = 2g pv	(A-19)
which on arranging gives
(g/cm^) air 18 P density of air ,,
H	8	3	 = —c—jy-p		(A-20)
(g/cm ) water	t
As evidenced in the above equations, to calculate the race cf evaporation
using the techniques of Liss and Slater (1974) it is necessary to first calcu-
late the mass flux of Kepone from water to air and the flux of Kepone from air
to water. These calculations are possible using Equations (A-13) and (A-16)
to solve Equations (A-ll) and (A-12). The difference between (A-ll) and A-12)
will give the total mass flux, or in this case the net evaporation from the
liquid.
Using these equations the Henry's .constant H is calculated as
2. 398 x 1CT5 kg = 18.584,	= 4.4 x 10-* and kg-Ki^g = 18.38 cr./hr. Usir.s
the same assumption of 1 m~ or surface area, the volume of Kepone vapor gener-
ated in an hour is estimated to be 18.58 cm x 1.0 m^ or .1358 m3 0f Kepone
vapor. This vapor must be assumed to be at the vapor pressure of 2.5 x 10"^ mm
Hg (25°C). From the partial pressure the mole fraction of Kepone in the air
can be obtained, or;
2.5 x 10 ^ mm Hg = . 1f.-9 moles Keoone
760 mm Hg	X	mole air
Using this and the molar volume of air and the molecular weight of Kepone,
it is possible to give a mass flux of 1.336 x 10" 5 g/hr.
The two values from the methods;
1)	4.92 x 10 ° g/hr based on water vapor loss rates and the
Henry's Law constant
2)	1.34 x 10" 0 g/hr based on differential vapor fluxes between
the two phases.
are within a factor of 4. For two different theoretical calculations,
the agreement is good. The calculated estimate of Kepone evaporation rates
from water then is 1-5 x 10" 3 g/hr based on a surface area of 1 m^.
A-22

-------
REFERENCES
Liss, P. S. and P. G. Slater. 1974. Nature. 247:181.
Mackary, D. and A. W. Walkoff. 1973. "Rate of Evaporation of Low Solubility
Contamination from Water Bodies to the Atmosphere." Environmental Science
and Technology. 7_(7) .
Neely, W. B. 1976. "Predicting the Flux of Organics Across the Air/Water
Interface." Proceedings of the 1976 National Conference on Control of
Hazardous Material Spills. AIChE, EPA, New Orleans, LA.
A-23

-------
APPENDIX B
SEDIMENT CORES DATA FOR THE JAMES RIVER

-------
HAMPTON ROADS, JENNINGS LABORATORIES
Location
Samples Taken at Pier 20 with Ponar
Sampler Late in 1976
Station Kepone ppm
Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
A
.011
.011
.009
.007
No.
Station No
. 1
Station No
. 2
Station iio. 3

(5 ft)

(8 ft)

(7 1/2 ft)
1
0 -1.25
ppm
0 -1.5
ppm
0 -1.5 ppm
2
1.25-2.00
ppm
1.5 -2.5
ppm
1.5 -2.5 ppm
3
2.00-2.5
ppm
2.5 -3.75
ppm
2.5 -3.75 ppm
4
2.5 -3.25
ppm
3.75-5.25
ppm
3.75-5.25 ppm
5
3.25-4.0
ppm
5.25-6.0
ppm
5.25-6.0 ppm
6
4.0 -4.5
ppm
6.0 -6.5
ppm
6.0 -6.5 ppm
7


6.5 -7.0
ppm
6.5 -7.0 ppm
a


7.0 -7.5
ppm

Sample
No.
Station No
. 1
Station No
. 2
Station No. 3
33.58 ppb
40.14 ppb
22.86 ppb
13.99 ppb
7.99 ppb
7.48 ppb
15.26	ppb
28.60	ppb
10.77	ppb
2.93	ppb
2.31	ppb
3.70	ppb
3.01	ppb
3.01	ppb
16.18	ppb
32.66	ppb
4.56	ppb
4.11	ppb
4.08	ppb
3.17	ppb
2.46	ppb
B-l

-------
HAMPTON ROADS, VIMS
	Location	 Kepone ppm
Craney Island Disposal Area .037
.014
.033
.010
.031
.021
.013
.024
.029
.025
.019
.023
.026
.011
.019
.036
.030
.008
.016
.022
			.029
N = 21
N = .023
Std. Dev. = .009
B-2

-------
HAMPTON ROADS, VIMS
Location
Date
Kepone ppm
Boat Basin West of Willoughby Bay
7/77
<.003
Boat Basin West of Willoughby Bay
3/77
.02
North of Craney Island Disposal Area
12/76
.012

3/77
<.002
South of Newport News Point
12/76
.019

3/77
.017

7/77
.01
B-3

-------
u>
I
p*
HAMPTON KOADS, DCLS (ppm)
Station No.


4/76





3/76

Inches
+46
47
48
49
50
51
Ace-l
Ace-2
Ace-3
0.0- 0.5
ND*
ND*
ND*
0.080
ND*
ND*
.08
0
0
0.5- 1.5
ND*
ND*
ND*
0.051
ND*
ND*
.051
0
0
1.5- 2.5



ND*





2.5- 3.5



ND*





3.5- 4.5
4.5- 5.5
5.5- 6.5
6.5- 7.5
7.5- 0.5
«.5- 9.5
9.5-10.5
10.5-11.5
11.5-12.5
12.5-13.5
13.5-14.5
14.5-15.5
it
Nl) - None detected at 0.02 ppm level of detection.
*A
NL) - None detected at 0.01 ppm level of detection,
'state Water Control Board sample points.

-------
JAMESTOWN ISLAND TO NEWPORT NEWS, VIMS
Location
Date
Kepone ppm
North of Pig Point
12/76
.019

3/77
.017

7/77
.01
James River Bridge
12/76
.013

7/77
.096
Goodwin Point
12/76
.035

3/77
.040

7/77
.02
Mouth of Warwick River
12/76
.13

3/77
.059

7/77
.03
Mouth of Warwick River
7/77
.03
Above Days Point
12/76
.044

3/77
.034

7/77
.04
Burwell Bay
12/76
.057

3/77
.075
Burwell Bay
12/76
.099

3/77
.079

7/77
.06
South of Mulberry Island
12/76
.025

3/77
<.003
South of Mulberry Point
12/76
.033

3/77
.063

7/77
.055
South of Mulberry Point
12/76
.092
Near Mouth of Skiffes Creek
12/76
.13

3/77
.11

7/77
.096
Near Hog Island
12/76
.11

3/77
.052
Below Jamestown Ilsnad
7/77
.074
Cobham Bay
12/76
<.017

3/77
.019
Above Hog Island
7/77
.11
B-5

-------
7.5- 8.5
tJJ
i	8.5- 9.5
Ch
9.5-10.5
10.5-11.5
11.5-12.5
12.5-13.5
13.5-14.5
11.5-15.5
JAMESTOWN ISLAND TO NEWPORT NEWS, DCLS (ppm)
Station No.





5/76





3/76


4/76
3/76
Inches
+ 31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
0.0- 0.5
0.028
0.16
0.12
0.12
0.09
0.057
ND*
ND*
0.28
0.071
0.047
ND*
0.03
0.032
ND*
0.5- 1.5
NO**
0.18
0.16
0.58
0.61
0.17
ND*
ND*
0.77
0.060
ND**
ND*
ND*
0.025
ND*
1.5- 2.5
NO**
0.06
ND**
NO*
0.12
ND*


0.24
0.02
ND*

0.03
ND*

2.5- 3.5
NO**
0.10
NO**

0.14
0.02


ND*
ND*
ND*

ND*
ND*

3.5- 4.5

0.11


0.19



ND**
ND*





4.5- 5.5

0.10


0.14










5.5- 6.5

0.11


0.21










6.5- 7.5

0.12


0.26










•k
ND - None detected at 0.02 ppm level of detection.
NU - None detected at 0.01 ppm level of detection.
^State Water Control Board sample points.

-------
JORDAN POINT TO JAMESTOWN ISLAND, VIMS
Location	 Date Kepone ppm
Jamestown Island	12/76	.054
3/77	.035
7/77	.061
Swanns Point	7/77	.11
North Side of River Above Swanns Point 12/76	.12
3/77	.13
7/77	.12
South Side of River Above Swanns Point 12/76	.11
3/77	.12
7/77	.41
Barrets Point	7/77	.39
South of State Water Control Board
Sample Point No. 25	7/77	.09
Near State Water Control Board Point
No. 26	7/77	.11
Above Dancing Point	12/76	.17
3/77	.21
7/77	.20
Near Mouth of Upper Chippokes Creek	12/76	.20
3/77	.11
7/77	.17
Below Kennon Marsh	12/76	.079
3/77	.12
7/77	.13
Above Kennon Marsh	12/76	.12
3/77	.11
7/77	.10
Below Mouth of Ward Creek	12/76	.062
3/77	.049
7/77	.09
Mouth of Ward Creek	7/77	.09
Below State Water Control Board Sample
Point No. 23	12/76	.07
3/77	.051
7/77	.09
B-7

-------
	Location	
Downriver Side of Windmill Point
Upriver Side of Windmill Point
Mouth of Herring Creek
Above Mouth of Herring Creek
Below State Water Control Board Sample
Point No. 20
Below Jordan Point
Date Kepone ppm
7/77	.09
7/77	.01
7/77	.16
7/77	.01
12/76	.014
3/77	.009
7/77	.03
B-8

-------
JORDAN POINT TO JAMESTOWN ISLAND, JENNINGS LABORATORIES
Location
Windmill Point Area
Windmill Point Area
Windmill Point Area
Date
1/76
1/76
1/76
Kepone ppm
.41
.81
.87
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS FOR KEPONE OF THREE CORES FROM THE
WINDMILL POINT SHOAL TAKEN JANUARY 25, 1976 BEFORE DREDGING
A. Windmill Point
Upstream End
B. Windmill Point
Middle
(a)	Depth not samples.
(b)	No analysis performed.
C. Windmill Point
Lower End
Core
Depth (in.)
Kepone
(ppm)
%h2o
Kepone
(ppm)
%h2o
Kepone
(ppm)
%h2o
0- 6
0.23
46.1
0.27
(b)
0.09
42.7
6-12
0.39
37.8
0.35
(b)
0.07
37.9
12-13
0.24
59.4
0.14
(b)
0.04
37.8
13-24
0.14
38.7
0.34
(b)
0.05
38.0
24-30
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
0.02
39.0
B-9

-------
BELOW BENJAMIN HARRISON BRIDGE SOUTH
SHORE, 18" CORE, DCLS
Core Death	Date Kepone ppm
0- 6	3/77 1.64
6-12 1.59
12-18 2.5
BELOW BENJAMIN HARRISON BRIDGE NORTH
SHORE, 18" CORE, DCLS
Core Depth	Date Kepone ppm
0- 6	3/77 .12
6-12 .13
12-18 .05
3-10

-------
JORDAN POINT TO JAntSTOWN ISLAND, DCLS (ppm)
Station No.
Inches



1/76



3/76


2/76

1/76
+18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
0.0- 0.5
ND*
0.11
0.099
0.025
0.031
0.017
ND*
0.18
0.15
0.18
0.10
ND*
0.022
0.5- 1.5
ND*
0.08
0.13
0.022
0.013
0.054
0.04
0.49
0.45
0.088
0.090
ND*
0.001
1.5- 2.5

0.26
ND*
0.11
0.12
ND*
0.10
0.20
0.30
ND*
ND*

0.01
2.5- 3.5

0.86
0.35
0.03
0.12
ND*

0.20
0.13
ND*
ND*

ND*
3.5- 4.5

0.02
0.19
0.10
0.01


0.49
0.08




4.5- 5.5

0.16
0.06
0.13
0.36


0.15
0.19




5.5- 6.5

0.09
0.02
0.08
ND*


0.02
0.12




6.5- 7.5

ND*
0.03
0.12
ND*


0.06
0.04




7.5- 8.5


0.13
0.14



0.22
ND*




8.5- 9.5
9.5-10.5
10.5-11.5
11.5-12.5
12.5-13.5
13.5-14.5
14.5-14.5
•k
ND - None detected at 0.02 ppm level of detection.
NL) - None detected at 0.01 ppm level of detection.
+State Water Control Board sample points.

-------
JORDAN POINT TO RICHMOND, JENNINGS LABORATORY
	Location		Date	Kepone pom
Allied Chemical Pier	1/76	.46
Allied Chemical Pier	5/77	.04
Upriver Side of Jordan Point	5/77	.17
Bailey Bay South Shore Below Bailey
Creek	5/77	5.05
Mouth of Bailey Creek	5/77	3.57
Mouth of Gravelly Run	5/77	.03
Marsh Area West Side of Bailey Creek	5/77	43.25
Marsh Area East of Bailey Creek Above
State Highway 10	5/77	23.25
Sailey Creek Above Sewage Treatment Plant	5/77	3.10
Bailey Bay Approximate Center	5/77	.02
3-12

-------
JORDAN POINT TO RICHMOND, VIMS
	Location	
Upriver Side of Jordan Point
City Point
Midway Between State Water Control Board
Sample Points 4 and 13
Below Jones Neck Cutoff
Date	Kepone ppm
12/76	4.5
3/77	.32
7/77	.38
12/76	<.005
3/77	.017
7/77	.00
12/76	.021
3/77	.020
12/76	^.006
3/77	.010
7/77	.02
B-13

-------
JORDAN POINT TO RICHMOND, DCLS
Composit Cores 12" Long
Location	 Date Kepone ppm
Baileys Creek, Upstream from Hopewell
Sewage Treatment Plant
12/75
0.1
100' Below Mo. 1
12/75
14.5
200' Below No. 1
12/75
24.0
300' Below No. 1
12/75
2.3
400' Below No. 1
12/75
1.6
B-14

-------
JORDAN POINT TO RICHMOND, DCLS
Results of Kepone Analyses of James River Basin Sediment Core Samples
Collected in January 1976. Kepone Values in ppm, DCLS.
Station No.
Inches
+ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.0- 0.5
26.80
0.28
3.4
0.46
5.2
1.8
0.11
5.1
ND*
ND*
0.5- 1.5
23.80
0.41
1.1
0.15
1.3
0.13
0.22
3.4
ND*
ND*
1.5- 2.5
0.51
0.087
1.86
0.16
1.7
0.52
0.23
2.9


2.5- 3.5
0.11
0.41
0.29
0.15
1.0
0.71
0.068
2.1


3.5- 4.5



0.39
0.35
0.42
0.034
1.3


4.5- 5.5



ND*
2.9
1.18
0.07
1.2


5.5- 6.5



ND*
1.12
0.36
0.01
0.95


6.5- 7.5




ND*

ND*
ND*


7.5- a.5




ND*


ND*


8.5- 9.5
9.5-10.5
10.5-11.5
11.5-12.5
12.5-13.5
13.5-14.5
14.5-15.5
ND - None detected at 0.02 ppm level of detection.
**
ND - None detected at 0.01 ppm level of detection.
+State Water Control Board sample points.

-------
JORDAN POINT TO RICHMOND, DCLS (ppm)



Station No.


Inches
+11
12
13
14
15
16 17
0.0- 0.5
ND*
0.058
0.020
0.006
ND**
NU** ND**
0.5- 1.5
ND*
ND*
0.030
0.002
ND**
ND** ND**
1.5- 2.5

ND*
0.19
0.07


2.5- 3.5

ND*
0.17
0.06


3.5- 4.5


0.02
0.07


4.5- 5.5


0.10
0.12


5.5- 6.5


0.17
ND*


6.5- 7.5


ND*
ND*


7.5- 0.5


ND*



U.5- 9.5
9.5-10.5
10.5-11.5
11.5-12.5
12.5-13.5
13.5-14.5
14.5-15.5
_
NO - None detected at 0.02 ppm level of detection.
'ic "fc
ND - None detected at 0.01 ppm level of detection.
hState Water Control Board sample points.

-------
DATA NOT ON MAPS
(Sediment)
Six cores taken near the Surry Power Station,
July 1976
Core No.
Depth (in,
•)
Kepone (ppm)
1
0
-
1/2
.12
1
1/2
- 1
1/2
.061
1
11 1/2
- 12
1/2
.12
2
0
-
1/2
.12
2
1/2
- 1
1/2
.081
2
4
- 5

.020
3
0 .
- 1
1/2
.34
3
1/2
- 1
1/2
.15
3
11 1/2
- 12
1/2
.14
4
0
-
1/2
.11
4
1/2
- 1
1/2
.063
4
11 1/2
- 12
1/2
.18
5
0
-
1/2
.27
5
1/2
- 1
1/2
.14
5
11 1/2
- 12
1/2
.12
6
0
-
1/2
.19
6
1/2
- 1
1/2
.026
6
11 1/2
- 12
1/2
<.005
B-17

-------
(Sediment)
Newport News Area:
Peterson Yacht 3asin - September 1976 - .004 ppm
South End of Marshall Avenue - September 1976 - .0056, .0048 ppm
South End of Maple Avenue - September 1976 - .0045, .0028 ppm
Near Pier 15 - November 1976 - .026, .006 ppm
Near Ship Way No. 5 and 6 - October 1976 - .020, .025, .006 ppm
Craney Island Disposal Area:
December 1976 - .020, .039, .008, .035, .007, .011, .009 ppm
3-13

-------
APPENDIX C
ENVIRONMENTAL AND LABORATORY SAMPLES

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLES EXTRACTED WITH TOLUENE:ETHYL ACETATE (1:3)
Sample No. Date Extracted 	Identification
C-l-1 June 6, 1977 Bailey Creek Sediment Core G-
23 1 in. depth
2

2 in.

3

3 in.

4

4 in.

5

5 in.

6

6 in.

7

7 in.

8

8 in.

9

9 in.

10

10 in.

C-2-1 June 8, 1977 Bailey Bay Sediment Core 0-
36 1 in.

2

2 in.

3

3 in.

4

4 in.

5

5 in.

6

6 in.

7

7 in.

8

8 in.

9

9 in.

10

10 in.

C-3-1 June 10, 1977
N-
31 1 in.

2

2 in.

3

3 in.

4

4 in.

5

5 in.

6

6 in.

7

7 in.

8

8 in.

9

9 in.

10

10 in.

C-4-1 June 14, 1977
K-
28 1 in.

2

2 in.

3

3 in.

4

4 in.

5

5 in.

6

6 in.

7

7 in.

8

8 in.

9

9 in.

10

10 in.

C-4-14 July 6, 1977

14 in.

19

19 in.

20

20 in.

L-26-1
L-
26 1 in.

2

2 in.

3

3 in.

4

4 in.

5

5 in.

C-l

-------
Sample No.
Date Extracted
Identification
L-26-6
7
8
0-38-1
2
3
K-28 clay
0-36 clay
K-28 sand
0-36 silt
K-28 silt
N-31 silt
N-31 sand
0-36 sand
0-38-5
6
7
8
0-24-1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0-38-9
10
C-4-11
12
13
15
16
17
18
0-19 0-12 in.
0-34
P-35
M-32
N-33
0-30
N-35
N-27
P-33
P-37
N-39
M-30
Q-34
July 6, 1977
July 7, 1977
July 11, 1977
July 14, 1977
Bailey Bay Sediment Core L-26
0-38
Clay fraction
Clay fraction
Sand fraction
Silt fraction
Silt fraction
Silt fraction
Sand fraction
Sand fraction
Core 0-38
0-24
0-38
I
K-28
0-19
0-34
P-35
M-32
N-33
0-30
N-35
N-27
P-33
P-37
N-39
M-30
Q-34
6	in.
7	in.
8	in.
1	in.
2	in.
3	in.
depth
K-28
0-36
K-28
0-36
K-28
N-31
N-31
0-36
5 in. depth
6	in.
7	in.
8	in.
1	in.
2	in.
3	in.
4	in.
5	in.
6	in.
7	in.
8	in.
9	in.
10 in.
9 in.
10	in.
11	in.
12	in.
13	in.
15	in.
16	in.
17	in.
18	in.
12 in. composite
C-2

-------
Sample No.
L-29 0-12 in.
M-34
L-31
0-32
0-28
Q-36 1-12 in.
N-29
L-33
0-26
N-25
M-28
Pond Sed-3
2
1-NW
0-19-Stp-9
1-17-Stp-7
P-19-Stp-8
EPA-RTP Samples
1-12
51-9-27-V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
V8
V 9
V10
S6-9/27-V1
V2
V4
52-9/27
53-9/27-B
-G
54-9/27
55-9/27
JR8-S0830
S14-10/3
S13-10/3-V2-4
VI
512-10/3-V1
513-10/3-V6-7
GR-2 9/7
GR-8 9/7
GR-3 9/7
PS4-S-9/15
PS3-S-9/15
PS10-S-9/15
PS1-S-9/15
Below PAN Dam 10/3
Date Extracted
July 14, 1977
July 19, 1977
Identification
Bailey Bay Sediment Core
July 20, 1977
Sept
Oct.
, 29, 1977
11, 1977
Oct. 11, 1977
Oct. 13, 1977
Oct. 25, 1977
12 in. composite
11 in. composite
L-29
M-34
L-31
0-32
0-28
Q-36
N-29
L-33
0-26
N-25
M-28
Kepone Lagoon Sludge - 3
Kepone Lagoon Sludge - 2
Kepone Lagoon Sludge - 1 - Northwest corner
Sewer Pipe Slime
Pump Station Slime
Pump Station Slime
EPA Round Robin Samples
EPA Round Robin Samples
Nitrogen Park Soil - Top inch
Second inch
Third inch
Fourth inch
Fifth inch
Sixth inch
Seventh inch
Eighth inch
Ninth inch
Tenth inch
Top inch
Second inch
Fourth inch
Nitrogen Park Surface Soil
Nitrogen Park Soil - Bare Surface
Nitrogen Park Soil - Grass Surface
Nitrogen Park Surface Soil
Life Science Site Soil
James River Suspended Sediment
Life Science Site Soil
Disposal Field Soil - 2nd to 4th inches
Disposal Field Soil - Top inch
PAN Site Surface Soil
Disposal Field Soil - 6th to 7th inches
Allied Semi-Works Site Soil
Allied Soil near Gravelly Run
Allied Semi-Works Site Soil
Pump Station Slime
PAN Site Surface Soil
Soil from Field
C-3

-------
Samole No.
Date Extracted
Identification
PS12-S-9/15
PS6-S-9/15
PS5-S-9/15
PS11-S-9/15
PS8-S-9/15
PS13-S-9/15
PS2-S-9/15
PS9-S-9/15
PS7-S-9/15
Laundry Pipe Slime 9/28
Laundry Pipe Outlet 9/28
M-20 Gravelly Run at
State Highway 20
S-31 Clav
S8-9/27-V2
V6
V9
511-9/27-V2
V5
V10
512-10/3-V10
PAN-PI
P2
P3 .
P5
2-5	ft
3-3	ft
4-5	ft
5-S
5-5	ft
6-5	ft
7-S
7-5	ft
8-5	ft
9-5	ft
Tl-4 ft
Tl-5 ft
T2-4ij ft
T2-5 ft
T3-C
T3-5 ft
T4-5 ft
T5-5 ft
1-5 ft
12-4% ft
P4
Oct. 25, 1977 Pump Station Slime
July 7, 1977
Oct. 27, 1977
Nov. 29, 1977
Slir.e	l~-_r.^ry Pipe
Soil Below Laundry Pipe Outlet
Gravelly Run Sediment Core - 12 in. comp.
Bailay Bay Sediaent Cere - Clay Fraction
Soil at Main Pump Sta. - Second inch
-	Sixth inch
-	Ninth inch
£ril zz '-.'astern Pump Sta. - Second inch
|	- Fifth inch
|	- Tenth inch
PAN Subsurface Soil - 10	inches
Earth from PAN Quarry
PAN Subsurface Soil - 5-foot depth
PAN Surface Soil
PAN Subsurface Soil
PAN Subsurface Soil
PAN Surface Soil
PAN Subsurface Soil
5-foot	depth
5-foot	depth
1
5-foot depth
-	4-foot depth
-	5-foot depth
-	4%-foot depth
-	5-foot depth
-	3-foot composite
-	5-foot depth
Dec. 1, 1977
- 4% foot depth
Earth from PAN Quarry
C-4

-------
Sample No.
PAN-l-S
2-S
3-S
4-S
6-S
8-S
9-S
S1-F0
F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F8
F9
F10
S3-F0
F1
F4
F10
Sl-Fl
Rerun
S3-F2

F3

F5

F6

F7

F8

F9

LF-S1

M-490

491

492

LF C2
Top 4 in.
C2
Mid 4 in.
C2
Bottom 4 in.
C3
Top 4 in.
C3
Mid 4 in.
C3
Bottom 4 in.
C5
Top 4 in.
C5
Mid 4 in.
C5
Bottom 4 in.
A 0-1% ft
6-6h ft
9-10 ft
14-15 ft
19-20 ft
Date Extracted 	Identification
Dec. 9, 1977 PAN Surface Soil
Dec. 12, 1977
Dec. 19, 1977
Nitrogen Park Soil - Surface
-	1-foot depth
-	2-foot depth
-	3-foot depth
-	4-foot depth
-	5-foot depth
-	6-foot depth
-	7-foot depth
-	8-foot depth
-	9-foot depth
-	10-foot depth
Nitrogen Park Soil - Surface
-	1-foot depth
-	4-foot depth
-	10-foot depth
-	1-foot depth
-	2-foot depth
-	3-foot depth
-	5-foot depth
-	6-foot depth
-	7-foot depth
-	8-foot depth
-	9-foot depth
Landfill Overburden
Landfill Marsh Sediment Core
top 4-in.
mid 4-in.
bottom 4-in.
top 4-in.
mid 4-in.
bottom 4-in.
top 4-in.
mid 4-in.
bottom 4-in.
PAN Subsurface Soil - Hole A
C-5

-------
Sample No.
Date Extracted
Identification
A 29-30 ft
34-35 ft
39-40 ft
49-50 ft
B 4-5 ft
9-10 ft
19-20 ft
24-25	ft
29-30 ft
j4-35 ft
C 4-5 ft
9-10 ft
14-15 ft
19-20 ft
25-26	ft
31-32 ft
34-35 ft
39-40 ft
D 4-6 ft
9-10 ft
14-15 ft
19-20 ft
24-25 ft
29-30 ft
E 2-3 ft
4-5 ft
MC CI 1/5
CI 2/5
CI 3/5
CI 4/5
CI 5/5
C6 1/4
C6 2/4
C6 3/4
C6 4/4
C9 1/5
C9 2/5
C9 3/5
C9 4/5
C9 5/5
LF CI 1/4
CI 2/4
CI 3/4
CI 4/4
C4 1/3
C4 2/3
C4 3/3
UPSM CI 1/6
CI 2/6
CI 3/6
Dec. 19, 1977 PAN Subsurface Soil - Hole A
Jan. 3, 1973 PAN Subsurface Soil - Hole 3
PAN Subsurface Soil - Hole C
PAN Subsurface Soil - Hole D
PAN Subsurface Soil - Hole E
1
Jan. 10, 1978 Moody Creek Sediment Core Section
Landfill Sediment Core Section
Jan. 12, 1978 Upper Poythress Run Marsh Sediment Core
Section
C-6

-------
Sample No.
UPRM CI 4/6
CI 5/6
CI 6/6
E 7-8 ft
13-14	ft
19-20 ft
24-25 ft
29-30 ft
F 4-5 ft
9-10 ft
14-15	ft
PAN Core 1
2
3
3
4
4
Date Extracted
Jan. 12, 1978
Identification
Upper Poythress Run Marsh Sediment Core
Section j
PAN Subsurface Soil - Hole E
6 in.
8-16 in.
0-10 in.
10-20 in.
1/2
2/2
PAN Subsurface Soil - Hole F
PAN Sediment Core
Cattail Creek at sewer
line
1-25 Bailey's K-X
J-25 3ailey's K-x
F 19-20 ft
24-25 ft
29-30 ft
34-35 ft
G 4-5 ft
9-10 ft
14-15 ft
19-20 ft
24-25 ft
29-30 ft
34-35	ft
35-40	ft Comp
H 4-5 ft
9-10 fc
14-15 ft
19-20 ft
24-25 ft
29-30 ft
34-35 ft
39-40
44-45
49-50 ft
BC CI 1/14
2/14
3/14
4/14
5/14
6/14
Jan. 17, 1978
Cattail Creek Sediment Core
Bailey Creek Marsh Sediment Core
»
<
PAN Subsurface Soil - Hole F
PAN Subsurface Soil - Hole G
PAN Subsurface Soil - Hole H
rt
Jan. 20, 1978 Bailey Creek Mouth Sediment - Top inch
-	2nd inch
-	3rd inch
-	4t'n inch
-	5th inch
-	6th inch
C-7

-------
Sample No.
Date Extracted
Identification
BC CI 7/14
8/14
9/14
10/14
11/14
12/14
13/14
14/14
A 37-39
35-37
LF C-6-1
C-6-2
C-6-3
C-7-1
C-7-2
C-7-3
C-7-4
C-8-4
C-9-1
C-9-2
C-9-3
C-9-4
C-10-1
C-10-2
C-10-3
C-10-4
C-10-5
C-8-1
C-8-2
C-8-3
C-ll-1
C-ll-2
C-ll-3
C-12-1
C-12-2
C-12-3
C-12-4
C-13-1
C-13-2
C-13-3
C-13-4
C-13-5
C-13-6
C-14-1
C-14-2
C-14-3
C-14-4
C-15-1
C-15-2
Jan. 20, 1978
Jan. 30, 1978
Bailey Creek Mouth Sediment - 7th inch
-	8th inch
-	9th inch
-	10th inch
-	11th inch
-	12th inch
-	13th inch
-	14th inch
PAN Subsurface Soil - Hole A
Landfill Sediment Core Section
Jan. 31, 1978

C-8

-------
Sample No.
LC C-15-3
C-15-4
C-16-1
C-16-2
C-16-3
E 10-11 SPT
16-17 SPT
M-l
2
3
4
5
LF C-8-1
C-8-2
C-8-3
LF AG-1 F-l
F-2
F-3
F-4
F-5
F-6
F-7
F-8
F-9
F-10
LF AG-2 F-4
F-6
F-7*s
F-9
F-9h
F-10
PAN AG-1 F-6
F-7
M-6
7
8
9
PAN AG-2 F-4
F-6
F-6h
F-7
F-8
F-10
PAN AG-3 F-2
F-5
F-6
F-64
Date Extracted
Feb. 1, 1978
Identification
Landfill Sediment Core Section
PAN Subsurface Soil - Hole E
I
Landfill Marsh 4-inch Sediment Grab
Feb. 8, 1978
Feb. 21, 1978
Landfill Marsh Sediment Core Section
Landfill Marsh Sediment 1-ft depth
2-ft	depth
3-ft	depth
4-ft	depth
5-ft	depth
6-ft	depth
7-ft	depth
8-ft	depth
9-ft	depth
10-ft depth
4-ft depth
6-ft depth
74-ft depth
9-ft	depth
94-ft depth
10-ft	depth
6	ft depth
7	ft depth
PAN Subsurface Soil -
Feb. 22, 1978
Landfill Marsh 4-inch Sediment Grab
PAN Reservoir Sediment Section
C-9

-------
Sample No.
Dace Extracted
Identification
PAN AG-3^3 F-6Js
Feb. 22, 1978
PAN Reservoir Sediment Section
F-7
F-8
F-9
PAN AG-3 F-2*5
PAN AG-4 F-l
F-3
F-4
F-5
F-6
F-7
F-8
F-9	Feb. 23, 1978
PAN Core 5A 8 in.	PAN Sediment Core
S-20	Life Science Neighborhood Soil
21
22
23
24
25
26
27-
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
24-25 SPT
29-30 SPT
34-35 SPT
39-40 SPT
44-45 SPT
49-50 SPT
B 4-5 SPT	PAN Subsurface Soil - Hole B
9-10 SPT
19-20 SPT
24-25 SPT
29-30 SPT
34-35 SPT
A 6-6*5 SPT
19-20 SPT
Feb. 24, 1978
(HCP Analysis)
PAN Subsurface Soil - Hole A
C-10

-------
Sample No.
G 4-5 SPT
9-10 SPT
14-15 SPT
19-20 SPT
24-25 SPT
29-30 SPT
34-35	SPT
35-40	Comp
H 4-5 SPT
9-10 SPT
14-15 SPT
19-20 SPT
24-25 SPT
29-30 SPT
34-35 SPT
39-40 SPT
44-45 SPT
49-50 SPT
PAN Core 5B 7.25 in.
5C 7 in.
6A 7.75 in.
6B 7.5 in.
6C 7.25 in.
7A 8 in.
7B 7 in.
7C 7 in.
Grit
Bailey Bay Beach
A 32-34
PAN AG-1 F-l
F-4
MC C-8
Top
6
in.
C-7
Top
6
in.
C-5
Top
6
in.
C-4
Top
6
in.
C-3
Top
6
in.
C-2
Top
6
in.
Date Extracted 	Identification
Feb. 24, 1978 PAN Subsurface Soil - Hole G
(HCP Analysis)
Feb. 27, 1978
(HCP Analysis) PAN Subsurface Soil - Hole H
Feb. 27, 1978 PAN Sediment Core
March 14, 1978 Solids from STP Grit Chamber
Wood Chips from Bailey Bay Beach
PAN Subsurface Soil - Hole A
|	- 1-ft depth
4-	- 4-ft depth
Moody's Creek Sediment Core
C-ll

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLES EXTRACTED WITH PETROLEUM ETHER:ETHYL ETHER (1:1)
Samole No.
C-l-2
P-13 Soil
W-ll Soil
0-19-3
M-20
N-18
0-19-1
J-18
N-16
H-12
0-19-2
N-19
F-20-KM
X-26
R-21
H-24 Bail KM
>7-16
0-19-3
P-13-Soil
Special 3
L-27-K 0-12 in.
M-26-X 0-12 in.
J-27-K 0-12 in.
G-23 Bail 0-12 in.
Marsh Below Landfill
3-2 in. core
Marsh Below Landfill
A
Marsh Below Landfill
C
1-25	0-12 in.
JR9 0-3 in. sand
JR9 3-6 in. sand
JR9 6-9 in. sand
JR9 9-12 in. sand
9-12 in. silt
JR9
JR4 0-3 in. sand
JR4
JR4
3-6 in. sand
6-9 in. sand
JR4 9-12 in. sand
JR4 0-3 in. silt
JR4 3-6 in. silt
JR4 6-9 in. silt
JR4 9-12 in. silt
JR4 3-6 in. clay
JR4 6-9 in. clay
JR4 9-12 in. clay
JR-9 0-3 in. silt
JR-9 3-6 in. silt
JR-9 6-9 in. silt
Date Extracted
July 19, 1977
Identification
Bailey Bay-Sediment Core 2 in. depth
Hcoevell Surface Soil
July 20, 1977
July 21, 1977
July. 26, 1977
Bailey Creek. Sediment Core
Hopewell Surface Soil
Hopewell Surface Soil
Bailey Creek Sediment Core
Hopewell Surface Soil
Bailey Bay Sediment Core 12-in. Composite
3ailey Bay Sediment Core 12-in. Composite
Bailey Creek Sediment Core 12-in. Composite
Bailey Creek Sediment Core 12-in. Composite
Landfill Marsh Sediment
July 29, 1977
Bailey Creek Sediment Core 12-in. Composite
James River Bottom Sediment-Sand Fraction
-Silt Fraction
-Sand Fraction
August 3, 1977
-Silt Fraction
-Clay Fraction
-r
-Silt Fraction
1
C-12

-------
Sample No.
Date Extracted
Identification
180	JR4-2-F
181	JR-3-S
182	JR9-S740
183	JR1-1-S
184	JR10-N1030
185	JR1-3-S
186	JR7-N0945
187	JR1-3-E
188	JR1-1-E
JR8-C1600
190	JR9-NO-0800
191	JR1-3-F
192	JR7-N-1320
193	JR9-S-1140
194	JR4-3-S
195	JR8-1255
196	JR10-N730
197	JR4-1-F
198	JR2-2-E
199	JR4-2-S
200	JR10-C1020
L-27-K 0-12 in.
156	JR4-3-F
157	JR10-N132
158	JR8-C0900
159	JR7-S0900
160	JR10-S1240
161	JR10-C1310
162	JR9-C1102
163	JR4-3-E
164	JR7-C0920
165	JR10-S645
166	JR10-C0705
167	JR9-N1200
168	JR7-C-1620
169	JR7-S-1235
170	JR8-N1245
171	JR10-S-930
172	JR7-C1250
173	JR7-S1600
174	JR8 N0930
175	JR9-C1360
176	JR3-2-E
177	JR9-C655
203 BC1-1300
201	JR2-3
202	BC-1700
178	JR9-N1420
179	JR1-2-S
JR-4 0-3 in. clay
August 3, 1977 James River Suspended Sediment
August 5, 1977 Bailey Bay Sediment Core 12 in. Composite
James River Suspended Sediment
August 9, 1977
Bailey Creek Suspended Sediment
James River
Bailey Creek
James River
I
James River Bottom Sediment-Clav Fraction
C-13

-------
SamDle No.
Dace Extracted
Identification
JR-4 6-9 in. clay	August 9, 1977
JR9 0-3 in. clay
JR9 3-6 in. clay
JR3-3-E	August 9, 1977
JR2-3-S
JR3-3-F
JR4-1-S
JR2-1-F
JR2-1-S
JR7-N1640
JR2-3-E
JR2-2-S
•JR2-2-F
JR8-5-1530
JR3-2-S
JR4-2-E
JR9-S1406
JR3-1-5
0-23 0-12 in.	Aug. 18, 1977
M-31 Sand (cent)
JR1-2-E
JR1-1-F Kepone
JR3-2-F
JR2-1-E
JR3-1-F
JR4-1-E Kepone
BC1-1030
JR3-1-E
JR1-2-F
H-24-R&L 0-12 in.
G-21 0-12 in.
H-17 0-12 in. Cattail Cr
above power line
F-19 R&L 0-12 in.
0-19 drainage ditch above
Allied
F-20-R&L 0-12 in.
P-21 L,M,R Drainage 0-12 in.
N-31 silt (cent)	Aug. 22, 1977
Q-17 soil	Aug. 30, 1977
G-29 soil
N-31 clay (cent)
JR-2 Station 1 12 in.	Sept. 22, 1977
JR-8 1100 So. 12 in.
JR-9 Vert 5 in. core
JR-8 Center
JR-2 Station 3 4 in. core
JR-2 Station 2 12 in. core
JR-4 Station 1 10 in. core
JR-7 Center Ponar
JR-9 Core Center 0840
JR-4 Station 3 12 in. core
James River Bottom Sediment - Clay Fraction
Suspended Sediment
f
Bailey 3av Sediment Core 12-inch
Bailey 3ay Sediment Core - Sand Fraction
James River Suspended Sediment
r
Bailey Creek
James River
i
Bailey Creek Sediment Core
Cattail Creek
Bailey Creek
T
Poythress Run
Bailey Creek
Poythress Run
Bailey Sediment Core - Silt Fraction
Hopewell Surface Soil
Hopewell Surface Soil
Bailey Creek Sediment Core - Clay Fraction
James River Bottom Sediment
-14

-------
Sample No.
Date Extracted
Identif ication
JR-1 Station 2 12 in. core Sept. 22, 1977 James River Bottom Sediment
JR-10 1320 12 in. core
JR-10 So. City Pt.
JR-3 Station 1 12 in. core
JR-3 Station 3 5 in. core
JR-7 1130 So. 12 in. core
JR-7 Center 1030 1 in. core
JR-7 N1340 10 in.
JR-1(?) Station 3 12 in. core
JR-9 Center Ponar 1300
JR-1 Station 1 12 in.
JR-4 Station 3 12 in.
JR-10 Center 12 in.
JR-9 North 1200 12 in.
JR-3 Station 2 12 in.
JR-9 1130 South 12 in.
JR-7 SHOO Deep 12 in.
JR-8 No 1230 12 in.
EPA-RTP Samples 1-12
S9-9/27-V1
SO-9/27-V2
S9-9/27-V3
510-9/27
57-9./2?
Havens 2
SLL-9/27-V1
58-9/27	V5
S8-9/27-V1
S8-9/27-V10
S8-9/27-V7
S8/9/27-V4
S8-9/27-V8
S8-9/27-V3
511-9/27-V2
S11-9/27-V5
511-9/27-V10
512-10/3/V10
S8-9/27-V2
S8-9/27-V9
S8-9/27-V6
Oct. 5, 1977
Oct. 13, 1977
Oct. 25, 1977
EPA Round Robin Samples
Soil at Appomattox Pump St. Top Inch
Second Inch
Third Inch
Surface Soil at Sussex Drive ?.S.
Surface Soil at Dupont School
STP Digester Sludge
Surface Soil at Western P.S.
Soil at Main PUrap St. Fifth Inch
Top Inch
Tenth Inch
Seventh Inch
Fourth Inch
Eighth Inch
Third Inch
Second Inch
FifLh Inch
Tenth Inch
10 inches
Second inch
Ninth Inch
Sixth Inch
Oct. 27, 1977 Soil at Wastern P.S.
PAN Subsurface Soil
Soil at Main Pump St.
C-15

-------
LABORATORY SAMPLES EXTRACTED WITH TOLUENE:ETHYL ACETATE (1:3)
Sample No.
B-73 Mg Car
B-72
B-70
B-71
B-95
C-97
C-lll
B-135
B-133
B-134
B-137
B-136
LFA-285
GA-286
LF3-2S3
LF4-284
278 100% CIO2
277 50% C102
BF-296
279-biank
B-328
B-329
B-330
B-331
LF-1-281
ND-322
ALF-321
ALF-305
MS-324
MS-323
LF2-282
LF1-292
LF4-295
B-334
3-332
ND-322
B-393
B-333
A-399
B-392
Date Extracted
July 7, 1977
July 19, 1977
July 26, 1977
Identification
August 30, 1977
Oct. 5, 1977
Oct. 11, 1977
Oct. 13, 1977
2 week sediment beaker tests with magnetic carbon
2 week sediment beaker tests with XAD-4 Resin
2 week sediment beaker tests with 863 Resin
2	week sediment beaker tests with XAD2 Resin
Sediment sample from 2 week Seaker:Activated Carbon
Sediment extracted with caustic
pH adjusted sediments
4 week sediment beaker test with XAD2 Resin
4 week sediment beaker test with XAD4 Resin
4 week sediment beaker test with activated carbon
4 week sediment beaker test with magnetic carbon
4 week sediment beaker test with 863 Resin
Algae grown in landfarm If2 on contaminated sediment
Sediment exposed to 155 megarads of y radiation
Soil from landfarm If 3 (tilled)
Soil from landfarm If4 (untilled)
Sediments contacted with 100% CIO2, exposed to sun
69 hr
Sediments contacted with 50% C102> exposed to sun
69 hr
3	week sediment beaker test with activated carbon
Sediments contacted with no C102, expcpsed to sun
69 hr
8 week sediment beaker test with XAD2 Resin
8 week sediment beaker test with 863 Resin
8 week sediment beaker test with XAD4 Resin
8 week sediment beaker test with magnetic carbon
Soil from landfarm If 1
Final sediment natural dissolution experiment
UV blank sediment for amine test
Ethylenediamine landfarm sediment
Run 2 Na2C03 inlet carbon If2 molten salt
Run 2 Na2C03 inlet carbon If 1 molten salt
Soil from landfarm If2 (1 in. watershed)
Carbon trap from landfarm If 1
Resin trap (XAD4) from landfarm f?4
12 week sediment beaker test with XAD4 Resin
12 week sediment beaker test with XAD2 Resin
Final sediment natural dissolution experiment
8 week beaker test blank
12 week beaker test with 863 Resin
12 week beaker test sediment from activated carbon
beaker
12 week beaker test blank
C-16

-------
Sample No. Date Extracted 	Identification
C-434	Oct. 27, 1977 863 static column test 4th 1/2 inch
B-441	12 week beaker test solids (wet) magnetic carbon
B-438	4 week beaker test M863
B-439	4 week beaker test blank for M863
C-431	863 static column tests 1st 1/2 in.
C-432	863 static column tests 2nd 1/2 in.
C-433	863 static column tests 3rd 1/2 in.
B-440	12 week beaker test solids (dried) magnetic carbon
M-442	12 week beaker tests magnetic carbon sample
A-398	12 week beaker test activated carbon
LF2-293	Carbon from landfarm //2
LF3-294	XAD4 resin from landfarm //3
A	^1 megarad of y radiation on a sediment sample
3	M.0 megarad of y radiation on a sediment sample
C	^55 megarad of y radiation on a sediment sample
S-470	Dec. 1, 1977	Test butyl amine landfarm solids
S-471	Test butyl amine landfarm solids blank
S-472	Solids from the 2nd natural dissolution test
B-473	8 week beaker test with M863 blank
B-474	8 week beaker test with M863 blank
C-17

-------
LABORATORY SAMPLES EXTRACTED WITH PETROLEUM ETHER:ETHYLETIIER (1:1)
Sample Ho.
First Harvest
Barley
6-20-1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
6-20-15
16
17
18
19
20
Second Harvest
Barley
7-7-1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Date Extracted
Identification
July 26, 1372 Plane Uptake Tests, First Growth Pattern
July 27, 1977
July 27, 1977
July 27, 1977
July 29, 1977
Second Growth
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
C-18

-------
Samole No. Date Extracted
Identification
MS-151	Aug. 18, 1977 Activated carbon from molten salt extraction, 2nd
stage, Run 1
MS-150	Activated carbon from molten salt extraction, 1st
stage, Run 1
MS-215	Activated carbon from molten salt extraction, 2nd
stage, Run 3
MS-155	Molten salt input for Run 1
MS-215	Activated carbon £rom molten salt extraction, 1st
stage, Run 3
LF-238	Aug. 22, 1977 Final sediment of plowed landfarm
LF-239	Final sediment of unplowed landfarm
C-234	Static column test blank top 1 in.
C-235	Static column test blank 2nd inch
C-225	Static column test (XAD4 Resin) 1st 1/2 in.
C-226	Static column test (XAD4 Resin) 2nd 1/2 in.
C-19

-------
APPENDIX D
LIST OF SPECIES IN THE TIDAL JAMES RIVER

-------
LIST OF INVERTEBRATES AND FISHES OF THE TIDAL JAMES RIVER
(Nichols and Norton, 1969; U.S. AEC, 1974; Wass, 1972;
White et al., 1972; Larsen, 1974; VIMS, 1975)
PROTOZOA
Sarcodina
Ammoastuta salsa
Ammobaculites crassus
Ammobaculices crassus var. A.
Ammobaculites exigruus
Ammobaculites sp.
Ammonia beccarii var A.
Ammonia beccarii tepida
Arenoparella mexicana
Elphidium clavacum
Elphidium incertum
Haploohragmoides hancocki
Haplophragmoides manilaensis
Miliammina earlandi
Miliacmina fusca
Minchinia nelsonl
Reophax nana
Tlphotrocna comprimata
Trocnanmiaa looaca
Trochammina aacrasceno
Trochammina souasaata
COELENTERATA
Hydrozoa
Aselomaris aichaeli
Blackfordia virainica
Bougainvillia rugosa
Campanulina sp.
Clytia cvlindrica
Clytia edwardsi
Clytia hemisphaerica
Clytia kincaidi
Clytia oaulensis
Cordylophora casoia
Dynamena cornicina
Eucheiloca vencricularis
Ectooleura aumortiari
Eudendrium album
Eudendrium carneum
Eudendr ium ramosum
Garveia cerulea
Garveia franciscana
Gonothvraea lovenl
Halocordvle distlcha
Hartlaubella geiatinosa
Hydra sp.
Hydractinia echinata
Lovenella gracilis
Moerlsia lyonsi
Nemoosis bachei
Obeiia bicuspidata
Obelia commissuralis
Opercularella oumila
Pennaria tiarella
Proboscidactvla ornaca
Sertularia argentia
Turritopsis nutricula
Scyphozoa
Aurelia aurita
Boroe ovata
Chrysaora cuinquacirrha
Cyanea capillata
Mnemioosis leidve
Rhopilema sp.
Anthozoa
Astrangia danae
Diaaumene leucoler.a
Edvardsia elesans
PLATYHELMINTHES
Turbellaria
Coronadena autabilis
Euolana gracilis
Hydrolimax grisaa
Stylochus ellipcicus
RHYNCHOCOELA (=Nemertina)
Anopla
Cerebratulus spp.
Tubulanus pellucidus
Enopla
Amphlporus bioculatus
Tetrascenuna elegans
Tetrastemma j eani
Zygonemertes virescens
D-l

-------
XOTIFERA
3RYOZOA
Cteaoscooata
Aeverrillia armata
Amathla vidovici
Anguinella palaata
Bowerbankia gracilis
Victorella oavida
Cheilostomaca
Eleccra crustulenta
Meabranipora tenuis
ENTOPROCTA
Pedlcelllna eemua
PHORONIDA
Phoronis architecta
ANNELIDA
Polychaeta
Ancistrosvllis jonesi
Aridicea vassi
3occardia hanata
Caraconereis irritabilis
Cirracuius grandis
Clymenella torouata
Drilonereis filua
Enoplobranchus sanguineus
Eteone hecaroooda
Eumlda sanguinea
Fabricia sabella
Glycera dibranchiata
Glycera americana
Glyeinde solicaria
Gypeis vittata
Heteromastus tiliforals
Hydroides dianchus
Laeonereis cuiveri
Lysipoides gravi
Melinna maculata
Nereiohvlla fragills
Nereis succinea
Palaeonotus heteroseta
Parahesione luteola
Paraprionosoio pinnaca
Pectinaria gouldii
D-2
Polychaeta (continued)
Polvdora llgr.i
Polydora so.
Polydora vebsteri
Pseudeurvchoe so.
Sabella aicrophchal.T.a
Sabellarla vulgaris
Scolecolepides viridis
Scoloolos fragilis
Spiochaetootarus oculatus
Streblosoio benedicci
Svllida sp.
Tharyx setigera
Oligochaeca
Aulodrilus pjgueci
3ranchiura sowerbyi
Vero digitata
Ilyodrilus ceaolaconi
Llanodrilus cervix
Lianodrilus hof fr.eis:ari
Limnodrilus sop.
Limnodrilus udakaaianus
Nais spp.
Peloscolex gabriallae .
Peloscolex heeerochaecus
Peloscolex multisatosus
Stylaria lacustris
Hirudinea
Helobdella elor.gata
Illlnobdella rr.oorei
MOLLUSCA
Gastropoda
Acanthodoris oilosa
Acteocina canaliculaca
Anacnis avara
Anachis translirata
Cerithiopsis sraeni
Cratena oilata
Crepicula convexa
Crepidula forr.icaca
Doridella obscura
Epitoniun runicolu:?.
EuoLaura caudata
Ferrissia sp.
Hvdrobia sp.
Littorina irroraca
Mangalia alicosa
Melamous bidencatus
Melanella ir.ceraeaia
Mitrella lunata

-------
Gastropoda (Continued)
Nassarius obsoletus
Nassarius vibex
Odostomia bisuturalis
Odostomia dux
Odostomia impressa
Pyratnidella fusca
Retusa canaliculata
Rlctaxis punctostriatus
Skeneoosis planorbis
Triphora nigrocincta
Urosalpinx cinerea
Valvata sp.
Pelecypoda
Anadara ovalis
Anadara transvera
Anomia simplex
Brachidontes recums
Congeria leucophaeta
Corbicula manllensis
Crassostrea virginica
Ensis directus
Epitonium rupicolum
Eupleura caudata
Lyonsia hvalina
Macoma baltnica
Macoma aicchilli
Macoma phenax
Mercenaria aercenaria
Montacuca elevaca
Mulinia lateralis
Mya arenaria
Nucula oroxisa
?olymesoda carolinlana
Rangia cuneata
Sphaerium transversum
Tellina aai-is
Volsella deaissa
Yoldia liaacula
ARXHROPODA
Crustacea
Calanoida
Acartia clausii
Acartia sp.
Acartia tonsa
Centropages hamatus
Diaptomus reignarai
Euryteaora affinli
Calanoida (Continued)
Paracalanus parvus
Pseudodiaptomus coronatus
Harpactiocoida
Ectinosoma curticorne
Ectinosoma sp.
Cyclopoida
Cyclops sp.
Cyclops vemalis
Ergasilus labricis
EucycIops sp.
Oithona similis
Isopoda
Cassidlnidea lunifrons
Chiridotea almvra
Cyathura burbancki
Cyathura polita
Edotea triloba
Lironeca ovalis
Amp hip o da
Ampelisca abdita
Ampelisca vadorum
Ampithoe longimana
Caprella penancis
Corophium acherusicua
Corophium lacustre
Corophiun tuberculatum
Cymadusa coapca
Elasmopus levis
Gammarus daiberi
Gammarus fasciatus
Gamroarus aucronacus
Lepidactylus dvtiscus
Leptocneirus plumulosus
Listrialla clvmenellae
Melita nitida
Monoculodes edwardsi
Paracaprella tenuis
Paraphoxus esistomus
Pleusyates glaber
Stenothoe ainuta
Sympleusces glaber
Unicola irrorata
D-3

-------
Cladocera
Dipcera
Bosmina coregoni
Bosmina longiroscris
Bosmina sp.
Careodaphnia sp.
Diaohanosorna branchvurum
Daphnia parvula
Daohnla sp.
Lepcodora kindtil
Podon sp.
Polyphemus pediculus
Cirripedia
Balanus ebumeus
Balanus improvisus
Chthamalas fragilis
Mysidacea
Neomysis americana
Cuaacea
Cyclaspis varians
Diastylls sp.
Leucon americanus
Oxyuroscylis saichi
Decapoda
Callinectes saoidus
Crangon saptemspinosa
Eurvpanopeus deprassus
Hlppolvte aleuracancha
Macrobrachium ohione
Neopanooe savi
Neopanope taxana
Ogyrides linicola
Palaemonetes pugio
Palaemonetes vulgaris
Panopeus herbscii
Penaeus duorarum
Penaeus seciferas
p-tnnocheres oscreua
Rhithrooanopeus harrisii
Uca ainax
Upogebia a£finis
INSECTA
Ephemeropcera
Hexagenia alngo
Ablabesmvia sp.
Chaoborus ounctipennis
Chironomus riaarius
Cladotanvtarsus sp.
Coelocanypus scaouiaris
Crupcochironomus fulvus
Dicrocendipes nervosus
Pelopia stellata
Polypedilum sp.
Procladium bellus
SmlCtia sp.
Scenochironomus caeniapennis
Scictochironomus devinccus
Tanytarsus sp.
Odonaca
Trichopcera
Arachnida
water aita
Pycnogonida
Anoolodactylus pvgmaeus
Phoronida
Phoronis architacta
Phoror.is osatnmophila
ECHINODEHMATA
Ophiuroidaa
Amphiodia acra
HEMI CHORDATA
CHORD ATA
Ascidiacea
Molgula mannattansis
Osteichthyes
Acipenseridae
Acipenser oxvrhvnchus
(Atlantic sturgeon)
Amblyopsidae
Choloqaster cornuta
(swampfish)
D-4

-------
Amiidae
Amia calva (bowfin)
Anguillidae
Anguilla rostrata
(American eel)
Atherinidae
Membras martinica
(rough silverside)
Menidia bervllina
(tidewater or glassy
silverside)
Menidia menidia (Atlantic
silverside)
Menidia sp.
(silversides)
Aphredoderidae
Aphredoderus savanus
(pirate perch)
Batrachnoididae
Opsanus tau (oyster
toadfish)
Belonidae
Strongylura marina
(Atlantic needlefish)
Blennidae
Chasmodes bosouianus
(striped blenny)
Hvpsoblennius hent2i
(feather blenny)
Bothidae
Paralichthvs dar.tatus
(summer flounder)
Scophthalmus aouosus
(windowpane flounder)
Carangidae
Caranx hippos
(crevalle jack)
Centrarchidae
Lepomis auritus
(redbreast sunfish)
Leoomis gibbosus
(pumpkinseed)
Lepomis macrochirus
(bluegill)
Lepomis sp- (sunfish)
Micropterus dolomieui
(smallmouth bass)
Micropterus salmoides
(largemouth bass)
Pomoxis sp. (crappie)
Pomoxis nigromaculacus
(black crappie)
Clupeidae
Alosa aestivalis
(blueback herring)
Alosa oseudoharengus
(alewife)
Alosa mediocris
(hickory shad)
Alosa sapidissima
(American shad)
Brevoortia tvrannus
(Atlantic.menhaden)
Doroscma cepediar.um
(gizzard shad)
Pomolobus aestivalis
(glut herring)
Doroscma per.cenense
(threadfin shad)
D-5

-------
Cyprinidae
Clinostomus funduloiaes
(rosyside dace)
Cyprinus caroio (carp)
Exoglossum maxillingua
(cuclips minnow)
Hvbognathus sp. (minnow)
Hybognathus nuchalis
(silvery minnow)
Notemigonus crysoleucas
(golden shiner)
Notroois bifrenatus
(bridle shiner)
Notroois hudsonius
(spoCtail shiner)
Notroois comutus
(common shiner)
Rhinichthvs atratulus
(Eastern blacknose dace)
Rhinichthvs cataractae
(longnose dace)
Cyprinodoncidae
Cvorinodon varieaatus
(sheepshead minnow)
Fundulus luciae (spotfin
killifish)
Fundulua diaohanus
(banded killifish)
Fundulus heteroclitus
(muamichog)
Fundulus maialis
(striped killifish)
Engraulidae
Anchoa mitchilli
(bay anchovy)
Esocidae
Esox americanus
(grass pickerel)
Gasterosteidae
Gasterosteus aculaatus
(three-spined stickle-
back)
Gobiidae
Gobiosoma bosci
(naked goby)
Gobiosoma ginsburgi
(seaboard goby)
Microgobius thalassinus
(clown goby)
Gadidae
Uroohycis regies
(spotted hake)
Gobiesocidae
Gobiescx strunosus
(skilletfish)
Ictaluridae
Ictalurus C3Cus
(white catfish)
Ictalurus r.elas
(black bullhead)
Ictalurus r.atalls
(yellow bullhead)
Ictalurus nebulasus
(brown bullhead)
Ictalurus punctatus
(channel catfish)
Noturus gyrinus
(tadpole madtom)
Noturus insignis
(margined madtorn)
Lepisosteidae
Leoisosceus ossaus
(longnose gar)
Mugilidae
Hugil curama
(white mullet)
Percidae
Stheostoma fusiforme
(swamp darter)
Etheostoma nigrum
(Johnny carter)
Etheostoma olmscedi
(tessellated darter)
Etheostoma serrifarum
(sawcheek darter)
Etheostoma sp. (darter)
Perca flavescens
(yellow perch)
Percina notogramma
(stripeback darter)
D-6

-------
Percidae (Continued)
Triglidae
Percina peltata
(shield darter)
Prionocus carolinus
(Northern searooin)
Stizostedion vitreum vitreum
Lampetra aepyptera
(least brook lamprey)
Petromyzon marinus
(sea lamprey)
Poeciliidae
Gambusia affinis
(mosquitefish)
Pooatomidae
Pomatomus saltatrix
(bluerish)
Sciaenidae
Bairdiella chrysura
(silver perch)
Cynoscion recalls
(weakfish)
Leiostomus xanthurus
(spot)
Mlcrooogon unaulatus
(Atlantic croaker)
Serranidae
Morone americana
(white perch)
Morone saxatilis
(striped bass)
Soleidae
Trinectes maculatus
(hogchoker)
Stromateidae
Peprilus aleaidotus
(Southern harvestfish)
Peprilus triacanthus
(butterfisn)
Syngnathidae
Syngnathus Euscus
(walleye)
Petromyzontidae
Umbridae
Umbra pygmaea
(Eastern mudminnow)
(Northern pipefish)
D-7

-------
BIRDS AND MAMMALS
Common* Bird Species Found
on the James River Vetlands
The following lists only those bird species which are commonly
found in the wetlands along the Janes River. Many additional species of
birds may occur in these wetlands in limited numbers or may erratically
stop over in the marshes c.r swamps during migration. Species lists are
available for Hog Island (Vepco, 1973) and Sresquile National Wildlife
Refuge (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1971), but a more comprehensive
list of 223 species likely to occur in the open water or wetlands of the
Lower Chesapeake Bay (Wass et al., 1972) includes all of the bird species
likely to- be found along the James River.
Common Name**
Hooded Merganser
Common Merganser
Red-breasted Merganser
Marsh Hawk
Osprey
Clapper Rail
Sora
American Coot
Killdeer
Common Snipe
Spotted Sandpiper
Solitary Sandpiper
Greater Yellowlegs
Lesser Yellowlegs
Scientific Name**
Loohodvtes cucullatus
Mergus
merganser
Mereus
serrator
Circus
cvaneus
Pandion haliaecus
Rallus loneirostris
Por2ana Carolina
Fulica americana
Charadrius vocifarus
Canella gallinaso
Actitis macularia
Tringa solitaria
Trinza melanoleucus
Tringa flaviises
~Abundance determined from: USDI (1971); Vepco (1973); 3vscruk (1973
a, b; 1974 a, b; 1975 a, b; 1976 a, b).
~~Nomenclature follows the fifth AOU check-list (Wetmorej1957) and
the thirty-second supplement (Zisenmann^1973).
D-a

-------
Common Name
Scientific Name
Dunlin
Calidris aloina
Seaipalmated Sandpiper
Calidris pussillus
Herring Gull
Larus argentatus
Ring-billed Gull
Larus delawarensis
Laughing Gull
Larus atricilla
Bonaparte's Gull
Larus Philadelphia
Greac Black-backed Gull
Larus marinus
Forester'.s Tern
Sterna forsteri
Royal Tern
Thalasseus maximus
Barred Owl
Strix varia
Ruby-throated Hummingbird
Archilochus colubris
Belted Kingfisher
Me«acervle alcvon
Fileated Woodpecker
Drvocopus pileacus
Eastern Phoebe
Savornis phoebe
Acadian Flycatcher
Emoidonax virescens
Homed Grebe
Podiceps auricus
Pied-billed Grebe
Podilvtnbus podiceps
Great Blue Heron
Ardea herodias
Green Heron
3utorides virescer.s
Little 31ue Heron
Florida caeruiea
Great Egret
Casmerodius albus
Snowy Egret
Esretta chula
Black-crowned Night Heron
Nvcticorax nvcticorax
American Bittern
Botaurus lentiainosus
Canada Goose
Branta canadensis
Snow Goose
Chen caerulescens
Mallard
Anas platvrhvnchos
Black Duck
Anas rubripes
Gadwall
Anas strepera
Pintail
Anas acuta
Green-winged Teal
Anas crecca
Blue-winged Teal
Anas discors
American Wigeon
Anas americana
Northern Shoveler
Anas clypeata
Wood Duck
Aix sponsa
D-9

-------
Common Name
Scientific Name
Redhead
Aythva americana
Ring-necked Duck
Avthva collaris
Canvasback
Avthva valisineria
Lesser Scaup
Avthva affinis
Common Goldeneye
Buceohala claneula
Bufflehead
Buceohala albeola
Oldsquaw
Claneula hvemalis
Ruddy Duck
Oxyura lamaicensis
Fish Crow
Corvus ossifraeus
Winter Wren
Troalodvtes troelcavtas
Long-billed Marsh Wren
Telmatodvtes Tjaluscris
Gray Catbird
Duraetella carclin.ensis
Blue-gray Gaatcatcher
PoliouCilla caemlea
White-eyed Vireo
Vireo zriseus
Black-and-white Warbler
Mniotilia varia
Prothonotary Warbler
Protonotaria citrea
Northern Farula Warbler
Parula americar.a
Yellow-romped Warbler
Dendroica coronata
Yellow-throated Warbler
Dendroica dcminica
Prairie Warbler
Dendroica discolor
Louisiana Waterthrush
Seiurus mctacilla
Kentucky Warbler
Oooromis fomosus
Common Yellowthroat
Geothvl-sis trichas
Hooded Warbler
Wilsonia citrina
American Redstart
SetoTjhaza ruticilla
Boblink
Delichonvx orvzivorus
Red-winged Blackbird
Aeelaius ohoeniceus
Rusty Blackbird
EuiDhaeus carolinus
American Goldfinch
Spinus tristis
Swamp Sparrow
Melos'oisa »eor2iana
D-10

-------
Mammals Which May Occur on the Jame3 River Ecosystem
Based on Their Ranges*
Common Name
Opossum
Southeastern shrew
Least shrew
Short-tailed shrew
Starnose mole
Raccoon
Longtail weasel
Mink
Otter
Striped skunk
Red fox
Gray fox
3obeat
Gray squirrel
Southern flying squirrel
Beaver
Eastern harvest aouse
Rice rat
Meadow vole
Muskrat
Eastern cottontail
White-tailed deer
*Source: Burt and Grosse
Scientific Name
Didelphis virginiana
Sorex longirostris
Cryptotis parva
Blarina brevicauda
Condylura criatata
Procyon lotor
Mustela frenata
Mustela vison
Lontra canadensis
Mephitis mephitis
Vulpes vulpes
Urocyon cir.argoarganteus
Lynx rufus
Sciurus carolinensis
Glaucomvs volans
Castor canadensis
Reithrodontomvs hutsulis
0ry2omys salustris
Microtus pennsvlvanicjs
Ondatra zibethica
Sylvilasus floridanus
Odocoileus virginianus
(1976).
D-ll

-------
LIST OF ALGAE
(Jordan ec al., 1976; Marshall, 1967; Oct, 1973; U.S. AEC, 1974; VIMS, 1973;
Woodson, 1959, 1960)
CHLOROPHYTA (GREEN ALGAE)
Actinascrum hantzschii
Ankis trodesaus sp.
Brvoosis hvonoides
Chaetoohora elegans
Cladoohora callicoaa
C_. fascicularis
Closcerium abruptua
C. acerosutn
C. dianae
C_. gracile
C. moniliforce
C_. pritchardianum
Enteromorpha prolifera
Sremosohaera vlridis
Eudorina elegans
Kirchneriella ooesa
Micractinium pusillun
Microsoora acoena
M. willeana
Oedogonium minor
Pandorina mo run
Pediascrum duplex
P_. Integrum
Pleodorina califomica
Pyramimonas sp.
Rhizoclonium hiaroglvp'nicum
Scenedesmus ooliauus
S_. auadricauda
Splroevra denciculata
S. insignis
S_. protecta
S taurascrum gracilis
Stigeoclonium subsecundua
Tetrasnora luorica
Ulothrix cenerrima
Ulva lactuca
CYASOPHYTA (3LUEGREZN ALGAE)"*
Anacystis cvanea
Lyngbva lucea
L. semjplena
Microcoleus vaginatus
Oscillacoria lutaa
0_. retzil
Phormidiun retzil
Porphyrosiphon notarissi
Schizothrix arenaria
i.* calcicola
S>. tenerrina
Symoloca aclantica
0-12
CHRYSOPHYTA (YELLCW-GREZN ALGAE)
Achnanthes sp.
Actinocvclus sp.
Amphiorora alaca
Amphora sp.
Asterionella foraosa
A. japonica
Bacteriascrum delicatulum
Biddulahia longrieruris
B_. mobiliensis
3_. rhombus
Cerataulina bergonii (a C. pelagica,
Chaetoceros affinis
brevis
C_. decioiens
C. gracilis
C_. Peruviancs
£. sub tilis
Cocconeis scutallut:
Corechron hvs erix
Coscinodiscus spp.
G_. asterompnalus
C. excentricus
C. lacustrus
C. lineatus
_C. perforatus
Cyclotalla striata
Diatotaa hiamale
Eucamoia zoodiacus
Eunotia s?.
Grammatoohora siarir.a
Guinardia flaccida
Gyrosigaa sp.
£. balcicum
fascicola
J3,. spencerii
Leo tocylindrus danicus
LirTinphora abbreviata
Lithodesmium undulatun
Melosira sp.
M. borreri
M. jurgensii
M. subsalsa
M. sulcata
Navicula sp.
mutica
N_. tuscula
tvra
Nitzschia closteriua
N_. jcutzinciana
N. longissima
paradoxa
N. punctata

-------
(Chrysophyta, coned.)
CRYPTOPHYTA
N. pungens var. aclancica
N_. seriaca
N. 3igina
N. vermicularia
Planktoniella sol
Pleurosiana angulacum
P. delicatulum
P_. formosun
Rha-phoneis airohiceros
Rhizosolenia alaca
R. calcar avis
R. delicatula
R. fragilissima
R. minima
R. setigera
R. stolterfothii
Skeletonema coscatum
Stephanoovxis turris
Striatella sp.
Suriella sp.
Synedra sp.
Thalassioneaa nitzschioides
Thalassiosira nana
T. nordenskioldii
T_. rotula
T. subtilis
Thalassiothrix longissima
Vaucheria aversa
V. sessilis
PYRROPHYTA (DINOFLAGELLATES)
Amphidiniua sp.
Ceratium furca
G_. trioos
Dinophysis sp.
Diplosalis sp.
Ebria tripartita
Exuviaella sp.
_E. marina
Glenodinium sp.
Gonyaulax sp.
Gvmnodinium s-plendsr.s
Katodiniun rocundacun
Prorocentrum micans
_P. minimum
P. triangulatum
Chilomonas sp.
Chroomonas sp.
vectensis
Cryptomonas salina
C. stigmatica
EUGLENOPHYTA (EUGLENOIDS)
Euglena sp.
Eutre-ptia sp.
PHAEOPHYTA (BROWN ALGAE)
Punctaria latifolia
Sargassum hvstrix (adrift)
RHODOPHYTA
Batrachosperaum virgatum
Bostrychia radicans
Ceramium rub ma
*The marshes of the Atlantic
coast of northern U.S. support
an ubiquitous and rather
uniform blue-green algal
association (Ralph, 1977)
D-13

-------
LIST OF THE VASCULAR FLORA
(Massey, 1961, Loetterle, 1970, Peloquin et al., 1975, U.S. AEC, 1974, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, 1974, Wass, 1972, Radford et al., 1968)
Ophioglossaceae
Botrychium virginianun Rattlesnake fern - swamps
Osmundaceae
Osmunda cinnamomea Cinnamon fern - swamps, marshes, rare
0_. recalls var. spec cab ilis Royal fern - freshwater marsh, swamps, cornaon
Pteridaceae
Pterldiua aauillnum 3racken fern - swales, rare
Aspidiaceae
Onoclea senslbilis Sensitive fern - marshes and swamps
Polystichum acrostichoides Christmas fern
Thelyoteris noveboracensis ilew York fern - swamps
palustris Harsh fern - freshwater marshes
Blechnaceae
Woodwardia arsolata Netted chain-fern - wet woods and swamps
Pinaceae
Pinus echinata Shcrtleaf pine
taeda Loblolly pine
P. virginiana Virginia piae
Taxodiaceae
Taxodium distichum Bald cypress - Chickahcmoniny River
Cupressaceae
Juniaerus virgin!ana Red cedar - marsh islands, salt tolerant
Typhaceae
Typha angustifolia Narrow-leaved cattail - freshwater and oligohaline
T. latifolia Common cattail - brackish marshes
Sparganiaceae
Soarganium anericanum 3road-fruited bur-reed - streams and shallow ponds
Zosteraceae
Zostera marina Eelgrass - upper meso to euhaline
Potamogetonaceae
Potamogeton crispus Curly pondweed - brackish water
pulcher - muddy shores
Rupoiaceae
Ruppia maritima Widgeon grass - fresh to euhaline
Najadaceae
Najas guadaluoensis Common water nymph - coastal waters
Alisoataceae
Alisma subcordatum Water plantain - muddy shores
D-14

-------
Sagittaria falcaca Duck potatoe - swamps
graminea Grassy arrowhead - marsh edges
S_. latifolia Broad-leaved arrowhead - swamps
subulata Swl-leaved arrowhead - tidal swamps
Hydrocharitaceae
Elodea canadensis Waterweed - sluggish streams
Poaceae
Agrostis hyemalis Bent grass
Andropogon virginicus Broomsedge
Arundinaria gigancea Giant cane - swamps
Cenchrus tribuloides Thorny sandspur
Cinna arundinacea Scout woodreed - swamps
Danthonia sericea Oat grass
JD. spicata Oat grass
Digitaria sanguinalis Hairy crabgrass - tidal marshes
Distichilis snicata Saltgrass - brackish marshes
Echinoclea crusgalll Barnyard grass - margins of brackish marshes
_E. walteri Millet - edge of marshes
Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye - tidal marshes
Festuca elatior Fescue
_F. rubra Red fescue
Glyceria obtusa Blunt manna grass - marshes
striata Manna grass
Leersia oryzoides Rice cutgrass - marshes and swamps
Panicum amarulum Tall dune grass - sandy shores
P. amarum Short dune grass - sand dunes
P_. commutatum Panic grass
jP. dichotiniflorum Panic grass
P_. scoparium Panic grass
Saccioleais striata - wet soil near brackish marshes
Spartina alterniilora Saltaarsh cordgrass
cynosuroides Giant or 3ig cordgrass - brackish marshes
_S. patens Saltmeadow cordgrass, saltmeadow hay
Trisetum aensvlvanicum Three bristle - swamps
Triplasis purpurea Sand grass - dry sand
Tripsacum daccvloides Gamma grass
Uniola paniculata Sea oats
Zizania aquaelea Wild rice - marshes
Cyperaceae
Carex alaca Winged sedge - marshes and lowgrounds
albolucescens Lighc-vellow sedge - wet soil
_C. bailevi 3ailey's sedge - swamps
bromoides Oat sedge - swamps, moist woods
C. comosa Long-haired sedge - swamps
crinita Bearded sedge - lowground, swamps
decomoosita - swamps
festucacea Stalked sedge - wet woods
_C. glaucesens Sedge - wet soil and shallow water
C. howei Howe's sedge - swamps and wet thickets
D-15

-------
C. hyallnoleoia Clear-scale sedge - shores and swamps
_C. lncomperca 3og sedge - swamps
C. incumescens - wee soil
Z. laevivaginata Smooth-sheathed sedge - wet woods
(2,. lupulina Hop sedge - wee woods
C. lurida Pale sedge - swamps
_C. mitcnelllana - yet soil, swamps
C. oxyleois Sharp-scaled sedge - moist swamps
C. rosea Rosy sedge - woodlands, moist meadows
C. scooaria - dry soil, open swamps
seorsa - wet woods
_C. stipata Crowded sedge - swamps
C. typhina Cattail sedge - damp woods
.£• venus ta Charming sedge - boggy places
vulpinoidea Fox sedge - moist lowgrounds
Cladium jamaicense Saw grass - shallow water
Cyperus erythorhizos Red-root sedge - moist soil
C. esculentus Edible nutgrass - noxious weed, on dikes
C. filicinus - coastal marshes, wet sand
_C. flay esc ens Pale-yellcw sedge - ditches
C. grayi - dry sandy places
_C. lancastriensis - moist wcods
C. ovularis Oval sedge - wet soil
pseudovegetus Green sedge - wet soil
retrorsus Rerlaxed sedge - on dredged spoil
C. rotundus Round sedge - fields and waysides-
_C. strigosus Skinny sedge - common in wet areas
Dichromena colorata White-topped rush - shores and marshes
Dulichiua arundir.acaua Leafy joint sedge - swamps and shores
Eleocnaris albida White spike-rush - moist soil
_E. engelaannii - marshes
_E. fallax Spike rush - brackish marshes and shores
E. obtusa Blunt spike-rush - wet soil
_E. quadrangulata Squarestem spike rush - shallow water, river banks
El. tuberculosa - swamps
Fuirena squarrosa Perennial umbrella-grass - wet places
Rhynchosoora caoitellata Beak rush - moist lowgrounds, shores and woods
R. corniculaca Horned rush - swamps
Sclraus americanus Common.threesquare - fresh to saline marshes
S_. atrovirens Black bulrush - bogs, wet places

-------
Wolffia papullfera - surface of a till water
W. punctata - still water
Erlocaulaceae
Erlocaulon parkeri Pipewort - muddy marshes
Lachnocaulon anceps Bog buttons - bogs and wet woods
Coaanelinaceae
Aneilema keisak - saline marshes
Pontederlaceae
Heteranthera reniformis Mud plantain - mud
Pontederia cordata Pickerel-weed - shallow wateri muddy shores
Juncaceae
Juncus acumlnatus - wet soil near screams
bifIons - wet meadows
J_. bufonius Toad rush - wet situations
J_. canadensis Canada rush - swampy places
J_. coriaceus - wet open woods
J. effusus Soft-rush - meadows, wet places
elliottil - wet shores, low places
J_. dicotomus - dry or moist areas
J_. gerardi Slack grass - saline marshes
J_. griscomi - wet woods
JN platynhvllus - sandy soil
J. roemerianus 31ack needle-rush - saline marshes
J. scirpoides - moist areas, ditches
tennuia Path rush
Liliaceae
Lilium superbua Turks-cap lily - woods and waysides
Smilax bona-nox - thickets
_S. hispida Hairy greenbriar - wet woods and swamps
S_. laurifolia Big-leaf greenbriar - marsh edges
_S. rotundifolia Common greenbriar - moist thickets
_S. tamnifolia Carrion-flower - boggy places
Iridaceae
Iris prismatica Slender blue flag - lowgrounds, swamps
_I. versicolor 31ue flag - marshes, shallow pools
I_. virginica Southern blue flag - wet soils, shallow pools
Sisyrinchium angustifolium Blue-eyed grass - moist meadows
Orchidaceae
Cyprisedium acuale Pink lady's slipper - bogs
Habenaria ciliaris Yellow fringed-orchid - moist places
H. lacera Green fringed-orchid - open swamps, marshes
H. reper.s Water-spider orchid - wooded swamps
Marlaxis unifolia Green adder's mouth - meadows
Saururaceae
Saururus cernuus Lizard's tail - swamps, seepage areas
Salicaceae
Populus deltoiaes Cottonwood - stream and swamp borders
D-17

-------
Sallx nigra Black willow - shores, low grounds
Myricaceae
Myrica cerifera Wax myrtle - moist to wee soil
Juglandaceae
Carya glabra Sweet pignut hickory - moist woods
C. tomentosa Mockernut hickory - moist woods
Betulaceae
Alnus serrulaea Tag alder - stream banks, swamps
Betula nigra River birch - along streams
Caroinus caroliniana Ironvood - stream banks
cagaceae
Quercus alba ' White oak
(£. coccinea Scarlet oak
2,. falcata Southern red oak
nigra Water oak - low grounds, marsh edges
_2,. phellos Willow oak - borders of marshes
2,. rubra Red oak
stellata Post oak
virginlana Live oak - light soil along coast
Ulmaceae
Celtus occidentalis Hackberry - on dikes, marshes
Ulmus rubra Slippery elm - low woods bordering marshes
Moraceae
Moras rubra Red mulberry - alluvial woods
Urticaceae
Boehmeria crlladrica False nettle - moist soil
Pilea ounila Clearveed - moist woods
Loranthaceae
Phoradendron serotinum Mistletoe - parasitic on trees
Polygonaceae
Polygonum arifolium Halberd-leaved tearthumb - marshes
P_. densiflorun Dense-flowered smartweed - wet woods and shores
P. hydrooioeroides Water smartweed - shallow waters
P_. lapathifolium - wet thickets, shores
P_. punctatum Punctate smartweed - swamps
P_. sagictatum Arrow-leaved tearthumb - moist soil, swamps
Rumex conglomeracus - waste places
jl. crisous - waste places
R. obcusirollus Bitter dock - on dikes
Jl. verticlllacus Swamp dock - in swamps
Chenopodiaceae
Chenopodium aabrosioides Mexican tea - waste lands
D-13

-------
Sallcornia eurooaea Glasswort - salt marshes and flat3
Amaranthaceae
Amaranthus cannabinus Water hemp - salt marshes
Portulacaceae
Claytonia virginica Spring beauty - open woody areas
Caryophyllaceae
Stellarla media Common chickweed - ubiquitous weed
Ceratophyllaceae
Ceratophyllua demersum Coontail - ponds, quiet water
Cabombaceae
Brasenia schreberi Water shield - quiet waters
Ranunculaceae
Clematis virginlana Virgins bower - on dikes
Ranunculus abortivus Kidney leaf buttercup - in moist woods
R. pusillus Low spearwort - swamps
SL. sderatus Cursed crowfoot - wet soil or shallow water
R. septentrionalis Northern buttercup - moist soil near streams
Thallctrum polvgamnni Meadow rue - moist meadows and swamps
T_. revolutum - woods and thickets
Lauraceae
Lindera benzoin Spicebush - low grounds and along streams
Persea borbonia Red bay - moist woods along shores
Srassicaceae
Camellna microcansa False flax
Cardamlne bulbosa Swamp bittarcress - wet meadows
pensylvanica Bittercress - dry places
Laoidlum vlrginicum Poor-man's pepper - common weed
Rorippa icelandica Bog marsh-cress - on dikes
Haoamelidaceae
Llquidambar stvraciflua Sweet gum - low ground woods
Platanaceae
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore - low grounds, near streams
Rosaceae
Amelancnier sp. Serviceberry - stream banks
Geum canadense Avens - open woods, floodplains
Prunus americana edges of woods
Rosa palustris Swamp rose - wet thickets, near brackish marshes
Fabaceae
Aeschvnomene virginica - coastal flood-plain marshes
Apios americana Ground-nut - on dikes
Cassia fasclculata Partridge pea - light soils, marshes
nlctitans Wild sensitive plant
Centrosema Virginianum Butterfly pea - sandy banks of rivers
D-19

-------
Lesoede2a ctmeaca Sericea - on dikes
Roblnia pseudo-acacia Black locust - colonizer on dredged disposal areas
Strophoscvles helvola Dune bean - sandy beaches
umbellaca Marsh bean - fresh to brackish tidal marshes
Trifolium reoens White clover - wide spread
Polygalaceae
Polygala mariana Milkwort - moist areas
Callitrichacaae
Callltriche heteroohylla Water starwort - shallow, quiet waters
Anacardiaceae
Rhus copallina Dwarf sumac - open areas, dry soils
R. radicans Poison ivy - freshwater marshes and transitional swamps
R. vernix Poison sumac - wet swampy places
Aquifoliaceae
Ilex ooaca Holly - moist open woods
_I. virticellata Winterberry - stream margins
Staphyleaceae
Staphylea trifolia Bladdernut - moist wooded borders and thickets
Aceraceae
Acer rub'rum Bed or swamp maple - moist woods, swamps
Balsaminaceae
Imoatiens caoensis Spotted touch-me-not, jewelweed - swamps, wet soil
Rhamnaceae
Berchemia scandens Supple-jack, rattan vine - wet to swampy areas, climber
Vitaceae
Parthenocissus quinouefolia Virginia creeper - swampy areas
Vltis rotundifolia Muscadine grape - moist soil
V. cinera Pigeon grape - moist soil
V. vuloina Frost grape - low ground thickets and stream banks
Malvaceae
Hibiscus moscneutos Marsh hibiscus - marshes
Kosteletskva virginica Seashore mallow - brackish marshes and shores
Hypericaceae
Hypericum dissimulatum St. John's-wort - moist sand
H_. gentianoides - waste places
H. Butilun - moist places
H. virginicura Marsh St. John's-wort - bogs, swamps
Cistaceae
Hudsonia tomentosa Beach heather - coastal sand and dunes
Lechea raceaulosa Pin-weed - dry soils
Lythraceae
Lythrum lineare Loosestrife - coastal marshes
D-20

-------
Melastomataceae
Rhexia mariana Meadow beauty - moist coastal sand
Onagraceae
Ludwigia altemlfolla Seedbox - moist areas
L. decurrens Primrose willow - on dikes
L. palustris Water purslane - wet soil of low meadows
L. uruguayensis Water primrose - on dikes
Oenothera perennis Sundrops - open ground
Haloragaceae
Myriophyllum brasiliense Parrot-feather - shallow water
M. pinnaturn Water-milfoil
Apiaceae
Cicuta maculata Spotted cowbane, beaver poison - wet meadows, floodplains
Cryptotaenia canadensis Honewort - thickets
Daucus carota Queen Anne's lace - wodespread weed
Eryngiun aquaticum - marshes and along shores
Hydrocotyle ranunculoides - s treams
H. umbellata Water pennywort - wet soil along shores
H. verticillata Water pennywort - wet soil in marshes and open swamps
Lilaeoosis chiaensis - coastal marshes
Oxypolis rigidior - swamps
Ptilimnium caplllaceunt Mock bishop's-weed - coastal marshes
Slum suave Water parsnip - wet areas
Nyssaceae
Nyssa aquatica Tupelo gum - swamp forests
N_. sylvatica Black gum - sandy shores and low dunes
Cornaceae
Cornus amrummi Dogwood - moist to wet soil near streams
C. sticta Swamp dogwood - swamps
Clethraceae
Clethra alnifolla Sweet pepperbusn - swamps and borders of marshes
Ericaceae
Vaccinium atrococcum Black high-bush blueberry - wet woods, swamps
V. corymbosum Highbush blueberry - wet woods, swamps
Prlmulaceae
Lysimachia ciliata - woods and clearings
L. terrestris Swamp loosestrife - moist soil
Samolus parviflorus Water pimpernel - wet soil or shallow water
Plumbaginaceae
Limonlum carollnianum Sea lavender - salt marshes
L. nashii Sea lavender - marshes
Ebenaceae
Diosoyros virginiana Persimmon - old fields
D-21

-------
Oleaceae
Fraxinus pennsvIvantea Red ash - low grounds
Gentianaceae
Sabatia dodecandra Large marsh pink - coastal marshes
S_. stellaris Sea pink - coastal marshes, sandy shores
Asclepiadaceae
Ascleolas lncarnata Swamp milkweed - wee soils
A. lanceolata Milkweed - coascal marshes.
Cynachum laeve 5aad-viae - sandy areas
Convolvulaceae
Cuscuta gronovii Dodder - on a variety of plants in low grounds
Boraginaceae
Cytioslossum virginiamim Wild csnfrey - waste places
Verbenaceae
Call lean a aaericana Fresh mulberry - sandy moist woods
Liaaia lanceolaca Fog-fruit - sandy or light soil, marshes
Laaiaceae
Lycoaus americaaus - Bugle-weed - moist to wet low grounds
L. virginlcus - moist to wet soils
Scutellaria elliptica Skullcap - woodlands
Teucriun canaden.se Germander - moist soil
Solanaceae
Phvsalis virginlana Ground cherry - waste places
Solamnn carolinense Horse nettle - waste places
Scrophulariaceae
Agal in-ts auraurea Purple gerardia - moise soil
Bacooa monnieri Water hyssop - coastal sands
Gratiola virsiniana Hedge hyssop - shallow water in pools, streaia margins
Linaria canadensis Toad-flax - dry fields
MiaulIs alatus - wet woods, swampy floodplains
M. rlngens - swampy floodplains
Veronica anagallls-aouatica - sluggish streams
Bignoniaceae
Canto sis radicans Trumpet creeper - thickets
Acanthaceae
Justlcia americana Water willow - intertidal marshes
?Ian taginace ae
Plantago lanceolaca Narrow-leaved plantain - widely distributed
Rubiaceae
Cephalanthus occidentalis Button bush - wet marshes, stream banks
Diodia virginlana Buttonweed - sandy fields
Galium circaesans - moist woods
D-22

-------
Caprifoliaceae
Lonicera japonica Japanese honeysuckle - woodlands, roadsides, fence rows
Sambucus canadensis Elderberry - swamp forests
Viburnum cassinoides - moist Co wet soil
V. dentatum - thickets and woods
V. nudum - swamps, wet woods
Cucurbitaceae
Melothria pendula Creeping cucumber - moist thickets
Camp anulaceae
Lobelia cardinalls Cardinal flower - moist to wet meadows
Asteraceae
Aster dumosus Aster - moist to wet areas
A. puniceus Michaelmas daisy - moist areas
A. subulatus Wild aster - coastal marshes
A. tenuifolius Wild aster - coastal marshes, shores
A. vfTirfneus
Baccharis halimifolia Sea myrtle - marsh borders
Bidens coronata Tickseed sunflower - moist low grounds
B^. frondosa - Swampy ground
B_. laevis Beggar-ticks - marshes, pools, ditches
Borrichia frutescens Sea ox-eye - edge of salt marshes
Carduus spinosissimus Yellow thistle - meadows
Eclipta alba - moist places
Erigeron bonariensis - waste places
E. pulchellus Robin's plantain - moist woods and meadows
Eupatorium capillifoliun Bog fennel - moist to wet meadows
hyssopifolium Throughwort - dry openings
E. serotinus moist waysides
Helenium auturnnale - near marsh margins
Iva frutescens Harsh elder - coastal salt marshes
Mikania scandens Climbing hempweed - brackish marshes
Pluchea cagrohoraca Camphorweed'- coastal marshes
P_. foetida Marsh flea-bane - wee coastal areas
P_. purpurascens Camphorweed - coastal salt marshes
Senecio aureus Golden ragwort - moist low grounds
Solidago altissima Golden rod - disturbed sites
S_. sempervirens Golden rod - brackish to fresh coastal areas
Veronia glauca - moist open woods
]7. noveboracensis - wet meadows, floodplains
Xanthium strumarlum - Cocklebur - waste places
D-23

-------
REFERENCES
1.	Burt, W. H. and R. P. Grossenheider. 1976. A Field Guide to Mammals.
3rd ed. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
2.	Bystruk, D., ed. 1973a. "The Christmas Bird Count 325. Hopewell, VA."
Amer. Birds. 27:273.
3.	Bystruk, D., ed. 1973b. "The Christmas Bird Count 330. Newport News,
VA." Amer. Birds. 27:275-276.
4.	Bystruk, D., ed. 1974a. "The Christmas Bird Count 331. Hopewell, VA."
Amer. Birds. 28;283-284.
5.	3ystruk, D., ed. 1974b. "The Christmas Bird Count 336. Newport News,
VA." Amer. Birds. 28:286.
6.	Bystruk, D., ed. 1975a. "The Christmas Bird Count 352. Hopewell, VA."
Amer. Birds. 29:309.
7.	Bystruk, D., ed. 1975b. "The Christmas Bird Count 353. Newport News,
VA." Amer. Birds. 29:311-312.
8.	Bystruk, D., ad. 1976a. "The Christmas Bird Count 362. Hopewell, VA."
Amer. Birds. ' 30:318.
9.	Bystruk, D., ed. 1976b. "The Christmas Bird Count 369. Newport News,
VA." Amer. Birds. 30:321-322.
10.	Eisenmann, E., Chmn. 1973. "Thirty-Second Supplement to the American
Ornithologists' Union Check-List of North American Birds." Auk. 90:
411-419.
11.	Jordan, R. A., R. K. Carpenter, P. A. Goodwin, C. G. Becker, >1. S. Ho,
G. C. Grant, B. B. Bryan, J. V. Merriner, and A. D. Estes. 1976.
Ecological Studv of the Tidal Segment of the James River Encompassing
Hog Point. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Spec. Sci. Rept. No.
78, Gloucester Point.
12.	Larsen, P. F. 1974. Quantitative Studies of the Macrofauna Associated
with the Mesohaline Ovster Reefs of the James River. Virginia. College
of William and Mary, Ph.D. thesis, Williamsburg.
13.	Loetterle, L. E. 1970. The Vascular Flora of Jamestown Island. James
County, Virginia. College of William and Mary, MS thesis, Williamsburg.
14.	Marshall, H. G. 1967. "Plankton in James River Estuary, Virginia. I.
Phytoplankton in Willoughby 3ay and Hampton Roades." Chesapeake Sci.
3:90-101.
D-24

-------
15.	Massey, A. B. 1950. Virginia Flora; An Annotated Catalog of Plant Taxa
Records as Occurring in Virginia. Va. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. 155.
16.	Nichols, M. and W. Norton. 1969. "Forminiferal Populations in a
Coastal Plain Estuary." Palaeogr. Palaeochim. Palaeocol. (k 197-213.
17.	Ott, F. D. 1973. "The Marine Algae of Virginia and Maryland Including
the Chesapeake Bay Area." Rhodora. 75:258-296.
18.	Peloquin, E. P., J. D. Lunz, and L. Halloway. 1975. The Propagation of
Vascular Plants at the James River Habitat Development Site, James
River, Virginia. Scope of work, working draft. U.S. Dept. of the
Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS.
19.	Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles, and C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the
Vascular Flora of the Carollnas. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill.
20.	Ralph, R. D. 1977. "The Myxophyceae of the Marshes of Southern Delaware."
Chesapeake Science. 18:208-221.
21.	U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Directorate of Licensing. 1974. Surry
Power Station Units 3 and 4. Virginia Electric and Poer Company. Docket
Nos. 50-434 and 50-435. Final environmental statement related to con-
struction. Washington, DC.
22.	U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District. 1974.
James River, Virginia, Maintenance and Dredging. Final environmental
statement.
23.	U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlifa Service, Bureau of
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 1971. Birds of the Presguile National
Wildlife Refuge. Refuge Leaflet 160-R2.
24.	Virginia Electric and Power Company. 1973a. Surry Power Station Units
1 and 2, Six-Month Operating Report No. 1. Mav 25. 1972 through December
31. 1972. Docket No. 50-280. Richmond.
25.	Virginia Electric and Power Company. 1973b. Surrv Power Station Units
1	and 2, Six-Month Operating Report. January 1. 1973 through June 30.
1973. Richmond.
26.	Virginia Electric and Power Company. 1973c. Surrv Power Station Units
3 and 4. Applicant's Environmental Report, construction permit stage.
2	Vols. Docket 50434-13, -14. Richmond.
27.	Virginia Institute of Marine Science. 1973. James River Comprehensive
Water Quality Management Study (3c Study). Vol. 1. Summary. Vol. 2.
Biological Data. Vol. 3. Chemical Data. Vol. 4. Physical Data.
Gloucester Point.
D-25

-------
28.	Wass, M. L., comp. 1972. A Checklist of the Biota of Lower Chesapeake
Bay with Inclusions from the Upper 3av and the Virginia Sea. Virginia
Institute of Marine Science, Spec. Sci. Rept. No. 24, Gloucester Point.
29.	Wetmore, A. chmn. 1957. Checklist of North American Birds. 5th ed.
American Ornithologists' Union, Port City Press, Inc., Baltimore.
30.	White, J. C., M. T. Baranowski, C. J. Bateman, I. W. Mason, R. A. Hammond,
P. S. Wingard, B. J. Peters, M. L. Brehmer, and J. D. Ristroph. 1972.
Young Littoral Fishes of the Oligohaline Zone James River. Virginia.
1970-1972. Surry Nuclear Power Stazion preoperational studies. Virginia
Electric and Power Company, Richmond.
31.	Woodson, B. R. 1959.	"A Study of the Chlorophyta of the James River
Basin, Virginia. I.	Collection Points and Species List." Va. J. Sci.
10:70-82.
32.	Woodson, B. R. 1960.	"A Study of the Chlorophyta of the James River
Basin, Virginia. II.	Ecology". Va. J. Sci. 11:27-36.
D-26

-------
APPENDIX E
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE
HOPEWELL-JAMES RIVER ENVIRONMENT

-------
APPENDIX E
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE
HOPEWELL-JAMES RIVER ENVIRONMENT
A. HEALTH
Workers involved in the production of Kepone showed decided toxic symptoms
from exposure to this substance (U.S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, FDA, 1977). Kepone can enter humans by inhalation or ingestion of
food that has become contaminated by bioaccumulation through the aquatic food
chain. Calculated daily exposures to humans living in the James River area
(excluding figures for worker exposure during the production of Kepone) range
from 0.004 ng to 8.5 ug (Suta, 1977). The highest concentration levels would
be from eating finfish, crabs and oysters. Atmospheric inhalation daily expo-
sures to workers when Kepone was being produced were calculated to be about
750 Ug (Suta, 1977).
B. RARE AND ENDANGERED BIOTA
Wildlife
Eight wildlife species considered endangered, status undetermined, or rare
may be found in the James River or its associated wetlands (Table E.l). Of
these eight, four species of birds are on the Federal list of endangered
species (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1976). In addition, there are two
status undetermined species of birds (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1973),
and two rare species of amphibians (Taylor, 1974a) which may be found along
the James River. Three of the six bird species have been reported in the
James River area; the remaining three species of birds are likely to occur in
the James River due to their mobility and the fact that they have been recorded
in the Lower Chesapeake Bay (Wass, 1972). The two species of amphibians are
exoected to occur at Hog Island but have not been collected there yet (Vepco,
1973).
No state list of endangered species for Virginia has been developed to
date. However, studies have been initiated under the Virginia Commission of
Game and Inland Fisheries to look at the occurrence and distribution of can-
didate species for such a list. Initially, these studies will assess the
populations of species on the Federal list of endangered species (U.S.
Department of the Interior, 1976), but may eventually include other species
such as those listed by Russ (1973).
Endangered Birds. The four species of birds listed as endangered, which
may occur in the James River area during one or more seasons of the year are
the brown pelican, southern bald eagle, American peregrine falcon, and
Bachman's warbler (Table E.l). Of these birds, only the bald eagle and
E-l

-------
TAIJLE E.l. ENDANGERED, STATUS UNDETERMINED, AND RAKE WILDLIFE WHICH MAY OCCUR
IN THE JAMES RIVER OR ITS ASSOCIATED WETLANDS
tn
i



Korordi
a.,^	
l.;>wcr
Common NaoiL^'*^
Si UmiI If It* N.iiu.i^a^
III rdu
St	.S(b)
lauiud, ,v
i
llrowu I'd lean
I'e lecantib occIdcnl alls
Fed. Knd.
—
Sp Su K
Southern DjIJ Lai*lc
lla 11 acel <13 1. lem ot.cidial luu
Fed. Knd.
S|i Su F W
Sp Su F W
American Peregrine Falcon
Fatco pcrearluiiu annum
Kei). Liid.
SI' V
Su V W
Oaprcy
I'andlon bal 1 actus
iliidelcr.
S|> Su F U
Sp Su K W
Wood Stork
Myctei la amerlcana
llmliMer.
—
Strug^ler
Uji hiuan'u Warbler
V>:iui 1 vara bacliiu.m 11
Amphibian:*
Fed. Knd.
—
St ragglcr
(!ar|»ciitor Krog
Kana vl»Kai1 pea
It J l u
l-.xpcctcd
Disiua 1 Sw
bxpecLcd
Coatil al I11 a i n
^ jf.ntltlc ikdiQuiu'lutuiL' ol b 11 «Ih follows UuCiuoru (1957) and lihuniiMiin (1971). Scientific noiiu:n~
clalore (or amphibians follows (Ion.nil (1975).
^ ^Ked. Knd. = on 1 lie Federal Mat of endangered ti|>eclcu (U.S. I)e|iarttuciil of the Inlet for, 1976).
lliidutcr, - <1 S|»ci le:j ronuldeiud to bo pojulbly threatened with t*xl I iu.I Ion » but about whlrli
lli^rc lu Hill	I lil ormaL Ion II) dcteimlite ll:. dt.ilu:. (U.S.	of the
Iiilcr lor, 1973).
Hare - consIdeied in he rare in Virginia (Taylor, 1974a).
- S|irlitHS ;;o - Summer; F - Kail, W = Winter
ol DciuriciK l' lit U.S.	tiuriiL of the luteiloi (19/1) and Ve|>t.ii (|97'i)
u >
ol occurrence In Ihibb (I1'/!*) ,ii)d Taylor (l9/4a)
K;<|H:cted tit o« cm* .iL llo^ Inland, .111 lioti^li iiOl actually n (Vi-|»co, 197 IJ .

-------
peregrine falcon are seen on any regular basis, and even these two species
are not known to breed along the James River (M. L. Wass, personal communica-
tion, biologist, Virginia Institute of Marine Science).
The most current information on the bald egales nesting in the
Chesapeake Bay region indicates that these raptors reached a 41-year high
in the 1977 breeding season (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1977). Appar-
ently that population is recovering from a severe decline that appears to be
due to pesticides and other pollutants in their food. The James River, how-
ever, has not had nesting bald eagles since 1975, even though there were
13 breeding pairs as recently as 1964.
Peregrine falcons have not nested in Virginia since the early 1950's
(Taylor, 1974b). The disappearance of breeding individuals coincided with
the widespread use of chlorinated hydrocarbons, such as DDT. Healthy pere-
grines, however, still breed in Alaska and northern Canada, some of which
pass through coastal Virginia during their southward migration. They are
reported to occur rarely along the James River at Presquile National Wild-
life Refuge (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1971).
Status Undetermined Birds. Both the osprey and wood storK are considered
to be potentially threatened with extinction, but more information is needed
to determine their true status (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1973). The
wood stork has been recorded in the lower Chesapeake Bay area as a rare visi-
tor (Wass, 1972), but has not been reported along the James River. The osprey,
however, is frequently seen at Presquile National Wildlife Refuge during
April and May (Mr. Olson, personal communication, Manager, Presquile) and is
rarely seen at Hog Island Waterfowl Management Area (Vepco, 1973). The osprey
no longer nests anywhere along the James River, although it is showing a
slight population increase in the Chesapeake Bay (Olson and Wass, personal
communication). The osprey's previous population declines appear to be due
to the buildup of pesticides and their residues in the fish eaten by these
top carnivores (Chamberlain, 1974).
Rare Virginia Amphibians. Two amphibians, the carpenter frog and greater
siren, are reported to be rare in Virginia, but are expected to occur in the
wetlands at Hog Island Waterfowl Management Area (Vepco, 1973 and Taylor, 1974a).
The carpenter frog is present in limited numbers through Virginia's tidewater
area, but is primarily limited to acidic sphagnum bogs (Taylor, 1974a). This
frog can also be found in stands of emergent, grasslike vegetation (Conant,
1975). The greater siren lives in a variety of shallow water habitats in
Virginia's coastal plain (Taylor, 1974a; Conant, 1975). These salamanders
may be found in ditches, ponds, streams, swamps, and lakes which are associated
with the James River.
Vascular Plants
There are no rare and endangered flowering plants of the tidal James
River (Kartesz and Kartesz, 1977, L. G. Musselman, Old Dominion University,
Biological Sciences Department, Norfolk, September 1977, personal
communication).
E-3

-------
C. SOILS
Movement of pesticides in soils is dependent on the adsorptive inter-
actions between the chemical and soil properties (Guenzi, 1974). Soil erosion
is an environmental factor pertinent to the movement of Kepone to the river.
The soils within the city of Hopewell have not been characterized. However,
the area adjacent to the city, east of Bailey Creek, is in the process of
being surveyed. This discussion of these soils is based on unpublished data
obtained from Mr. F. 0. Kirks (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conserva-
tion Service, Prince George County, Virginia, October 17, 1977).
These soils are Ultisols, with eleven major soil series. Two of the
series are lowland and poorly drained soils with slopes less than 2%. These
are undeveloped floodplains of dark gray loam about 5 to 8 in. thick. The
other nine series are the developed uplands which are moderately co wsli
drained loam-clay-sand soils having slopes ranging from 0 to 4 = %. The upland
soils support forests (about 60%) and agricultural lands (about 40%).
D. HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL FEATURES
In compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1S66
(16 U.S.C. 470), the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service
(1974) will be examined for the existing historical places within the area.
E-4

-------
REFERENCES
Chamberlain, E. B. 1974. Rare and Endangered Birds of the Southern National
Forests. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region.
108 pp.
Conant, R. 1975. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and
Central North America. 2nd ed. Houghton Mifflin Company, Bostom. 429 pp.
Eisenmann, E., chmn. 1973. "Thirty-second Supplement to the American
Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American Birds." Auk. 90(2):
411-419.
Guenzi, W. D., ed. 1974. Pesticides in Soil and Water. Soil Science
Society of America, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin. 562 pp.
Kartesz, J. T., and R. Kartesz. 1977. The Biota of North America. Pt. 1.
Vascular Plants. Vol. I. Rare Plants. Bonac, Pittsburgh, PA. 361 pp.
Russ, W. P. 1973. Rare and Endangered Terrestrial Vertebrates. MS Thesis
(Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University), Blacksburg.
Suta, B. E. 1977. Human Population Exposures to Mirex and Kepone. Stanford
Research Institute, Menlo Park, California; Report Prepared for U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 139 pp.
Taylor, J. W. 1974a. "Endangered Vertebrates of Virginia." Virginia
Wildlife. 34(9):15-18.
Taylor, J. W. 1974b. "Endangered Species Report: The Peregrine Falcon."
Virginia Wildlife. 35(4):26.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Food and Drug Adminis-
tration. 1977. Compliance Program Evaluation, FY 77 Kepone and Mirex
Contamination. (7320.79A). 35 pp.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1977. "Chesapeake Bald Eagle Making
Strong Comeback." Endangered Species Tech. Bui. _2(8):l-2.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1976. "Part 17-
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plant." Federal Register. 41 (208) :
47181-47198.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1973.
Threatened Wildlife of the United States. Res. Publ. 114. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington. 289 pp.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1971. Birds
of the Presquile National Wildlife Refuge. Refuge Leaflet 160-R2. 2 pp.
E-5

-------
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1974. The National
Register of Historic Places. Supplement. Washington, D.C. 664 pp. (Also
checked will be additions to the supplement as they appear in the Federal
Register.)
Virginia Electric and Power Company. 1973. Surrv Power Station Units 3
and 4. Applicant's Environmental Report, Construction Permit Stage. 2 Vols.
Docket 50434-13,-14. Richmond. 656 pp.
Wass, M. L., comp. 1972. A Checklist of the Biota of Lower Chesapeake Bav
with Inclusions from the	Sav and the Virginian Sea. Virginia Institute
of Marine Science, Spec. Sci. Pet. No. 24, Glouster Point. 290 pp.
Wetmore, A. 1957. Checklist of North American Birds. 5th ed. American
Ornithologists' Union, Port City Press, Inc., Baltimore. 691 pp.
E-6

-------
APPENDIX F
APPLICABLE FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTORY
MATERIALS AND REGULATIONS FOR STANDARDS

-------
APPENDIX F
APPLICABLE FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTORY
MATERIALS AND REGULATIONS FOR STANDARDS
A. FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTORY MATERIALS
Amendments to the National Environmental Policy Act and the Environmental
Quality Improvement Act
Anadromous Fish Conservation Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 757a-757f
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 668-668d
Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401-7642
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1451-1464
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543
Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4371-
4374
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as amended, 21 U.S.C. 301-392
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended, 7 U.S.C.
121-136y
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1701-1782
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Clean Water Act,
33 U.S.C. 1251-1376
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of March 10, 1934, as amended, 16 U.S.C.
661-666c
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 4601-4
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended, Ocean
Dumping, 33 U.S.C. 1401-1444
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4361
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470-470t
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. 6901-6987
Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 401-466n
Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300f-300j-9
F-l

-------
Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901-6987
Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. 2601-2629
B. FEDERAL REGULATIONS FOR STANDARDS TO SPECIFIC POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENT
POLLUTANTS
National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards, 40 CFR 40
Occupational Safety and Health Administration Standards for Air Contami-
nants, 40 FR 27073
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, 40 CFR 125
Emissions Standards for Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles
and New Motor Vehicle Engines, 40 CFR 85
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations, 40 CFR 141
EPA Effluent Standards, 40 CFR 401
EPA Toxic Pollutant Effluent Standards (Proposed)
EPA Pesticide Limits, 40 CFR 162, 165
Criteria for the Evaluation of Permit Applications for Ocean Dumping of
Materials, 40 CFR H, 220-229
Solid Wastes, 40 CFR 240
Dredge and Fill Material, 40 CFR 104
Coastal Zone Management Regulations, 15 CFR 923
*Virginia adopted the federal standards on 23 September 1976.
F-2

-------
APPENDIX G
VIRGINIA WATER AND AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
(Appendix G contains copywritten materials reprinted
with the permission of the Bureau of National Affairs,
1231 25th NW, Washington, DC, February 9, 1978.)

-------
s?:.7
03G:1001
VIRGINIA WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
(Rules with General St;ile-'iv'ide Application; Adopted April S ;ind June 9, 1970,
effective July 20, 1970; Amended llnou^li November 1974)
[Foreword: The Vii^inia v.:ilcr quality standaid:. also
include tlu- cla.-.sihcatum of walc;s in all of the rivei buMns
of ilic state .ind ceitain special standaids that arc not
included lieie.]
J.00 Utiles wiili General .crate-Wide Application
1.01 Gcnoiai Standard
A. A!! Sl.iU- v.'i-.icrs sh-ll be maintained al f.iidi cjuah'.y
as will permit all reasonable, beneficial uses and will
support t!;c proptication and iirowth of nil aquatic !ilo,
includim: iwtiie lis!i, wliiv.li p.uyht reasonably bo expected
to i::iia!v: them.
13. Ail State v.;'.;ers shall be fioc fioin substances
ntini'iiuihi- to--"evvj;c, industrial waste, or oilier v.aste in
concentiatiuus. amount:, oi combination*; winch
coiUiawnc established siaiuiaidi or int:ilere dncctly oi
itidii-.-v.iiy wis!: ie'iir.iMe. !i¦>:!i-~kiI uses of such water
oi wli.jl: aie iuim:.'al or luimf.ii to luiir...:i. animal, plant,
or aqua::; life. Speciiic substances to be controlled
include. inn aie not limned to. floating debiis, uil, scum,
and v.'.;l er floating materials: :-jx:c substances, substances
that produce color, t.vstes. odjis. or settle to fotm sludge
deposit? and heated substances.
C. Zones for mixing wastes v.ith receivim; waters shall
bo determined on a case-by-case basis: sliall be kept as
small as piactical in aiea and ien^tli; shall noi be used for.
or co'i$kie;e:l ::s. a substitute tor waste t:eatment: and
shall be implemented, to the ^neatest extent practicable,
in accoul.inie with die provision* ol subsections A and I!
heieol. Mi\. iu witin.i these /ones shall be as quick as
piactic.il and nia> i-.-tji-iio the installation and u;e of
devices which iusvie that waste is mixed with the
allocated receivim.: wateis :n the smallest practical a;ea.
The need fo: suck devices uiil be dctcimiucd on a
caso-by-case basis. ITc bound.u ies of these /ones of
;>'.!nii\ii:ie	be -.neb as to pmvide a Mutable
p.is:.,i^'.ev\ as loi hdi .u-d otlic: .:c|uai:v oie.misns I he
p.is .a^.cvv.iv should contain pielei.-biv peiccnt cf the
cioss-section.il aic.: m'-.I oi volume of liow of the leccvvm;.:
water. hi ar .iiv.i v. liei.1 inoic lb.ill one iliv Ii.iivwai-.
and mU1: i! :;ir in; /.»vs a'e i I» >->¦ ¦ l.cilie: ! I :: i; v!: • ¦.
/imu1'. n-i !' ;v .-¦ * Mii'.ii* ii ih.il ilii'. p. ...ivv. i\ is
v v ¦ ii • ¦ v i ¦>
w ¦ I n • . ¦¦ • > c i . '. ii t .v •. ::i 1 e bove and
below the lake o; linpouudmetU will he established for
these waters.
1.04	Any iributaiv stream whicli :s not named in a
specific section desc:iption. or o;korw'\e, -;!;all ca;;1. tne
S:imc classilication jikI :.:a;uk!rds of vpiality assigned tv> t!;e
sticam or section tc> which it is tub- ta;y.
1.05	In aduiti.in to other stand.:ids e^tabhshed loi t!tc
piotcction of public or niunicipal v..i!ei supplies, the
tollov.'ing standaul.; will apply at the raw wa'.ei i.'ilrke
point:
Constit-^c:*t	Conecnt r.il. on
Pl.vs ic '.I:
Color (color ur-.lfs )
Mk al li:tl.y
Arsenic
Bariuia
Roron
Cnrf^lvi-j
Clil orlrfe
Clitlicxsvalciit
Ccppor
Xlviotido
Iron ( ii 1 Icr;;!)! c )
Lon;l
ir.oio ( f: 1 I f.	v.- )
1.11 ;';i 11 r. j'lu:. ill*: i i icr.
f « i.inn
Silver
:.u' • ;;
: ! .1; • ¦ ,.' 1 i .'
(• i 11. v	)
Ui ,i..\ i i ¦
03
Cw 1'>'1 1 j't¦ I ¦*'/'' "V. I'l.I V.t f-J - il	All ts ]'Vf.
G-l
75
ro/l
30-500
0.05
1.0
1.0
0.01
250
0.05
1.0
1.7
0.3
0.03
0. 05
10 :;)
C.01
0.0',

-------
(*<»!¦•¦ f \ ' 'it»n l			i 1 r »t j n*i
Qffnn'r i*!; r * [ <* r, \ »i	1—/1
Ccv\'C\ chloroforn extract	0.15
Ox::)
Cy.'nl-le	0.20
J:c Li;) i. r.c bl-.-c active	0.5
r.uVictanccs
l*C5l lc lilus:
/.lctrin	0.017
Clilordjne	0.003
i>rrr	o. o\2
Dicldrin	0.017
Endrin	0.001
licpccchlor	0.013
lleptcchlor epoxide	0.013
Lindane	0.056
thoxychlor	0.035
Orf.c.iic r'r.5<.-r:i.-iLt5	plus 0.1
Cari:.i:-.;tcr
Tox/'phcnc	0.003
Herbici liaz:
2, 4-D pltis 2,A,'-7,	0.1
plus 2, 4,5-'rr
Phenol j	0.001
P-arflo.-ie f t.vl tv:	2£l±
Crur-s beta	1,000
r-aoiv.;^-225	3
SLio:tLitr:-90	10
' ^!	C"-'
cr J".':j:-.I' ¦:
CI.Vj c£	'S\TZPS !iir.ira;
] .OCi Aiili ikr.rad.tiioii I'olicy
Waters who^o cxiMinr quality i.s he! lei	the
cslaMisln.il Mandaid.'. as of llic date on vv111v.11 mh.Ii
Standard:. Ih-coiiic effective will ho n',amt..iiicd :i( 111'¦ h
quality; pim-ided tii.il the Hourcl h.ts t ht- power to
atitlion/.e any project oi development, winch would
constitute a now or an increased di.s-:hai;.-e o! diluent to
quality water, when it has been ailiiniamcly
dcmonb.ti.ilcd that a cham;e is jusiiliahlc to piovide
necessary economic or sutial doveiopme	md piowdcd,
furthci, that the nccessaiv do».iee of waste itcatmem to
maintain liie.lt water quality will It; returned v.;t¦
physically and economical!) feasible l'icv;:ii and
anticipated use of such wateis will be piesrivrd .md
protected.
1.07 N.ituinl tcmpcratuic is that temperature of p
body of water due solely to natural cimd-tsuiiS v.
the influence of any pumi-^ource diicl.aiges.
2.00	Ri:k-s with Speci'Mr •» ;>;-!:cr:rio.'J U.iv.d '.>i:
Geographical Aiia. or UjCs
2.01	Pii/)i::r\ ClJSitjn of !i «'"i./; :
~zii
CX^_". [S^izida cf
5.0
4.0(.v:r---
Cia'JtUil /"X..-. rJ3 i\-Zl '—-3)
<.0
5.0
6.0-8.5

III	rr«o Flew.. Zzz-.-rs (Cocstil	4.0	5.0 6.0-S.5	5	30
Zens aril	Ccr.e zrt tiv:
Crc.it: o£ t;.-a :=u.v_iir.s)
TJ	K:-jn:o.--	4.0	5.0 6.0-3.5 '5	87	2
V	i\jc	Voters	5.0	6.0	S.C-0.5	5'**	70	2
VI	llscjrti	'.»"itcrs	6.0	7.0 6.0-3.5	5"**	68	2
* N^'.v.r-i tc:v::"zi is t-'vit tr.—.ve.ir.ueo c: i '_a..y ot vj'_cr <±jo solol/ to rurural ocnJit.icr.s
t'.ji	c: or.y ccis.Z-t&^rc.o c'.ic.-uiros.
<¦" mxlsr.r*. Tz?urly	civvrw ci 2*V is to o.r?'-!' br'O.ti the boiurc.ir-.i;S of	zcr.-is .ovl
:ot i,T-y <-0 'oc— varacatc.s o_j:-cc !.»/ .ii.-jral cortiiticrs.
/-.y r-.j.: ^c-.-o r^turjl tc.-c*.Tituro :c Vx:	zy ti-c ZoaixI	bi cetirrar.^1 cr. .i Gicc-b/-c.-c.2
li.uiin, U:'. :r. r.3 i.-Q'	cjrccvM
2.02 Sul\ li/iii-j- !u	ircni Miijnr I'.'.ncr CL's\ Dcsii;-
Siil'c ,\:sx . I
V.'.!l.-i\ • I\': lis v.i'1-1'. •: >. \ fos li^e .1* jM'i'l.v 1.1
1*'. 1 (• 11 v. ¦ '! m 111*'1, • . "f i.i i \ t»"il '. ' u . : e.' t n *!'
pti '.«"! i1' ! i • •	• • i:.1- 'I! : !	•• ' ' '¦
t. ¦
( '/ . •	¦ . I ••• : ci 'h1 ¦ " i.:. (i: ''1 • i 1	• i.: ¦
t^ I :! I! i.m ot m 1	^.- i. '. I i»l to e\v ed -1 ' V. "' v'i
E nvnynit«ri>l
lOOO.'lOO ml N'.'t to equ.:i oi e\ced ZOLH); KHl till i-. :nore
than 10'.: ot ;. mp!e>. M.'i:t!ii\ ei .f:e \.due no; ;r.o.; t:ii
5000'100 ml. t'MI'N' m Ml	\'oi im".- tli-.i
MI'N.'tOt) ml	v.1 tl! i:- "i ¦ .i;;1 [i i\ in Ui\ '"i :.''i
No l imo:c l! i .i ¦: .'O.'i'H] !'':i ;.'i ;i. 			 '! • .i:1 ' •'!
¦ .:ui|\V \ '
:...	¦	. ¦.	¦ i...;
i. . ••	. II.-:...	, .
.I.IIMI.I. : it... ; • 11.1. . I|1( H'l I.. \. it. : lit ,1 i,J.-Ill I'' ¦::! , , ¦ t
F\c-|»o'ief
G-2

-------
VIRGINIA STAWU/VKDS
f>3G:
r.?0 7
100 J
Subclass I!
Waters ['.eneraily satisfactoiy foi use :is public or muni-
cipal water supply. piimary contact rccicati«mi (piolomTd
intimate contact: cousidciable rr.k of ingestion), piopava-
tion of fish ami oilier aquatic life, anil other benel ii ial uses.
Cuhfonn Organisms l;ccal cohl'orms (multiple-tube
fermentation or MI" count) within a .10 day penod not to
exceed 3 !o;: mean of 200/100 ml. Not more ;li.;n It/.! ol
samples within a 30-day pciiod will exceed -100/100 ml.
Monthly aveia^c not more than 2-100/100 ml. (Ml'N oi Ml*
count). Not moie than 2400/100 ml. in more than 20'.' of
samples in any month. Not applicable durinr, nor im-
mediately following period:, of lainfall. ¦
2.03 Dischar^'.s of treated wastes, while not contraven-
ing established standards for shellfish waters may j>jevent
1 lie diicct marketing of shellfish beds as a result of
judinncnt fnctois employed by the State Department of
Health. Wlk-n the possibility of such condemnation aiiscs as
the icsult of proposals to dischaiue treated wastes, the
Board will convene a public hearing to determine the
socio-economic effect of the proposal before reaching a
decision.
2.0-1 Samples for deteimining compliance with standaids
established for cstiiannc or open ocean waters will be
collected at slack bei"o:e Hood tide ot slack bcfoie ebb tide.
2.05 In open ocean or es.uari/ie waters in specific areas
where leased private oi public shellfish beds aie present, lite
following Mandaid fo. conform onanisms will supplement
the s'aud'rj for Subclass A m 1» waters:
The cohfo'.m median Ml'N shall not exceed 70/100 mi;
and not more than 10','i of the s imples ordinallly shall
c\c?n": an MPN of 230/100 nil for a 5-tube decimal
• Willi the execution of tlic cotiforrn M::mlard for \lieltl'r.li
u-alcr.s. tlic '.'nforciMlili.' Nl-iiil.,ri:v «ill :>e iliuse pvrl.iJiims: '.J Ic-ut
coliforni fireaniMiii I tic Ml'N eoiK.Mllr.'.liiHi'i arc r<_i.iuu-i.1 as
adntmiitrali\c	ler use b> walcr ircaimcnt [>l.ini operators.
dilution test (oi 3.10/100 ml, v/heie a 3-tube decimal
dilution is used) in thou: poi lions of the area most
ptobablv exposed to lecal contamination dunn;'. liie most
unfavoi.ilili: conditions. Nut to be so cout.imm.tlcd by
radionuclides, pesticides. heibrcides or fecal maleii.il so
that consumption of the shellfish inir 111 be ha/.udous.
3.00 Vaiiance in Standaids
3 01 The above standaids notwithstanding, as a icsult of
natural conditions, water quality may from time-to lime
v.ny from established limits.
3.02 In accoidancc with the authonty granted under
Section 62.1-44.15 (3)fa) of the Slate W.uer Control Law,
Chaptei 3.1, Title 62.1, Code of Virginia 1950 as
amended, the Board reseives the n'i;ht at any ume to
modify, amend, or cancel any of the rules, policies, or
standards set forth above, such modihcation. amendment,
or cancellation shall be consistent with retjiuienicnls of
Section .10.1 of the Peder.s! Water lVllution Couliol \ct
Aineiuhnents of 1^72 (I'ubhc Law 92-500) and
regulations piomul:;a;cd ihereunder.
4.00	Application of Siawlards
4.01	Based on climate. geographical location, or pe
(tidal. free-flow i11. etc.). all wateis w>|l be assignee! a :najoi
class 1 — VI and a subclass A o> B. to indicate the
appropriate colifo'in s'.aiiu.uti Waters used foi pi invars
contact leciealion will Sv assigned subclass B. All other
waters will be assigned subclass A ami will be suitable foi
secondary contact lecu-alion :.nd for use as .• public water
supply.
4.02	All water supplies will be assigned the standard for
protection of water supplies set foith in 1.05. In shelifi.sh-
ing areas, those waters o\er and adjacent to shellfish beds
will be assigned a major class, the appropriate subclass, and
the special shellfish stanoaid set forth in 2.05.
4.03	All watci's within tins State wiil be saiisfacioiy for
fishing and sccoudaiy contact recreation.
r. ? / 7fj
G-3
Copy. i t|l. I ..- 19/:. Ity "III. Hun-iiu ¦>' 11 ..1 -o .1 ..1 All,,,IS, 1.1,

-------
535:0501
VIRGINIA AIR POLLUTION REGULATIONS
(State Air Pollution Control Board Regulations for the Control and Abatement of
Air Pollution; Parts I through \ II: Issued March 17, 1972: Amended Au^;:.st 11. 1972;
Seprembcr 15, 1972: Octobers, 1973; December 5, 1973; February 3. 1974; July 5, 1974;
December 20, 1974; August 9, 1975; December 6, 1975; January 30, 1976)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Part r DEFINITIONS
Part II GENERAL PROVISIONS
2.01	Applicability
2.02	Establishment of Relations and Orders
2.03	Enforcement of Regulations ana Orders
2."-	H.v.nngs and ;jroc.Jid;r.gs
2.05 Variances
2.05 Local Ordinances
2.07	Circumvention
2.08	Severability
2.09	Appeals
2.10	Right of Entry
2.11	Conditions on Approvals
2.12	Procedural Information and Guidance
2.13	Delegation of Authority
2.14—2.29 Reserved
2.30	Availabiiitv of Information
2.31	Registration
2.32	Control Programs
2.33	Permits-Stationary Sources and Indirect Sources
2.34	Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or
Malfunction
Part III AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
3.01	General
3.02	Particulate
3.03	Sulfur Oxides (Sulfur Dioxide)
3.C4	Carbon Monoxide
3.05	Photochemical Oxidants
3.06	Hydrocarbons
3.07	Nitrogen Dioxide
Part IV EXISTING AND CERTAIN OTHER
SOURCES
4.01	Applicability
4.02	Compliance
4.0? Emission Toting and Sampling
-)04 Monitoring._Records :ind Reporting
-i 05—Id1' Rescued
4 ID Up:ii UuiiUMe
4.20 Visible limi.ssn.Mis
4.30 Particulate Emissions from Fuel Burning Equip-
ment
4-16*76	Copyright »r* 1976 by The Bu
4.40 Particulate Emissions from Manufacturing
Operations and Fugitive Dust
4.50 Gaseous Pollutants
4.fi0 Odor
4.70 Incinerators
4.SO Coal Refuse Disposal Areas
4.90 Coke Ovens
4.100 Mobile Sources
Part V NEW AND MODIFIED SOURCES
5.01	Applicability
5.02	Compliance
5.03	Emission Testing and Sampling
5.04	Monitoring, Records and Reporting
5.05—5.09 Reserved
5.10 Visible Emissions and Fugitive Dust
5.20 Odor
5.30 Environmental Protection Agency Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Sources
Part VI HAZARDOUS POLLUTANT SOURCES
6.01	Applicability
6.02	Compliance
6.03	Emission Testing and Sampling
6.04	Monitoring, Records and Reporting
6.05	— 6.09 Reserved
6.10 Environmental Protection Agency Nation il Emis-
sion Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
Part VII AIR POLLUTION EPISODE
7.01	General
7.02	Episode Determination
7.03	Stand-by Emission Reduction Plans
7.04	Control Requirements
7.05	Local Air Pollution Agencies
APPENDICES
A.	Abbreviations
B.	Air Quality Control Regions ( \QCR)
C.	Maior Pollutant Sources
D.	Fo:est Management and V,rii;ul;;ir:.! Pr.:i.:
E.	Guidelines for Operation <>i OmI Re:u>-' 1 >.- -¦ i»-.¦ ¦¦
Areas
F.	Delegation of Authority
G.	Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA)
eau of Notional Affair*. Inc.

-------
536:0502
STATE AIH LAWS
H.	Air Qualiiy Maintenance Areas (AQMA)
I.	EPA Regulations — Referenced Documents
J. Record of Revisions
Part I — DEFINITIONS
1.01	GENERAL
(a)	For the purpose of these regulations and subse-
quent amendments or any orders issued by the Board, the
words or terms shall have the meanings indicated in Sec-
tion 1.02.
(b)	Unless specifically defined in the Virginia Air
Pollution Control Law or in these regulations, terms used
shall have the meanings commoniy ascribed to them by
recognized authorities.
(c)	The terms defined in these regulations arc (in
italics] in the text to emphasize that the term has a
specially defined meaning.
1.02	TERMS DEFINED
ACTUAL HEAT INPUT. The sum of the actual heat
input of all existing, new and modified fuel burning
equipment which is operating during any specified period
at a facility.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS ACT. Title 9,
Chapter 1.1:1 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amend-
ed.
AFFECTED FACILITY. With reference to a
stationary source, ar.y apparatus process or operation to
which ar. emission siandard is applicable.
AIRCRAFT OPERATION'. An aircraft takeoff or
landing.
AIR POLLUTION. The presence in the outdoor at-
mosphere of one or more substances which are or may be
harmful or injurious to numan health, welfare or safety:
to animal or plan' life: or to property: or which un-
reasonably interfere \\ ith the enjoyment by the people of
life or property.
AIR POLLUTION EPISODE. A situation which is
declared by responsible authorities as set forth in Part
VII when weather and/or air pollution conditions in-
dicate a potential threat to human health.
AIR QUALITY. The specific measurement in the am-
bient air of a particular air pollutant at anv siven time.
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION." Any area
designated as such in Appendix B.
AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE AREA. Any
area which due to current air quality and/or projected
growth rate, may have the potential for exceeding any
ambient air quality standard set forth in Part III within a
subsequent 10-ycar period and designated as such in
Appendix H.
AIR TABLE, a source consisting of a device using a
gaseous separating medium for the primary purpose of
improving product quality.
AI.l URN \TiVL METHOD. Any method of sampl-
ing and aiulwing fur an air pollutant uhich is not a
reference or eqnivulcri method, but which has been
demonstrated to the s'.i.'isfaction of the Board to. in
speei!:e iM'-. pr.'iiuoc results adequate lor Us determina-
tion of i'omp!u:!*.<;
AMBIENT AIR. That portion of the atmosphere ex-
ternal to building, to which the general public liu.s
access.
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD. Any
primary or secondary standard desicnated as such in Part
III.
ARCHITECTURAL COATING. Coating used for
residential, commercial, industrial buildings and their ap-
purtenances.
BACHARACH SCALE. A graduated scale of shades
of gray going from 0 through 10, with 0 being white and
10 being dense black, developed by the Bacharach In-
dustrial Instrument Company and used to evaluate par-
ticulate matter in Hue gas samples.
BEEHIVE COKE OVEN. A source consisting of an
arched, beehive shaped, oven in which heat is suppiied by
partial combustion of the coal within the oven chambers
and in which destructive distillation of coal occurs with
no recovery of by-products.
BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY.
Best available control technology shall be determined on
a case-bv-case basis considering the foiiowing:
(1)	The process, fuels and raw material available and
to be empioved in the facility involved:
(2)	The engineering aspects of the application of
various types of control techniques which have been
adequately demonstrated:
(3)	Process and fuel changes:
(4)	The respective costs of the application of all such
control techniques, process changes, alternative fuels,
etc:
(5)	Any applicable emission standards: and
(6)	Locitional and siting considerations.
BOARD. The State Air Pollution Control Board or its
designated representative.
BY-PRODUCT COKE PLANT. A source conci>'.ing
of a plant, oven or device used in connection with the "iis-
tillaticn process to produce coke. Such plant consists of.
but is not limited to. coal and coke handling equipment,
by-product chemical plant and other eauipment
associated with and attendant to the coking chambers or
ovens making up a single battery operated and controlled
as a single unit.
CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. An expenditure for
long-term additions or betterments properly chargeable
to a capital assets account.
CHEMICAL FERTILIZER. A compound or mix-
ture, whose chief ingredients are nitrogen, phosphorus,
potassium or any combination of ihesc ingredients, which
has agronomic value.
COAL PREPARATION PLANT. A source con-
sisting of, but not limited to. coal crushing, screening,
washing. dr\ing and air separation operations used for
the purpo.se of preparing the product For marketing.
COAL RL!;USE. .-\¦ i> vaste coal. rock, .shale, culm,
boney, shite, ciay or related materials, associates with cr
near a coal seam, which are either brought ab'n-; ground
or otherwise removed Irom liie mine in the pro-.e^s oi
mining coal, or which are :.ep:ti.iled from coal daring the
Environment Reporter
G-5

-------
VIRGINIA RCGULATICrJC
52G:CG0'J
2.07 CIRCUM VLNTiON
No owner or other person shall cause or permit the in-
stallation or use of any device or any means which,
without resulting in reduction in the total amount of air
pollutants emitted, cunceals or dilutes an emission of air
pollutants which would otherwise violate these regula-
' lions. This section docs not prohibit the construction of a
slack or chimney.
2.03 SEVERABILITY
If any provision of these regulations cr i.ie application
thereof to any person or circumstances is held to be in-
valid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or
application of any other provision of these regulations
which can be given effect without the invalid provisions
or application, and to this end the provisions of these
regu.'a::.;-:^ and the varioas applicators tnereof arc
declared to be severable.
2.09 APFEAI.S
(a)	Any owner or other person aggrieved by any action
of the Board taken without a formal hearing, or bv inac-
tion of the Board, may demand a formal hearing in ac-
cordance with Section 9-6.14.i2 of the Ad/nuiisiraiive
Process Xi.'. provided a petition requesting sucri hearing
is filed will, the Board. In cases involving actions of the
Board, such p;±.on :."i! be filed	30 days after
notice of si'ch c.ction ;s mailed or delivered to sucn o*ner
cr other person.
(b)	Prior to any formal hearing, the Board shall,
provided all parties consent, ascertain the fact basis for
its decision in accordance with Section 9-0.14:11 of the
Administrative Process Act.
(c)	Any decision cf the Board result™'. from a formal
hearing shall constitute the final decision of the Board.
(d)	Any owner or other person aggrieved by a final
decision of the Board may appeal such decision in accord-
ance with Section 10-.7.23:2 of the Virginia Air Pollu-
tion Control Law ana Section 9-6.14:16 of the Ad~
ministrative Process Act.
(e)	Nothing in this section shall prevent disposition of
any case by consent.
110 RIGHT OF ENTRY
Whenever it is necessary for the purposes of these
regulations the Board may at reasonable times enter any
establishment or upon any property, public or private,
for the purpose of obtaining information or conducting
surveys or investigation as authorized by Secuon
10-17.22, of the Virginia Air Pollution Control Law.
2.11 CONDITIONS ON APPROVALS
(a) The Board nay impose such conditions upon per-
mits and other ; pprovals as may be necessary to ac-
complish the goals and objectives of the Virginia Air
Pollution Control Law. ,:nd as arc not inconsistent uiih
these regulations. Ewcpt as herein specified. nothing in
these regulations shall be deemed '.o limit the power of
the Bihird in this regard. If the m\iwr or other person
faiis id ad here to such conditions, the Board niav
automatically cancel such permits or approvals. Without
limiting the gererality of this section, this section shall
4-1&76	Copyright i? 1976 by The B
G'
apply to1 approval of variances, approval of control
programs. granting of new or modijicii source permits
and granting of open burning permits.
(b) An owner may consider any condition imposed by
the Board as a denial of the requested approval or permit,
which shall entitle the applicant to appeal the decisu
of the Board pursuant to Section 2.09.
2.12 PROCEDURAL INFORMATION AND
GUIDANCE
(a)	The Board may adopt detailed procedures which:
(1)	Require data and information in addition to and in
amplification of the provisions of these regulations:
(2)	Are reasonably designed to determine compliance
with applicable provisions of these regulations: ana
(3)	Set forth the format by which all data and informa-
tion shaii be submitted.
(b)	In cases where these regulations specify that
procedures or methods shall be appro-id by. acceptable
to or determined by the Board or other similar phrasing,
the owner may request information and guidance concern-
ing the proper procedures and methods ana the Boarc
shall furnish in writing such information on a case-by-
case basis.
2.1? DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
In accordance with the Virginia Air Pollution Contra<
Law and the Administrative Process Act. the Boc.ru
confers upon the Executive Director such administra
tivt. and decision making powers as are set forth in Ap-
pendix 'F.
2.M-2.29 RESERVED
2.30 AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION'
(a)	Emission data provided :o. or otlierv/Le obtained
by. the Board in accordance with the provisions of thesr
regulations shall be available to the public.
(b)	Except as provided in paragraph U/ cf ti.is section
any records, reports or information provided to. or
otherwise obtained by, the Board in accordance with tni
provisions of these regulations shall be available to tht
public, except that:
(1)	Upon a showing satisfactory to the Board by any
owner that such records or information, or particular par
thereof (other than emission data), if made public, wculc
divulge methods or processes entitled to orotection as
trade secrets of such owner, the Board shall consider such
records, reports of information or particular part thereof
confidential in accordance with the purposes of Sectio;
10.17-21 of Virginia Air Pollution Control' Law except
that such records, reports or information, or particular
part thereof, may be disclosed to other officers
employees or authorized representatives of the Com
monwealth of Virginia and the Environmental Protection
Agency concerned with carrying out the provisions of lh-
Virginia Air Pollution Control Law and :hc Fcdcra
Clean Air . let: and
(2)	Information received by the Board in accordant
with Sections 2.31. 2.32. 2.33 and P:.r' VII ni the*
regulations shall not he disclosed if it is	. ',i. ,
owner jb being a trade secret or „ummerc:.il w ::n:inc;.. .
information which such owner considers cotilldcnti.il.
reou of Notional Affatr j( Inc.

-------
5Cf:0510
STATE AIR LAWS
2.3! REGISTRATION
The owner of any stationary source to which permits
arc issued under Section 2.33 or for which emission stan-
dards are given in Parts IV, V and VI shall, upon request
of the Board, register such source operations with the
Board and update such registration information. The in-
formation required for registration shall be determined
by the Board, ¦ nd shall be pro-ided in the manner speci-
fied by the Board.
2.32	CONTROL PROGRAMS
(a)	As an alternative to immediate compliance with
applicable emission standards, an owner of a stationary
source may, al the discretion of the Board, submit to the
Board in a form and manner satisfactory to the Board a
control program showing how compliance shall be
achieved as expeditiously as possible.
(b)	The Board shail act as early as practicable, but
within 90 days of an acceptable submission. The Board
shall notify th? owner in writing of its approval or denial
of the control program and shall set forth its reasons
therefor.
(c)	When acting upon control programs, the Board
shall be guided by the provisions of Sections IO-I7.18 (e)
and (f) of the Virginia Air Pollution Control Law and the
Federal Clean Air Act.
(u) The B:ard my require owners submitting a con-
trol program to submit periodic reports on progress in
achieving compliance. Reports shu'l be submitted in the
form and manner prescribed by ihe Beard.
(e) If a control program is denied, the owner may
pppeal such denial pursuant to Section 2.09.
2.33	PERMITS — STATI' ;y\RY SOURCES AND
INDIRECT SOURCES
(a) General requirements
(i) No c\\.ner or other person snail commence con-
struction or modification of any of the following types of
sources without first obtaining from the Board a permit
to construct and operate or to modify and operate such
source.
(1)	Any stationary source (other than those specified in
paragraph (a) (I) (lii) of this section) not excepted by
paragraph (g) of this section.
(ii)	Any indirect source not excepted by paragraph (g)
of this section.
(iii)	Any stationary source of hazardous pollutants, to
which an emission standard prescribed under Part VI
became applicable prior to the commencement of
modification or construction.
(2)	No ox ner or other person shall operate a stationary
source of hazardous pollutants, to which an emission
standard prescribed under Part VI became applicable
prior '.o the initial startup alter construction or modifica-
tion. without firsi obtaining from the Beard a permit to
construct and operate or to modny and operate such
sourer.
(3)	N:o o^'icr or other ncrs.->>: shall relocate anv
stationn/v	Milijcct hi >cc!ioii 2.3 I without iir-a ou-
tlining a periim In;;!; the H,,ord io iciocate the
(J) N'u i>unvr or other perwi .-.hail reduce the .'.Lillet
elevation of any stack or chimney which discharges anv
Environrr
pollutant from an existing facility of :i stationary source
subject to Section 2.31 without lirst obtaining a permit
from the Board.
(5j Prior to approval", all permit requests will be subject
to a public comment period of at least 30 days. In addi-
tion, at the end of the public comment period, a public
hearing will be held.
(b)	Applications
(1)	Application for a permit shall be made in the
following manner. If the applicant is a partnership, a
general partner shall sign the application. If the applicant
is a corporation, association or cooperative, an officer
shall sign the application. If the applicant is a sole
proprietorship, the proprietor shall sign the application.
(2)	A singie application is required identifying each
source subject to this section. The application shall be
submitted according to procedures approved by the
board. However, where both stationary and indirect
sources are included in one project, a single application
covering all sources in the project may be submitted. A
separate application is required for each location.
(3)	For projects will; phased development. a singie
application may be submitted covering the entire project.
(c)	Information Required
(I) Each application for a permit shall include such in-
formation as may be required by the Board to determine
the effect of the proposed source on tne ambient air
quality and to determine compliance with the emission
standards which are applicable. The informatior re-
quired shall include, but is not limited to. the following:
(1)	That specified on applicable permit forms furnished
by the Board. Any calculations shall include sufficient
detail to permit osseszment of the validity of :uch
calculations. Completion of these forms serves as initial
registration of new and modified sources.
(ii) Any additional information or documentation that
the Board deems necessary to review and anal; e the air
pollution aspects of the source, including the submission
of measured air qualitv data at the proposed site prior to
construction or modification. Such measurements shall
be accomplished using procedures acceptabie to the
Board.
(2)	For indirect sources that have prepared an En-
vironment il Impact Statement pursuant to Se:tion I02
of the National Environmental Policy Act. ihe air quality
analysis part of the Environmental impact Statement
may be submitted in lieu of the information required in
paragraph (c) (I) (i) of this section provided the air quali-
ty analysis is consistent with the provisions of these
regulations. Tins provision does not preclude the Board
from requiring the information set forth in paragraph (c)
(l) of this section.
(3)	The above information and analysis shall be deter-
mined and presented according to procedures approved
by the Board.
(d)	Standards for Granting Permit
No permit will be granted unless it is shown to the
satisfaction of the Board that:
(1)	The unin wiil be uc-iL'neil and will he l-i.-'iv meted
or modified to operate uahoai caii^ina a violation ;>l the
applicable provisions of these regulations.
(2)	The Mjutce. if a \iauonarv \tmrcc (other than tao'.e
specified in paragraph (d) (3) of this section), will be
Reporter
G-7

-------
VIRGINIA REGULATIONS
S-29S
53G: 0511
designed. hwiit arid equipped lo comply with \iundarth of
performance set f'»rth in Part V, or if none is established,
the owner shall demonstrate (o the satisfaction of the
Board that the heat available control technoh>j;y will be
applied.
(3)	the source, if a stationary source of hazardous
pollutants, will be designed, built and equipped to comply
with emission standards set forth in Part VI.
(4)	The source, if an indirect source, will be designed
and will be constructed or modified to operate without
causing a violation of Section 3.04.
(5)	The proposed operation of the source will not pre-
vent or interfere with the attainment or maintenance of
any applicable ambient air quality standard. .Methods
used to determine air quality, to include equipment used
and locations, shall be determined by the Board.
(e) Action on Permit Application
(I) Processing tine for a permit is 90 days following
receipt of a complete application. This 90 days includes a
30-day public comment period and public hearing. The
Board shall no:;f> the public, by advertisement in at least
one major newspaper of general circulation in the Air
Quality Control Region affected, of the opportunity for
public comment and the puclic hear:::? or. the informa-
tion required by p»ragrach (c) (!) of this section (ex-
clusive of ccnfdentiai information under Section 2.30).
(1)	Information on me permit request, as we!! as the
tentative analysis of air quality impact and proposed
decision of the Board, shail be available during the entire
public comment period in at least one location in the Air
Quulitv Control Region affected.
(ii) A copy of the notice required pursuant to this sub-
paragraph shall be sent to ali local air pollution control
agencies having State Implementation Plan respon-
sibilities in and aii states sharing the Air Quality Control
Region where :he source will be located and to the
Regional Administrator, Environmental Protection
Agency.
(2)	The Board normally will take final action on all
applications within 30 days after expiration of the public
comment period ur.iess more information is required.
The Board shail notify the applicant in writing of its ap-
proval or denial of the application, and shall set forth its
reasons therefor. The Beard shall notify the applicant as
to emission standards acceptable to it during emission
testing in accordance with paragraph (0 of this section.
(3)	If a permit is denied by the Board, an owner may
appeal such denial pursuant to Section 2.09.
(0 Emission Testing for Stationary Sources
(1)	Stationary so.trees other than those specified in
paragraph (0 (2) of this section .shail be tested in accor-
dance with the provisions of Section 5.03.
(2)	Stationary sources of hazardous pollutants shall be
tested in jccordanc: with the provisions of Section 6.03.
(3)	Upon request ol'the applicant, the iiuard ina> eran.t
v. aners or, :: case-by-ca.se ba.si.s from the requirements ot
this paragraph.
(j) Hx.cep'.i'.Mis
(I) St.iih'niirx S.",r, ;¦< IuInch do not emu h'liTur.irnis
Pni;..um<> .
A permit will not he required for
(i) The installat.un or alteration of air pollutant detcc-
4-16-76	1976 oy The Bu
tors, air pullulant recorders, combustion controllers or
combustion shutoff controls.
(ii)	The installation and operation of air-conditioning
or ventilating systems not designed to remove air
pollutants generated by or released from an afjectet'
facility.
(iii)	The installation and operation of low capacity fuel
burning equipment, such as: process smoke house
generators: devices that use gas as a fuel for air con-
ditioning or heating water: fuel burning eauipnwnt using
solid fuel with a ma\:rnum heat input of less than 350.TOO
Btu per hour: or fuel burning equipment using gaseous
and/or liquid fuel with a maximum heat input of less
than 1,000,000 J3tu per hour.
(iv)	The installation and operation of internal combus-
tion engines aggregating under 3000 hp at a single loca-
tion.
(v)	The installation and operation of laboratory equip-
ment used exclusively for chemical or physical anai>sis.
(vi)	The installation and operation of sources of minor
significance.
(vii)	Open burning — open burning permits are ob-
tained under Section 4.11 (h).
(2) Indirect Sourcs
A permit will not ce required for the following:
(i)	Any airport, tiie construction or modification of
which is expected to result in the following actn'ty miirn
!0 years of constriction or modiuc~:ion:
a New airport: less than 50.00C aircraft operations per
year by regularly scheduled air carriers, or use by le«s
than 1,600,000 passengers per year.
b Modified airport: Increase cf less than 50.000 air-
craft operations per year by regularly scheduled ai:
carriers over the e..isi:ng volume of aircraft operations,
or increase of less than 1.600.000 passengers ,'er year.
(ii)	Any airport, '.he construction or modification of
which is not designed or planned to be utiiized by_regular-
ly scheduled air earners.
(iii)	Single-family residential developments.
(iv)	In an SMSA
a Indirect Sources, other than highway projects and
airports, the operation of which when completed or
modiiled will attract fewer than TOO additional vehicles to
the roadways and parking facilities serving the indirect
source over the I-hour period during which the maximum
number of vehicles is anticipated and fewer than 1750 ad-
ditional vehicles to the roadways and parking facilities
serving the indirect source during the continuous S-hour
period during which the maximum number of vehicies is
expected.
b Any new or modified highw ay pnrject with less than
the following maximum expected average annual daily
traffic volume within 10 years of construction or
modification:
1	New highway project: 20.000 vehicles per day
2	Modified highway pnneci: lO.Or,!) lenieles :.er Jay
increase o\er -..\istii.e tr^illc '.oluine j:: vacn /;•'/.
project
(v)	Outside an SMSA
tl l/:..!r;\t uwr{ i > ,:.e"	;t.'*"(«: proici> ¦!
eirpori',. ihe • >per;itj:>:i of wr;;,_ii when '.urn pie! vo ¦;
modified -aill .-[tract fewer than MOO additional veiin.'e.'.
to roadways and parking facilities serving the indirect
iu oi National Affairs, Inc.
G-6

-------
STATE AIR LAWS
source over I'm: l-lmiir period during winch the maximum
number of veiuJes i.s anticipated and lower than JiOO ;id-
ditional vehicles to roadways and parkin;', facilities ser-
ving the indirect source during the continuous S-hour
period during which the maximum number ol vehicles is
expected.
b Any new or modified highway project.
(3) Where an indirect source is constructed or modified
in increments which individually arc not subject to ap-
proval under this section, and which are not part of a
program of construction or modification in planned in-
cremental phases approved by the Board, all such in-
crements shall be added together for determining the
applicability of this paragraph.
(h)	Revocation of Permit
A permit g-anted pursuant to this section shall be
revoked if a program of continuous construction is not
begun within 24 months from the date the permit is
granted.
(i)	Existence of Permit No Defense
The exi.ster.ee of a permit under this section shall not
constitute a uefense to a violation of the Virginia Air
Pollution Control Law or these regulations and shall not
relieve any owner of the responsibility to comply with
any applicable regulations, laws, ordinances and orders
cf the governmental entities having jurisdiction.
(j) Parking Management Supply Alternative
(!) A local rowjmmema! entity, local cir pollution
control agency or regional planivrsa agency may submit,
at any t;me. a comprehensive parking management plan
as an altcrnat've to tiie provisions of this section.
(2)	The Board may approve «uch plan if it finds that:
(i)	The S'lvernrnc.'itai i-r.titv or agency submitting the
pian has full a.id adequate '^gnl authority to enforce
compliance with its recuiremert:;.
(ii)	The provisions ol the plan are consistent with the
substantive and procedural provisions of this section.
(iiij The plan has been auonted alter a public hearing
he.'u in coMormity with tne i-?quirements of paragraphs
(a)(5) and (e) (!) of this section.
(3)	Upon the effective date of any approved local com-
prehensive parking management pi,in, such plan shali ex-
empt affected sources from applicable provisions of this
section.
(k) Notwithstanding the exemptions, no owner or
other person shai! circumvent the requirements of this
section by causing or allowing a pattern of ownership or
development over a geographic area of an indirect
source, which, except for the pattern of ownership or
development, would otherwise require an indirect source
permit.
2.34 FACILITY AND CONTROL EQUIPMENT
MAINTENANCE OR MALFUNCTION
(a) At all iiines. includi ic period* o( startup. i/iutdown
and maijunction. tinners shall, to the extent practicable,
maintain and operate any a'tecled f'iahl\ including
as.icc:at:d >::r	control evi'a.pmeiil u» manner
cons!',te:i! »ith good air pollution control practice of
minimi/mg e:!"i:^.;rns
Ch) In ca^o	•; i".d vr bypassing of./. -
Hon lOiic^I c.i'.iipii'crw for necessary si-iicaaled
maintenance winch results m an increase ol emissions of
air pollutants in violation of applicable provisions ol
thcr.e regulations for more than 1 hour, the micnl to shut
down such equipment shall be reported to the Hoard and
local air pollution control agency, if any. at least 24 hours
prior to the planned shutdown. Such prior notice shall in-
clude, but is not limited to. the following:
(1)	Identification of the specific facility to be taken out
of service as well as us location and permit and/or
registration number.
(2)	The expected length of time that the air pollution
control equipment will be out of service.
(3)	The nature and quantity of emissions of air
pollutants likely to occur during the shutdown period.
(4)	Measures that will be taken to minimize the length
of the shutdown or to negate the effect oT the outage of
the air pollution control equipment.
(c)	In the event that any air pollution control equip-
ment of any source or related facility, malfunctions in
such a-manner that may cause an increase in the emission
cf air pollutants in violation of applicable provisions of
these regulations for mere than I hour, the owner shall,
as soon as practicable but no laier th^n 4 daytime
business hours, notify the Board by telephone or
telegraph of such failure or malfunction and shall then,
provide a written statement giving all pertinent facts, in-
cluding the estimated duration of the breakdovr,. Vv'hen
the condition causing the malfunction nas been corrected
and the equipment is again in operation, the o-.ner shali
notify the Board.
(d)	In the event that the breakdown period cited in
paragraph (c).oi' this section, exists for 30 or more days,
the own a shall, within 30 day-, cf the •nalfunmon ana
semi-monthly thereafter until the malfunction is cor-
rected, submit to the Board a written report containing
the following:
(!) Identification of the specific facility that is affected
as well as its location and permit ar.d/or registration
number.
(2)	The expected length of time that the air pollution
control equipmen' .¦¦¦ 111 be out of service.
(3)	The nau; - :nd quantity of emissions of air
pollutants likely u occur curing the breakdown period.
(4)	Measures to be taken to reduce emissions to the
lowest amount practicable during ;he breakdown period.
(5)	A statement as to why the owner was unabic to ob-
tain said repair parts or perform said repairs uhicn wouid
allow compliance with the provisions of these regulations
within 30 days of tiie malfunction.
(6)	An estimate, with reasons therefor, of the duration
of the shortage of repair or repair parts which wouid
allow compliance with the provisions of these
regulations.
(7)	Any other pertinent information as may be re-
quested by the Board.
(e)	The procedural requirements of paragraph fd) of
this section shali be applicable (•> months after the date of
the malfunction. Should the breakdown period exist
heyond the 6-moiuh period, the owner may appiv lor a
variance in accordance with Section ."M'n.i!
(I) 'I he Hoard re.'oi'.'ii/es lhal nialnnn Uon.\ ma;, ueuir
for many and varied . casnns Curtailment ol' opeinitons
Environment Reportor
G-9

-------
VIRGINIA REGULATIONS
53G:0G29
ducted by Section 5.03 is completed, no owner or other
perron siihject to the provisions of this rule shall cause to
be discharged into the atmosphere iroin any ajjcctrd
facility any gases wind: exhibit greater than 20 percent
opacity. Where the presence of uncombincd water is the
only reason for failure 10 meet the requirements of this
section such . .iiurc shall not be a violation of this section.
5.13	STANDARD FOR FUGITIVE DUST
During the construction, modification or operation
phase of a stationary wurce or any oiher building, struc-
ture, facility or installation, no owner or other person
shall cause, suffer, aliow or permit any materials to be
handled, fran."ported or stored: or a building, its ap-
purtenances c: a rouu to be used, constructed, altered,
repaired or demolished witnout taking reasonable
precautions to prevent particulate matter from becom-
ing airborne. Such reasonable precautions may include,
but are not limited to the following:
(a)	U-e, •viiere possible, of water or chemicals for con-
trol of duit in the demolition of existing buildings cr
structures, construction operations, the grading of roads
or the Clearing of land:
(b)	Application of asphalt. oil. water cr cuitable
cherr.-i.als o:; d::: rr :dj. materials stockpiles ana other
surfaces «.h:cJi ccn create airborne nuit:
(c)	Installation anc use of hoocs. tens and fabric niters
to enclose anc vent the handling of dusty materials.
Adequate containment methods shail be employed dur-
ing sanub'.isiiiv: or otner similar operations:
(d)	Op-"" <-oui,irr:;n: for conveying or transporting
materials l:k;!y to become Jtirhorne.which would create
objection-' bie c;r pollution shall be covered, or treated in
an equaiiv effect;-e manner at ail times when in motion:
(e)	The pu\irg of .oadways and their maintenance in a
clci.ii condition:
(f)	The prompt removal of dirt or other material from
paved streets o^er »*hich such material has been
transported by trucking or earth moving equipment or
erosion by water.
5.14	RESERVED
5.15	TEST METHODS AND PROCEDURES
Method 9 in 40 CFR Part 60. Appendix A. excent as
provided for in Section 5.03. shall be used to determine
compliance with the standard prescribed in Section 5.12.
5.16	EXCEPTION'S
When starting a new fire, blowing tubes or cleaning a
fire bo.\. an owner may discharge into ihe atmosDhere
from an\ aU.-ct-:.! lact.'itv aa»es which exhibit greater
ihar. 20 percent i./\.v;r. for brief fonous.
M7 TRAFFIC H \ZARO
No iJuTi*,- or oilier ;>cr\i>n shall divh.ii'-v from ,m\
facility wli.itsoevcr such quantities of.sir pollutants. un-
combitied water or other matei i.ils as may cause a traffic
hazard.
ST A N n •, R n S O !¦ P p R FO R M A N C E FO K
ODOROUS EMISSIONS — (RULI-i NS-I)
5.20 APPLICABILITY AND DESIGNATION OF
AFFECTED FACILITY
The provisions of this rule are aoplicable to any facility
that emits odor, which is the affected facility.
5:21 RESERVED
5.22	STANDARD FOR ODOROUS EMISSIONS
(a)	The owner shall empioy best available control
technology a» may be approved by the Board for the con-
trol of odorous emissions.
(b)	After ISO days from initial startup, no owner or
other person subject to the provisions of thic a;!e shall
cause to be discharged into the atmc-sp^-rc from any
affected facility any emissions which cau-e an odor objec-
tionable to individuals of ordinary sensibility.
5.23	DETERMINATION OF VIOLATION
The determination of violation is to be made after a
thorough review of all data or evidence relating to the
situation vh:ch may do cbiaineri by an in'.estimation
directed by ciie Board and by i-oicir.g a public: Hearing in
.iccordanc; v.im Section 2.0-Ua;; i) to hear cor.i-
piainis. The investigation m::y nvciude u;'e of a." odor
panel survey and/or other methods approved by the
Board.
'5:24 EXCEPTION
This rule is not intended to be applied to accidental o.
other infrequent emissions of odors.
[Sections 5.2-1 — 5.29 are reserved.]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONARY SOURCES
5.30	GENERAL
The Environmental Protection Agency Regulations on
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources
(40 CFR. Part 60) designated >n Section 5.31 arc incor-
porated by reference into these regulations as amended
by the word or phrase substitutions given ;n Section 5.32.
The specific documents containing the compiete text of
the referenced regulations arc given in Appendi:: I.
5.31	DESIGNATED STANDARDS OF PERFOR-
MANCE
Subpart D — Fossil — Fuei Fired Steam Generators
(units of more than 250 million Btu per hour heat input;
Subpart E — incinerator:, limits of more than 50 tons
per day charging rale;
Subpart I* — Portland Cement Plant-; - kiln, clinker
cooler, raw mill system. finiMi mill •>¦-stem. raw rrri'
ilryer. raw material	^v.\c\.ir :r..ns.v p.nri-
bagging and bui'r. 'o„-iin:: .m-i ai-'iM'!;:: ¦ ^tc:" - >
Subpart Ci — Nunc \cid Plants (nitric :.e:d prude,.-
lion uniis)
4-16-76
Copyright .? 1976 by The Bureau of National Af(
-------
53*Or-30
STATE AIR LAWS
Subpart. !( — Sulfuric Acid Plants (sulfuric acid
production units)
Subpart I — Asphalt Concrete Plants (dryers, systems
for screening, handling, storing, and weighing hot
aggregate; systems for loading, transferring, and storing
mineral filler; systems for mixing asphalt concrete; and
the loading, transfer, and storage systems associated with
emission control systems)
Subpait J — Petroleum Refineries (fluid catalytic
cracking unit catalyst regenerators, fluid catalytic crack-
ing unit incinerator-waste heat bcilers and fuel gas com-
bustion devices)
Subpart K — Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids
(storage vessel* with a capacity greater than 40,000
gallons)
Subpart L — Secondary Lead Smelters (pot furnaces
of more than 550 lb charging capacity, blast (cupola) fur-
naces and revcrberatory furnaces)
Subpart M — Secondary Brass and Bronze Ingot
Production Plants (reverberatory and electric furnaces of
2,205 lb or greater production capacity ana blast (cupola)
furnaces of 550 lb per nr or greater production capacity)
Subpart N — Iron and Steel Plants (basic ox\gen
process furnace)
Subpart O — Sewage Treatment Plants (incinerators
which burn the sewage produced by municipal sewage
treatment facilities)
Subpart T — Phosphate Fertiliser Industry: Wet-
Process Phosphoric Ac:c Plants (reactors, filters, evapora-
tors and hotwells)
Subpart U — Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Super-
oho-jphoric Acid Plants (eva,)orato:s, hotwells, acid
aumps and cooling ta-.k:)
Subpart V — Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Diam-
mom'um Phosphate Plants (reactors, granulators, dry-
ers, coolers, screens and mills)
Subpart W — Piiosphaie Fertilizer Industry: Triple
Superphosphate Plants (mixers, curing belts (dens),
reactors, granulators. dryers, cookers, screens, mills
and facilities which store run-of-pile triple super-
phosphate)
Subpart X — Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Granular
Triple Superphosphate Storage Facilities (storage or
curing piles, conveyors, elevators, screens and mills)
Subpart AA — Steel Plants- Electric Arc Furnaces
(electric arc furnaces and dust-handling equipment)
Appendix A — Reference Methods
5.32 WORD OR PHRASE SUBSTITUTIONS
In al! of the standards designated in Section 5.31 sub-
stitute
(a)	Owner or other person for owner or operator
(b)	Part I for Subpart A
(c)	Board for Administrator
(d)	Board for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(except in references)
(e)	5.03 for nO.'S
(!) j.04 (ij) iit (>0 / (c)
PAKT VI — Sl'KCIAJ. PROVISIONS
6.01	APPLICABILITY
The provisions of this part shall be applicable to all ex-
isting. new and modified sources lor which emission stan-
dards arc set forth in this part.
6.02	COMPLIANCE
(a)	90 days after the effective date of any emission
standard prescribed under this part no owner or other
person shall operate any existing source in violation of
such standard.
(b)	After the effective date of any emission standard
prescribed under this part no owner or other person shall
operate any new or modified source in violation of such
standard.
(c)	No owner subject to the provisions of this part shall
fail to report, revise reports or report source test results
as required under this part.
6.03	EMISSION TESTING AND SAMPLING
(a)	Emission tests shall be concocted and reported as
set forth in this part and 40 CFR Part 6!, Appendix B.
(b)	The owner of a new or modified source subject to
this part shall provide or cause to be provided, emission
testing faci'ities as fellows:
(1)	Sampling ports adequate for test methods
applicable to such source.
(2)	Safe sampling platform(s).
(3)	Safe access to sampling piatform(s).
(4)	Utilities for sampling and testing equipment.
(c)	The Board may test emissions of a:.' pollutants
from any source subject to this part. U^on request of the
Board the cwner shall provide testing facilities as outrn-
ed in paragraph (b) of this section.
(d)	Methods 101, i02 c^nd 104 in 40 CFR Fart 61,
Appendix B, shail be used for all source tests required i-.n-
der this part unless an ejuna/ent method or an alter-
native method has been approved by the Board.
(c) Method 103 in 40 CFR Part 61. Appendix B. is
hereby approved as an alternative me:hod for sources
subject to 40 CFR 61.32 (a) and 40 CFR 61.42 fb).
(0 The Board may, after notice to the owner, withdraw
approval of an alternative method granted unci:r
paragraph (e) of this section. Where the test results us.ng
an alternative method do not I'dequateiy indicate whether
a source is in compliance ilh a standard, the Board may
require the use of the reference method or its equivalent.
(g) The Board may require the owners, at regular inter-
vals, to perform or have performed emission tests.
6.04	MONITORING, RECORDS AND REPOR-
TING
(a)	Monitoring shall be conducted and reported as set
forth in this part and 40 CI'R Part 61. Appendix B
(b)	The •'ioard may direct ,in <>wnt r to in-'tjil. use and
maintain additional monitoring equipment and s,:mplc
the emission in accordance unh methods acceptable to
Environment Reporter
G-ll

-------
vtnautA it; ci.'i./'.Tmu:;
jju. w.i.) •
the liiiiiiil. .mil	ic'iiids and i::;s!.<• |"jrir'i^:nI
sioi: iep"rls ;is :c{':iiu:I 1:1 p:tr:•!'r.ijWi (> j (if :hii «¦ tri;11 and icpoit.-,, .'.s I he lloaid shall
direct, ;'vr!.::-iin;r (" air pollulai'ts or !;:v:!. shall he
recorded. iin;is!¦_>! ai.d submitted 1:1 .. !;i::::;it acceptable
lo the Hoard.
(d)	Any owner subject lo the provisions of this part
shall fuithe Hoard written notiiicahon as follows;
(1)	A notification of t!iu anticipated dale 01 initial
startup of any iu-w or mrur<.e lo v.Inch an emission standard prescrib-
ed 11 d-s p.'r; is a;:!;:ahle uhi':h ha:. a:i initial start-
up which n'ed ibe eitcciivc date of aii anixsiuiistand-
ard prescribed undei '.In-- part shall, v.iihin 90 days afier
the effective ti.iie. provide the following information in
writing lo 'he Hoard-
(1)	N;>r.JC and audress of the owner.
(2)	The locution of the source.
(?) The type of hazardous pollutants emitted by the
staionm \ :rce
(4)	\ brief dcacrifuT.- of i-.s nature, si/c. design and
mc!!i: of ope;\u:u". of the w.:.'i.'>/;,7ri source including
the 0| de.-. ur rap of sue:; \o:ua U:cn:if>
each p-.niit o'. cvi!i>s: >:-. for each hazmduus pollutant.
(5)	The average weight per month of the hazardous
maieriais Heine preceded b\ the source, over '.he last 12
mouths p-c.Tviir.: the oa'e of the report.
(6)	A d'..^cripiio:i ofth: exulting control equipment for
each emission pcim.
(i)	Primary control device(s) for each hazardous pollu-
tant.
(ii)	Secondary control uevice(s) for each hazardous
pollutant.
(iii)	Intimated cc-ntrol efficiency (percent) for each
control device.
(7)	A statement by the owner of the source as to
whether he can comply with the emission standards
prescribed in this part within 'JO days of the effective dale.
(f) Changes in the information provided under
paragraph (e) c-f this section shall be provided to the
Board \\ ithin 30 da\ s after such change. escept that if the
chanties result from a modi'hation of tiic source, the
provisions of Section 2.3? are applicable.
(p) Reporting under this section shall be according, to
procedures acceptable to the Hy.ard Adv ice on reporting
the st.:ia> of compliance nuv be obtained from the
Hoar.;
[Sections (i 05 — 6 09 are reserved.]
r\\ rw.;; \ ri: <. i ;:v\ •,(.r\cv
¦1 \ ' '. *'. • 1 1 •; i > •, \ •. i \	i *)::
1 i	i' ¦ '\ \ . 1 1 i i i : '. "¦> ! '•
are iiiepoi ateil by refeience into the'.'; u-'-uiat ions as
amended by the '.void or phrase scir.niuiious gncit in
Section (>. I 2. 1'hc :.p-_\ die document-. i ¦ mit-umi11- t he com-
plete te\l o! the icferenced reei'laiions are given in
Appcndr. I.
6.11 DLSICJN ATI-1) LMISSiON bTANDA11DS
Subpart IJ — Asbestos
Subpart C — Rers Ilium
Subpart I) — Bervlbum Rocket Motor Tiring
Subpau !, — Me:eery
6.12 WORD OR I'liRASF; SUBSTITU i'lONS
In all of the .standaid:. designated in Section 6 11 sub-
stitute:
(a)	Owner or other person for owner or operator
(b)	I'.oi I for Subpart A
(c)	Board for Administrator
(d)	Hoard for U. S. Lnvtroiimc;*.;.;! iVotec'.ior. .\ge::cy
(cr.ccpt in references)
(c) 2.33 and 6.04 (d) f,v 61.05 (a), 61.07 and 61.09
(f) 6 03 for 61.14
PART VII — ArR i'OLLLTIO-, Ll'ir.CDZ
7 01 GliNHIl.\L
(a)	An A'r roH.Mc.i rp'-sr.de P!jn pre-; TCcd'.'iv-
to be followed '.viie^ever :!'e inr q iuhty l;.'.". '.he po'.ci'.tiLi
of reachi;:si levels v.!sijIi cnuld cause siSii:!:-—nt hjrm to
public heaki-.
(b)	'A'hcncvc: ti:c Hoed determines the acr'jrr.v'r.'.ion
of air poiiuitun may jtt„:n, :¦> af.:.':',:::,; or has retained n
icvei or levels considered injurious to human !'.e::lt::. Air
Pollution Episode Stapes cie.'.igiia'.id as Fcrecas:, Alert.
Warning ana limergene;. .hall be cccinreci. lr. mzi.ir.g -
determination, the criteria define;"! in Secuo:: 7.C2 shai!
be used as guidance.
(c)	To assure compliance w-;'-. ;his part, o^rwrs of
sources as applicable shuil sub.nit staiuib;' envs-i'.m
reduction plans in accordance v.itii Seetioii 7.03. In ac-
cordance with such standby e::M.;Mon reduction plans,
control requirements as <:;ccified '•
I'oreeasl. Aleit. Wainin.' oi I (."-ci.'encv S'."e -".'I
di-:.' e* r : \v!;ein.wi the /'¦ '	.•
. I '¦;> 1 :¦ . ' ..." e .'O 'I i'
/ •	^ v .-.be- . ' -
(• !t' . I .
I	1 v - ¦
N.:! .iMiai	' i >.1b.i i is I... i , .. .. i d	\ . i
ill's t-i" (. I R I'.ii t <¦!) J, .it-1i in	.'«>¦» f>. I !
-1 -1 !•-7Ci	C*0|iy r i .]l-r . ' 1'?'/^ !•> 1 In. !'.
s u\ iI I i11 j-. : .;' ¦ ¦I > ¦ )• (1
sh.ili iv lis.' 1 ;.s i;c.d..i.-.e.
.» <•{ {^oiu'iiiil Alioii Inc.
' f x i
G-12

-------
53^.0532
STATE Ain LAWS
(b) Episode Criteria
(1) Korcc:::»t Stage
An interna! administrative watch shall he declared by
the Board whenever the national, local or staff
meteorologist issues a forecast indicating an atmospheric
stagnation will cover any substantial portion of the State
for an extended period. Such a weather forecast will in-
dicate meteorological conditions which are expected to
inhibit pollutu-.i dispersion. The watch shall be in effect
for those areas of the State covered by the weather
forecast and it shall continue throughout the atmospheric
stagnation period. Such weather forecasts indicating at-
mospheric stagnation will take the form of:
(1)	A regional Air Stagnation Advisory, including any
substantial part of the State, issued by the National
Weather Service.
(ii) A forecast by the staff meteorologist indicating
local meteorological conditions which inhibit dispersion
for an extended period of time.
(2)	Alert Stage
An Alert Stage shall be declared by the Board when
any one of the following pollutant levels is reached »t any
monitoring site concurrent with:
(i)	Consultation with the national, local or staff
meteorologist which indicates that an atmospheric
stagnation exists and/or
(ii)	A determination by the Board that the poilutant
level is representative of air quality in an Air Quality
Control Rtgion and the concentrations of pollutants can
be expected to remain at the f< Homing indicated levels for
12 or more hours or increase, or in the case of o.Mdants,
the situation is likely to recur v. ithm the next 24 hours un-
less control actions are taken. Conspiration with ilie air
pollution control agencies oi 'iie affected jurisdictions
will be accomplished to help evaluate local situations.
pollution control agencies of the affected jurisdictions
will be accomplished to help evaluate local situations.
roLi.u?A?rr	avt5l\cs
S02	24 '..oar
ParttcuUt"	24 hour
Produce of
SOj x Particulates	24 hour
CO	8 hour
Otidants 	1 nour
0«idann(AQCR 7)	1 hour
WQn	1 hour
24 hour
"S'q	p;a
803	.3
175	(3.0 COH)
65,000	C.Z cOH-ppo product)
17 000	15.0
too	2
200	.1
1.1JJ	.4
282	.11
(3) Warning Stage
A Warning Stage shall be declared by the Board when
any one of the fo'lo^ mg pollutant levels is reached at any
monitoring site concurrent with:
(i)	Consultation with the national, local or staff
meteorologist which indicates that an atmospheric
stagnation exists and/or
(ii)	A determination b> the Board ilia' the pollutant
level im repre>ciUair>e oi -m> .;;uii;:v in an Iir Quality
Control	and tne v-vaeer,l ration-. o| j-oilniants can
he expected ,o re.ti or. .it '.he loiUuM \-.< indicated lovl> ior
!2 o; nn;:e :¦ .'i ¦ ti-.; j i.v- ,-r ;a the case ni vsuiaats
tile situ.:'.:^:: i. ii'.el;. to revai ••• 11:1:11 the ne.U 24 hutirs un-
less control action.*, are taken. Consultation with the air
POLL'JTAiiT
Avcraj®
u./«>
PPB
502
24 hour
l.tOO
.6
p.nrelculat**
24 hour
C25
(3.0 COlt)
Product 0t
SO-r x ParTteul*ti»*
24 hour
261.009
C.f cc:;.:
CO,
8 hour
34.000
30.0
Oxirf*net
1 Hour
AGO
.4
COj
1 hour
2.2W
1.2

24 hour
•M
.JO
(4) Emergency Stage
An Emergency Stage shall be declared by the Gover-
nor of the Commonwealth of Virginia when any one of
the following pollutant levels is reached at any monitor-
ing site concurrent with:
(i)	Consultation with the national, local or staff
meteorologist which indicates that an atmospheric
stagnation exists and/or
(ii)	A determination by the Board that the pollutant
level is representative of air quality in an Air Quality
Control Region and the concentrations of pollutants can
be expected to remain at the following indicated levels for
12 or moic hours or increase, or in the case of oxidants,
the situation is likely to recur within the next 24 hoars un-
less control actions are taken. Consultation with the oi>
pollution control agencies of the affected jurisdictions
will be accomplished to help evaluate local situations.
roiuiTwr:
S(>j
rartlculjcet
rrorfuee of
S02 *
CO
Oildjat*
Wj
AVCCAC2
wb/b

26 hoor
2,123
.8
2A fcmsr
675
n.G COM)
!<~ Sour
393 ~WO
(1.2 C0K-pp« prr&gct)
• hoor
U.CCO
40.0
1 hoar
1,200
.5
1 hoor
3,000
l.t
24 hour
7SG
.4
iy existent s
tase of the Air Pollu.ion
:iared by th
e Gov
srnor of the Com-
(5) Termination
IUV/1J	I * UUUIIU \Jt tils* UiJUf U UUOV.U Wll
(i)	Consultation with tne national, local or staff
meteorologist which indicates that the atmospheric con-
ditions justify termination and/or
(ii)	Appropriate redaction in pollutant levels. As the
criteria for a given stage are no longer being met. tne
lowest appropriate stage will he as.Mimcd.
(c) When the Board determines that a specified criteria
level is being approached and may be reached at one or
more monitoring sites solely because of emissions from a
limited number of \our; such v/,-m
that the preplanned abatement straici'ies ol Ta'.Ie " ')"!
A. B 01 C 01 the st.i.'iiiln pl.,i's are reiar rd.	a . ••
applies to such ¦;/>-. \ >. and shall he pii. ni.. el te-.t 1Jr 1 l!
a satisfactory reduction in the ambient pollution concen-
tration has been achic.ed.
Environment Roporter
G-13

-------
VIRCSM!A REGULATIONS
536:0532
(d) The Alert. Warning. and Emergency Stages may be
activated on the basis of de'.erioratin:.: ar quahtv alone:
i.e.. an atmospheric stagnation forecast need not he in
effect, subject to 'he determination specified in
paragraphs (b)(2)(ii). (b)(3)lii) and (b)(4)(ii) of this sec-
tion.
7.03 STANDBY EMISSION REDUCTION PLANS
(a)	Any owner of a source with a potential of emitting
100 tons per year or more of any one of t!"c following
pollutants: {particulate, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide,
nitrogen dioxide, indrocarbons) shall prepare standby
emission reduction plans, consistent wuh safe operating
procedures, for reducing emissions during periods of
Alert, Warning and Emergency Stages. Standby emis-
sion reduction plans shall be de:,irrned to reduce or
eliminate emissions in accordance with the objectives set
forth in Table 7.02A. B or C as applicable.
(b)	Any owner of a source of emissions not specifically
identified under Section 7.C."; a)'shall, uhen requested by
the Board in writing, prepare standb> emission reducnon
plans, consistent witn safe operating procedures, for
reducing "missions during periods of Alert. Warning and
Emerrvr.w) Stages. S'uiiu'jy emission reduction .pinns
shall b= designed to reduce or eliminate emissions in ac-
cordance \-ich the o-j-.": "-'e set forth in Tabie 7.Q2A, 3 cr
C.,
(c)	Standby emission reduction plans as required in
Section 7.03(a) and (b) shaii oe :n writing and show the
source of emissions, tl-.j approximate amount of reduc-
tion of emissions to be achieved, the time necessary to
achie\e the reduction after being notified to impiement
the plan and a description of the manner in which the
reduction will be achieved during an Alert. Warning and
Emergency Stage in accordance with the objectives set
forth in Table 7.Q2A. 3 or C. Such clans shall be sub-
mitted in the form spe:ii1cd by the Board.
(d)	During an Alert. Warning or Emergency Stage,
standby emission reduction plans as required by this sec-
tion shall be made immediately available on the premises
to any person authorized to enforce these regulations.
(e)	Standby emission reduction plans as required by
this section shall be submitted to the Board upon request
within 30 days of the receipt of such request: such stand-
by emission reduction plans shall be subject to review and
approval by the Board. If. in the opinion of the Board.
such standby emission reduction plans do not carry out
the objectives set forth in Table 7.02A. B or C. the Board
may disapprove said standby emission reduction plans,
state the reason for disapproval and recommend specific
amendments to the proposed standby emission reduction
plans. A revised plan shall then be resubmitted within a
lime period specified by the Board. If any o*ncr fails to
submit a standby emission reduction plan within the time
period specified, or submits a plan «iuch in the opinion
of the Bourd does not carry out the objectives set forth in
Tabic 7.02A. B or C. the Board snail promulgate such
st.mdln '."ni-iMon .'eJi.ction plan as will meet the ohiec-
tives in T.iiiL- "02 V 13 >ir C". Such plan shall
thereafter he tile standby eiravsiun reduction plan winch
(he (in ncr shall nut into effect upon the declaration ny the
Governor or the Board of an Alert. Warning or
Emergency Stage.
4-1C-7G	Copyright $ 1976 by The Qu
7.04	CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
(a)	When the Board declares an Alert Stage, any
. ncr of a satire.' subject u> a standby c:n;s-;ion reduction
pian under Section 7.O.- and any other .tourer or
categories of sources designated shall take all Alert Stage
actions as required for >ucn source of air pollutants and
shall put into effect the preplanned abatement strategy
for an Alert Stage.
(b)	When the Board declares a Warning Stage, any
o*ncr of a source subject to a standby emission reduction
plan under Section 7.03 and any other source or
categories of sources designated shall take all Warning
Stage actions as required for such source of air poilutants
ana shall put into effect the preplanned abatement
strategy for a Warning Stage.
(c)	V-.'! en ..;c Go":rr.'"»r declares an Emergency, any
owner of a source subject to a standby emission reduction
plan under Section 7.03 and any otner source or
categories of sources designated snail take all Emergency
Slaae actions as requiic-J for  such sources', a. that the pre-
planned abatement strategies of Table 7.02A. B or C or
the standby plans are required, insofar ns it appiies to
such sourcetsi. and snail be put into effec. until the
specified criteria level are no longer met.
(e)	When the Board determines that a specific pollu-
tant.level caused the declaration of an Alert or W arning
Stage and that curtailment of emissions from certa
sources would have no effect on that pollutant lever1
it may exercise good judgment in determining which
abatement strategies shall "be put into effect.
7.05	LOCAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGEN-
CY PARTICIPATION
("0 Locr.! air pollution control agencies snail develop -
local plar. * which will establish standard operatm:
procedures and allocation of responsibilities (inciudinc
public information) to be placed in effect m the event of
an Air Pollution Episode. Two copies of such plans anr
any subsequent changes to the plans shail be furnished :<
the Board.
(b) The statewide Episode Control Center will be
located in Richmond. Operational, communication an
public information procedures for the control of At
Pollution Episodes by the State Episode Control Cents,
will be promulgated by the Board to all local air pollution
control agencies and regional offices.
PREPLANNED ABATEMENT STRATEGIES
TABLE 7.02A
ALERT STAGE
A. GENERAL
1.	There shai! be no open hwning by any nwner
other pern/it.
2.	The use of incinerators for the disposal of an> fi
of solid waste shail be limited to the hours between 12.
noon and 4:00 p.m.
90u of National Affairs, Inc.
G-14

-------
530:0524
STATE AIR LAWS
3. Owners of fuel burning equipment which require
boiler lancing or soot blowing siiail perform such
operations onJy between the hours of 12:00 noon and 4:00
m.
Source of Air Pollution
1. Coal or oil-fii -J electric power generating facilities.
2. Coal and oil-fired process steam generating facilities.
3. Manufacturing industries of the following classifica-
tions:
Primary Metals Industries.
Titrclcum Refir.irtg Operations.
Chemical Industries.
Mineral Proccssi;:;: Industries.
Paper and Allied Products.
Grain Industry.
4. Owners operating motor vehicle.'! shall eliminate all
unnecessary operations.
B. SOURCE CURTAILMENT
Any owner of a .source listed below shall take all re-
quired control actions for this Alert Stage.
Control A ction
a.	Substantial reduction by utilization of fuels having
low ash and sulfur content.
b.	Maximum utilization of mid-day (12:00 noon to
4:00 p.m.) atmospheric turbulence for boiler lancing
and soot blowing.
c.	Substantial reduction by diverting electric power
generation to facilities outside of Alert Area.
a.	Substantial reduction by utilization of fuels having
low ash and sulfur content.
b.	Maximum utilization of mid-day (12:00: noon to
4:00 p.m.) atmospheric turbulence for boiler lancing
and soot blowing.
c.	Substantial reduction of steam load demands con-
sistent with continuing plant operations.
a.	Substantial reduction of air pollutants from manu-
facturing operations by curtailing, postponing or defer-
ring production and ill operations.
b.	Maximum reduction by deferring trade waste dis-
posal operations which emit solid particles, gas vapors or
malodorous substances.
c.	Maximum reduction of heat load demands for
processing.
d.	Maximum utilization of mid-day (12:00 noon to
4:00 p.m.) atmospheric turbulence for boiler lancing
and sool blowing.
TABLE 7.023
WARNING STAGE
A. GENERAL
1.	There shaii be no open burning by any owner or
other person.
2.	The use of incinerators for the disposal of any form
of solid waste or liquid waste is prohibited.
3.	Owners of fuel burning equipment which require
boiler lancing or soot blowing shall perform such
operations only between the hours of 12:00 noon and 4:00
p.m.
4. Owners operating motor ver.ich's shah reduce
operations by the use of car pools and increased us: of
public transportation and elimination of unnecessary
operation.
B. SOURCE CURTAILMENT
Any owner of a source listed below shall take ail re-
quired control actions for this Warning Stage.
Source of Air Pollution
1. Coal or oil-fired eiectric power generating facilities.
2. Coal and oil-lircd process steam generating facilities.
Control Action
a.	Maximum reduction by utilization of fuels having
lowest ash and sulfur content.
b.	Maximum utilization of mid-day (12:C0 noon to
4:00 p.m.) atmospheric turbulence for boiler lancing
and soot blowing.
c.	Maximum reduction by diverting eiectric power
generation to facilities outside of Warning Area.
¦a.	Maximum reduction by utilization of fuels having
the	lowest available ash and sulfur content.
b.	Maximum utilization ot mid-day il2'"0 r.uuu to
4'00 p.m ) atmospheric turbulence lor ivii":
and sool blow i:iu
c.	Making reads for use a olan	to be taken if
an emergency develops.
Environment Raporter
G-15

-------
vir.GSNiA m!.
TABLE 7.02C
EMERGENCY STAGE
A. GENERAL
1.	There shall ce no open burning by any owner or
other person.
2.	Th». use of incinerators for the disposal of any form
of solid or iiquid waste is prohibited.
3.	All places cf employment described below shall
immediately cease operations.
a.	Mining and quarrying of nonmetallic minerals.
b.	All construction work except that which must pro-
ceed to avoid emergent physical harm.
c.	All manufacturing establishments except those re-
quired to have in force an air pollution emergency plan.
d.	All wholesale trade establishments: i.e.. places of
business primarily engaged in selling merchandise to re-
tailers, or industrial, commercial, institutional or profes-
sional users, or to other wholesalers, or acting as agents
in buying merchandise for or selling merchandise to such
persons or companies, except those engaged in the dis-
tribution of drugs, surgical supplies and food.
c. Ali offices of local, county and State government in-
cluding authorities, joint meetings and other public
bodies excepting such agencies which are determined by
the chief administrative officer of local, county or State
government authorities, joint meetings and other public
bodies to be vital ror public safety and wdlare and the
enforcement of the provision'; ot tins p.irt.
f. All retail trade establishments except pharmacies,
surgical supply distributors, and stores primaril;. engaged
in tlie s.ne of food.
g.	Banks, credit agencies other than bank?, securities
and commodities brokers, dealers, exchange*: and sc.-
ices; offices of insurance carriers, agents and broke
real estate offices.
h.	Wholesale and retail laundries, laundry services anr:
cleaning and dyeing establish—e::ts: pnotograchi
studios: beauty shops, barber shops. snc> repair shops.
i.	Advertising offices; consumer cr-?dit reporting, ad--
justment and collection agencies: duplicating, addressing
blueprinting: photocopying, mailing, mailing list ar.1
stenographic services; equipment rental services, ccrn
mercial testing laboratories.
j. Automobile repair, automobile services, garages.
k. Establishments rendering amusement ana recrca
tional services including motion picture tneaters.
I. Elementary and secondary schools, colleges, univer-
sities. professional schools, junior coileges. vocations
schools and public ana private libraries.
4. All commercial and manufacturing establishment
not included in this order shall institute such actions a
will result in maximum reduction of air pollutants iron
their operation by ceasing, curtailing or po.scponi.-.-j
operations which emit air pollutants to trie extent po -
stole witliout causing irjury '.o person or carnage f
equipment.
5 The use of nuHur vrhtr'c", is pr-.i'ii'M-ci e\^erv
emergencies with the ar-i". mi I o! local St.:';'. "
4-16-7G	Copyright & 1976 by THe Bureau of Noltoral Affairs, Inc.
G-16

-------
536:C j3G
STATE A?r! LAWS
B. SOUKCI CURTAILMENT
Any owner of u source IisIlu hdow shall lake;.II re-
quired control actions for this Liinergency Stage.
Source of Air Pollution
1. Coal or oil-fired electric power generating facilities.
2. Coal and oil-fired process steam generating facilities.
3. Manufacturing industries of the following classifi-
cations:
Primary Metals Industries.
Petroleum Refining.
Chemical Industries.
Mineral Processing Industries.
Grain Industry.
Facer ami Allied Products.
Control Action
a.	Maximum reduction by utilization of fuels having
lowest ash and sulfur content.
b.	Maximum utilization of mid-dav (12:00 noon to
4:00 p.m.) atmospheric turbulence for boiler lancing or
soot blowing.
c.	Maximum reduction by diverting electric pever
generation to facilities outside of Emergency Area.
a.	Maximum reduction by reducing heat and steam
demands to absolute necessities consistent with prevent-
ing equipment damage.
b.	Maximum utilization of mid-day (12:00 noon to
4:00 p.m.) atmospheric turbulence for boiler lancing ar.d
soot blowing.
c.	Taking the action called for in the emergency nlan.
a.	Elimination of air pollutants from manufacturing
operations by cea.smz. curtailing, postponing orocfoinrg
production and allied oi;eraiiuu.\ to tiic extent possible
without causing injury to persons cr damage to equip-
ment.
b.	Elimination of air pollutants from trade waste dis-
posal processes which emit solid particles, gases, vapors
or malodot ous su bstar.ces.
c.	Maximum reduction of heat lead demands for
processing.
d.	Maximum utilization of mid-day (12:00 noon to
4:00 p.m.) atmospheric turbulence for boiler l?nemg or
soot blowing.
APPENDIX A — ABBREVIATIONS
AQCR — Air Quality Control Region
AQMA — Air Quality Maintenance Area
ASTM —American Society for Testing and Materials
Avg. — average
Be — Beryllium
fcftu — British thermal unit
°C — degree Celsius (.Centigrade)
cal — calorii.fi i
CdS — Cadmium sulfide
cfm — cubic feel per minute
CFR — Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part 35
means Part 35 oi' Tirie 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. 40 CFR 35.20 means Section 35.20 of Part
35 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations)
CO — carbon monoxide
C02 — carbon dioxide
COH — Coefficient of Haze (unit of measure for the
soiling indc\)
dscf — d:;> cubic feet at standard conditions
dscm — dr\ cubic meter! at standard conditions
F.P.S — Environmental Prmec'ion Agencx
'-•q — eqim .ileniN
®F — degree Fahrenheit
FR — Federal Register (36 FR 1492. May 3. 1971.
means page 1492, dated May 3. 197 i. of Volume 3o of
the Federal Register — the page indicated Is the first
page of the refere.- -ed material)
ft: — square V ,
ft1 — cubic feet
g — gram(s)
gal — gallon(s)
g eq — gram equivalents
gr — grain(s)
HCI — hydrochloric acid
Hg — mercury
hp — horse power
hr — hour(s)
H20 — water
H2S — hydrogen sulfide
H2S04 — sulfuric acid
I.D. - inside diameter
in. — inch (cs)
inHg — inches of mercury
inH20 — inches of water
°fC — decree Kelvin
k — 1.000
kg — kildgram(s)
I — literfs)
Environment R*rpoite'
G-17

-------
VIRGINIA HEGULATICNS
S-?9
530:053
lb — pound(s)
ipm — liic.-fs) per minute
M — mular
m — metcr(.s)
m' — cubic meter(s)
meq — m ill icquivalen;(s)
mg — milli-::ram(s)
min — minutc(s)
ml — milliliters)
mm — millimeter(s)
mol.wt. — molecular weight
mV — millivolt(s)
N — normal
N2 — nitrogen
nm — nanor.-ieter(s) = lO-'meter
NO — nitric o.uds
N'02 — nitrogen dioxide
NOx — nitrogen oxides
02 — oxygen
O.D. — outbid? diameter
oz — CU.ICi(s)
pnb — parts per billion
ppm — parts per miiiion
psia — pounds pur square inch absolute
°R — dfire; r.iin!;ii-.e
s — at sicr.cs-J ;ondi;:ons
see — second,';.)
SMS A — Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area
502	— sulfur ciio.\ide
503	— 5iilfur tric.tids
Ug — microgram!/) = IO-" gram
USC — United Sites Code
v/v — volume per volume
w.g. — water gatie
yd; —square yard(b)
% — percent
CITIES
Bristol
Galax
Nortoi
Region 2 — Valley of Virginia Intrastate Air Qua"'
Control Region
Tl.j Valley of Virginia Intrastate Air Quality Cur/.roi
Region consists of the terntonai area encomrv.sscd ov
the boundaries of the following jurisdictions or describe
area (including the territorial area of al! ImniitiL
geographically located within the outermost boundaries
of the area so delimited):
coijktjts
Alleghany-
Augusta
Bath
Botetourt
Clarke
Craig
Floyd
Frederick
Gi lei
Buena Vista
Clifton Fors?.
Covington
Hr.rrisonburg
Lexington
Ra'iford
CITIES
Highland
Mont£ cr.'.er-;
Page
Pulaski
Roanoke
Rockbrid^-
Rcckir.^ha-:
Sheiiar.dc j.'.
Warren
Roanoke
Sclera
Staunton
Waynesboro
Winchester
APPENDIX
REGIONS
B — AIR QUALITY CONTROL
Region 1 — Eastern Tennessee-Southwestern Virginia
Interstate Air Quality Control Region (Virginia)
The Eastern Tennessee-Southwestern Virginia
Interstate Air Quality Control Region (.Virginia portion)
consists of the territorial area encompassed by the bound-
aries of the following jurisdictions or described area
(including the territorial area of all localities
geographically located within the outermost boundaries
of the area so delimited):
COUNTIZS
Bland
Buchanan
Carroll
Dickenson
Grayscn
Lcti
Russell
Scott
Sayth
Tiizcvs L L
Washington
Wise
Wyrlte
Region 3 — Central Virginia Intrastate Air Quaiity
Control . ;;on
The Central Virginia Intrastate Air Quality Ccntr*
Region consists of the territorial area encompassed by
the boundaries of the following jurisdictions or describ:
area (including the territorial area of all localities ge;
sraphicaliy located within the outermost boundaries fll
the area so delimited):
COUNTIES
Amelia
Asherst
Appomattox
Bedford
Brunswick
Buckingham
Campbell
Charlotte
Cumberland
Franklin
Halifax
Henry
Lunenburg
Hfcklenbur~
Nottovay
Patrick
Pi ctryl in
Prince id:,\ir
G-18
4-1G-76
Copyright ^1976 by The Qureou of Notional Affairs, Inc.

-------
G2G: o33
STATS A!R LAWS
CITIES
Bed ford
Danville
Lvuchburg
Martinsville
South Boston
Region 4 — Northeastern Virginia Intrastate Air Quali-
ty Control Region
The Northeastern Virginia Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region consists of the territorial area encompassed
by the boundaries of the following jurisdictions or
described area (including the territorial area of all
localities geogratirejily located within the outermost
boundaries of the area so delimited):
COUNTIES
Accor.ack
Albc-morle
Caroline
Culpeper
Essex
Faucaii'_-r
Fluvanna
Gloucester
Greene
I'ii'2 and Queen
KinS George
Kin^ WLilian
T ^ « « «•
Charlottesville
CITIES
Louisa
Madison
Machews
Middlesex
Kelson
Northanpcon
Nor thusbe rland
Grange
Rappahannock
Richmond
Spotsylvania
Stafford
Westmoreland
Fredericksburg
Region 6 — Hampton Roads Intrastate Air Quality
Control Region
The Hampton Roads Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region consists of the lerritoriai area encompassed bv
the boundaries of the following jurisdictions or described
area (including the territorial area of all localities
geographically located v.iihin the outermost boundaries
of the area so deiunued):
COUNTIES
Isle of Uighc
Janes City
Cheasapeake
Franklin
Hampton
Newport News
CITIES
Norfolk
Southampton
York
Poquoson
Porus-outh
Suffolk
Virginia Reach
Williamsburg
Region 7 - National Capital Interstate Air Quality Con-
trol Region (Virginia)
The National Cap'ta! Interstate Air Quality Control
Region (Virginia portion) consists of liic territorial area
encompassed by the boundari'.-s of the foilo'.vins jurisdic-
tions (including the territorir.i area of a!! localities
geographically located within the outermost boundaries
of the arc.t so delimited):
COUNTIES
Arlington
Fairfax
Loudoun
Prince Killifus
Region 5 — State Capital Intr istate Air Quality Control
Region
The State Capital Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region consists of the territorial area encompassed by
the boundaries of the following jurisdictions or described
area (inc!ud:-.g the lerrritoriai area of all localities
geographica"!;. iocnted wiihin the outermost boundaries
of the area so delimited):
CITIES
CCUNTIES
Charles City
Chesterfield
Dinviddie
Goochland
Greensville
ilarcver
Colonial \\*
Enpcria
Hoper-eI.l
CUES
Henrico
New Kent
Powhatan
Prince George
Surry
Sussex
Petersburg
Richrtorc
Alexandria
Fairfax
Falls Church
Manassa.t
Manassas Park
NOTE: For administrative purposes certain counties
and the localities within •>ha 1! be m regions other than
those listed above. This administrative delineation in no
way alters the applicability of the regulations.
Administrative alterations shail be as folicws:
Region 6 — -Vrcomack County and Northampton
County
Region 7 — Clarke County, Frederick County. Page
County, Shenandoah County, Warren County, and City
of Winchester
APPENDIX C — MAJOR POLLUTANT SOi.RCF.S
CHEMICAL PROCESS INDL'STR 1!'S
Adipic acid
Ammonia
Ammonium nitrate
Environment Reporter
G-19

-------
Virginia ur.r;ijLAT;or:n
S3G:<)'.,13
shall l)c required, except .in covered in p:ir;ij»r::pli (i>) of
litis section, if :lie sourer i\ mil in compliance :ii least MO
percent iif the operating lime over the most iceent 12-
montli period.
(g)	No violation of applicable emission .standards- shall
he ilecmal to have taken piace if such emissions are due
lo a inti/luiu h/'/i provided that:
(I") 1 lie procedural requirements of t!ii:, section arc
met,
(2)	The owner has taken expedient and reasonable
measures to minimize emissions during ihe breakdown
period, and
(3)	The owner has taken expedient and reasonable
nvasures tu correct the malfunction and return the
source !o a norma! operation
(h)	Nothing in this section shall be construed as giving
an owner the right to increase temporarily the emission
of pollutants or lo circumvent the emission standards
otherwise provided in these regulations.
PART III — A.UHIENT AIR QUALITY STAN-
DARDS
3.oi gi:ner M-
(a)	The provisions of this part. unless specified
0tlicrwi.se. s'uii! he applicable throughout ihe Com-
monv.eahli of Virginia..
(b)	Ambient air quality sta/idards arc required to
assure thai ambient concentrations of air pollutants are
consistent with established criteria and such, standards
shall sopc as ihe basis for effective and reasonable
management of the air rtiuurces of the Commonwealth
of Virginia.
(e) Primary ambient air quality standards- define levels
of air qiailin which, allowing an adequate margin of
safety, arc necessary to protect the public lieahh. Secon-
dary ambient air quuht\ standards define more stringent
levels of air (j'taHiv which are necessar. lo protect the
public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse
effects associated with the presence of air pelluiaiHs in
the ambient air. At such time as additional pertinent in-
formation becomes available with respect 10 applicable
air qua/it} criteria, such information will be considered
and the ambient air quality standards will be revised ac-
cordingly.
(d)	The absence of a specific ambient air quality ctan-
dard shall not preclude action by the Board to control
pollutants to .is-aue protection, safety, welfare and com-
fort of the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
(e)	Wlu'ie applicable. .iil lueaMircmenls o! an .ji>i:inv
shall be coirccted to a reference lempeiature of 77
decrees /' and to a reference picssine of 11.7 pounds per
square inch absolute.
} it: I" \R 1 K II Nil- M \ 1 I I R
(. .1) I' I i! 11.1 r S	:il ./.• ,;-i,:!ii 1 w.	^'.p-
phv. ahie :n \< ii :' 1 i::- ,"i n (¦) a: e
Vn
.:¦!
11: • - j'.-i en1"- M'"V. i • ill.I "nm
.""¦I Iunii k. ,.vi. n;, •' K' i iu>! to ii.- e\i t edci' m.'! v ii' :n -'a - e
per \ o.i i.
(b)	Secondary ambient atr quality stand,ird.s
(applicable in AOCR I 111r;Jiifih 7) are
(!) 60 uncioili'.iiiis per cubic meter — annua!
j*.e'iiiietrie mean, as a guide to be used in assessing
achievement of the ."i-l-luuir standard m paragraph (b)(2)
ol this section.
(2) (50 micrograms per cubic meter — maximum
24-hour concentration nut lo be - xceci'ed more ib'.n once
per year.
(e) I'm ticulate matter shall be detei mined in :!¦¦.• !
volume method as de-.ci ibet! in 40 CI Is I'art -N''. Appen-
dix Ii, or by an equivalent method.
3.03	SULFUR OXIOLS (SULFUR DIOXIDC)
(a) Primary ambient air quality standard* are
(I) ?;0 micrograms per cubic meter (0 pp:n) — an-
nual arithmetic mean.
(2^ 36? microgram* per cubic meter (0.14 ppml —
maximum 21-hour concentration no' to be exceeded
more than on^e per year.
(!') Secondary amb:\i,t ,.ir quality standard is (..-l""1
micrograms per cubic meter (0.50 ppmi — maximum
3-hour concentration not to be exceeded more than once
per \car.
(c)	Sulfur diov.de shali be meesur-ed b;. the
pernrosamhne method .is descubed in -'0 Ci"'s I'ar;
Appendix A. or by an equrvaie'ii method.
3.04	CARBON NiONOXinE
(a)	Primary and secondary ambient air quality
dards arc
(1)	10 milligrams per cubic meter (9 ppm) — ma
imum 8-hour concentration not to be exceeded more than
once per year.
(2)	40 milligrams pei cubic meter (35 pnm) — max-
imum I-hour concentration not to be exceeded more than
once per year.
(b)	Carbon monoxide shall be measured by '.he r,on-
dispersive infraied spectrometry method. a> described in
40 CI R Part 50. Appendix C, or by an equivalent
method.
3.05	I'llOTOCl 1 l.M IC A1. OXIDANTS
(a) Primarv and ,>c>.o:idar\ ambuht air qi:a!;t\ stan-
dard is 100 micrograms per cubic meter (O.OS pnm) —
maximum l-liuur concentration not to be exceeded more
than once per \ear
(h) Photoclieurcal oxidants shall be measured and co: •
le.'ted U'r intei ie:'c:i' di'C to niirogen ox.'.ies ai".: '
dioxulc b\ the meii oJ descni'ed in 41) C! !•'. ,v.iil 5t>.
Appendix 1). or In an eitutsident method.
3 Of. IP, i)l'(K
(.:) I'::'11 :i X ai.ii >¦¦¦!.! <:•>.. ¦ . . ¦
thii ' lui" h I	is f'-Ji ': n :	:
:¦ . ¦ (¦. ^ ; I ¦ •: i .¦ . \ .• i 1 , • ¦ . .	, ¦ i .
.11 J !'.'r I • ' ' , " u.\>! I'!' !t l i 1': *
'l)i //:,//.*, * it '-Is »''•!'1 'u i»'.'n i11 %. i ;• !	i '
If! in;; h.!:i .* lu I ii» i :K I i". m! > :>¦ .; A\ ,1 i:. "»1 (. I i' I I
A|>|v:uli\ 1'. or ia .:n crfiitxiiirtti nt^tiu •./.
1 ?3-7G
V' ]0/(i (>y Tfif	<.1 *¦ t»»»111	Ii»<*
G-20

-------
VIRGINIA REGULATIONS
s-2B<»
536:0513
shall be required, except as covered in paragraph (») of
this section, if the .source is ;iot in compliance at least 90
percent of the operating time over the most recent 12-
month period.
(g)	No violation of applicable emission standards shall
be deemed to have taken place if such emissions arc due
to a malfunction provided that:
(1)	TI.„ procedural requirements of this section are
met.
(2)	The owner has taken expedient and reasonable
measures to minimize emissions during the breakdown
period, and
(3)	The owner has taken expedient and reasonable
measures to correct the malfunction and return the
source to a normal operation
(h)	Nothing ir. this section shall be construed as giving
an owner the rich: to increase temporarily the emission
of pollutants or to circumvent the emission standards
otherwise provided in these regulations.
n i '"T »»*	» » • nf •T' « r r* /-\ r * * * t ct* * \i
1 AKi til	s\ll\ y Ur\ui 1 1 01 rm-
DARDS
3.01	GENERAL
(a) The provisions 0f this part, unless specified
otherwise, shall be applicable throughout the Com-
monwealth of Virginia.
. (b) Ambient air quality standards are required to
assure that ambier.: concentrations of air pollutants are
cons'sieni with established criteria and such standards
shai! serve as the basis for effective and reasonable
management of the air resources of iiie Commonwealth
01 Virg'ma.
(c)	Primary a;nt!ent air quality standards define levels
of air aualitv which, allowing an adequate margin of
safety, are necessary to protect the public health. Secon-
dary ambient air qucL 'y standards define more stringent
levels of air quail; v which are necessary to protect the
public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse
effects associated with the presence of air pollutants in
the ambient air. At such time as additional pertinent in-
formation becomes available with respect to applicable
air quality criteria. such information will be considered
and the ambient air quality standards will ce revised ac-
cordingly.
(d)	The absence of a specific ambient air quality stan-
dard shall not preclude action by the Board to control
pollutants to assure protection, safety, welfare and com-
fort of the peopie of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
(e)	Where applicable, all measurements air quality
shall be corrected to a reference temperature of 77
degrees F and to 1 reference pressure of M.7 pounds per
square inch abso'ute.
3.02	PARTICULATE MATTER
(a) Primary. itmhivnt air quality standards (ap-
plicable in AQCR I through 61 are
(1)	75 micruci .irn.s per cubic meter — annual
gcoip.etnc mean.
(2)	260 micrograms per cubic meter — mawmum
2-l-ho;:r concentration not to lie exceeded more than once
per year.
(b)	Secondary ambient air quality standards
(applicable in .AQCR I through 7) are
(1)	60 micrograms per cubic meter — annual
geometric mean, as a guide to be used in a.vse.ssing
achievement of the 24-hour standard in paragraph (b)(2)
of this section.
(2)	150 micrograms per cubic meter — maximum
24-hour concentration not to be exceeded more than once
per year.
(c)	Particulate matter shall be determined by the high
volume method as described in 40 CFR Part 50, Appen-
dix B, or by an equivalent method.
3.03	SULFUR OXIDES (SULFUR DIOXIDE)
(a)	Primary ambient air aualitv standards are
(1)	80 micrograms per cubic meter (0.03 ppm) — an-
nual arithmetic mean.
(2)	365 micrograms per cubic meter (0.14 ppm) —
maximum 24-hour concentration not to be exceeded
more than once per year.
(b)	Secondary ambient air quality standard is 1.300
micrograms per cubic meter (0.50 ppm') — miMrmim
3-hour concentration not to be exceeded more than once
pe.- year.
(c)	Sulfur dioxide shall be measured by the
pararosaniline method js describe-a in 40 CFR Part 50.
Appendix A, or by an equivalent method.
3.04	CAR DON MONOXIDE
(a)	Primary and secondary ambient air quality stan-
dards are
(!) 10 milligrams per cubic meter (9 ppm) — max-
imum S-hour concentration not to be exceeded mere than
once per year.
(2) 40 milligrams per cubic meter (35 ppm) — max-
imum I-hour concentration not to be e.xeeeded more than
once per year.
(b)	Carbon monoxide shall be measured by the non-
dispersive infrared spectrometry rnetr.od. as described in
40 CFR Part 50, Appendix C. or by an equnaier.:
method.
3.05	PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANTS
(a)	Primary and secondary ambient air quality stan-
dard is 160 micrograms per cubic meter (0.03 ppm) —
maximum 1-hour concentration not to be exceeded more
than once per year.
(b)	Photochemical oxidants shall be measured and cor-
rected for interferences due to nitrogen oxides and sulfur
dioxide by the method described in JO CFR Par: 50.
Appendix D, or by an equivalent method.
3.06	HYDROCARBONS
(a)	Primary and secondary ambient air que;!..", u
dcrd for hydrocarbon is 160 micrograms per caiv.
meter (0.24 ppm) — maximum .--h.'iir c.inccntratiMP
a.111 ) not to be exceeded more ihan once per '•e.ir
(b)	Hvilroi urhnns ->h a I! ne measured and enrp.vte-
for methane by the method described in 4i) CTR I'art :¦)
Appendix E, or by an equnalent method.
1-23-76
Copyright 1976 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
G-21

-------
53G:Go14
STATE AIR LAWS
(c) The huimcarhon ambient air qnniitv standard is-
for use as a guide in determining hydmcarhnn emission
control required to achieve the photochemical oxidant
standard.
3.07 NITROGEN DIOXIDE
(a)	Primary and secondary ambient air quality stan-
dard is 100 mic: grams per cubic meter (0.05 ppm) —
annual arithmetic mean.
(b)	Nitrogen dioxics shall be measured by the methed
described in -10 CFR Part 50. Appendix F, or by an
equivalent method.
PART IV _ SPECIAL PROVISIONS
4.01	APPLICABILITY
The provisions of this part unless specified otherwise
shall be applicable only to existing sources for which
enusston standard" are set forth in this part, mobile
sources arid open burnt/is.
4.02	COMPLIANCE
Unless specified otherwise, all existing sources not in
compliance as of the effcc.ive date of applicable,
provisions of these rccj'Jtior.s shr.il w.hin 60 days
thereafter oe in compliance or the owner siiail nave sub-
mitted to the Board a control program in accordance
with Section 2.32.
4.03	EMISSION TESTING AND SAMPLING
(a)	Tests shall be conducted and data reduced in accor- ¦
dance with the 'eference I'tethods contained in -0 CFR ¦
Part 60. Appendix A. or equivalent or alternative
methods. Tests shall be made under rhe direction of per-
sons whose qualifications are acceptable to the Board.
The Board shall be notified one week in advance of the
tec: date ana may have observers present at its discretion.
(b)	Emission testing is subject to testing guidelines as
approved by the Board. Procedures may be adjusted or
changed by the Board to suit specific sampling conditions
or needs based upon good practice, judgment and ex-
perience. When such tests are adjusted, consideration
shall be given to the effect of such change on established
emission standards.
(c)	The Board may test emissions of air pollutants
from any source. Upon request of the Board the owner
shall provide necessary holes in stacks or ducts and such
other safe and proper sampling and testing facilities, ex-
clusive of instruments and sensing devices, as may be
necessary for proper determination of the emission of air
pollutants.
(d)	The Board may direct owners, at regular intervals,
to perform or have performed emission tests.
4 0-t MONITORING. RECORDS AND REPOR-
TING
(a) The Hoard inav direct .in owner to- install, use and
maintain monitorine equipment .irul sample t he
emission.1, in ace.>ra.iiu-e with methods acceptable to the
Board, and to maintain rctouls ana make periodic enn.s-
sion reports js required in paragraph (b) oi this section.
(b) Records and reports, as the Board shall direct, per-
taining to air pollutants or fuel, shall be recorded, com-
piled and submitted in a format acceptable to .lie Board.
[Sections 4.05-4.09 arc reserved]
EMISSION STANDARDS FOR OPEN DIRNING —
(RL'LE EX-J)
4.10	GENERAL
(a)	No owner or other person shall cause, suffer, allow
or permit open burning of refuse except as provided in
Section 4.11 or 4.12.
(b)	Rubber tires, asohakic materials, crankcasc oi!.
impregnated wood and similar materials shall not be
burned except at training schools having permanent
facilities for fire-fighting instruction.
(c)	No salvage operation shall be conducted by open
burning.
(d)	Open burning under the provisions oftlii® rule dees
not exempt cr excuse any owner from the consequences,
damages or injuries which may result from sucn conduct,
nor does it excuse or exempt any owner from complying
with applicable iaws, ordinances, regulations and orders
of the governmental entities having jurisdiction, ever,
though the ore:; burning is conducted in compliance with
this rule.
(e)	No open burring shall be conducted and a-iy being
conducted shall be immediately terminated in the
designated Air Quality Control Region upon declaration
of an Alert, Warning or Emergency Stage of an Air
Pollution Episode as described 'in Part VII or whe'rt
deemed advisabi-; by the Board to pre\cnt a hazard ro. or
an unreasonable burden upon, public health or welfare.
(0 No open burning shall be conauctea so as to
produce such quantities of air pollutants, uncomoired
water or other materials as may cause a tralfic '-.a;.:d.
4.11	EXCEPTIONS (AQCR 1 thru 6)
(a) Upon the request of an owner or a resoonsiole
public official, civii or military, the Board may armrove
open burning under controlled conditions, for t.ie elimi-
nation of a hazard which constitutes a threat to the p-irlic
health, safety or welfare and which cannot be remecied
by other means consonant with the circumstances pre-
sented by the hazard.
(bj Open burning is permitted for training and instruc-
tion of government and public fire fighters under the
supervision of the designated official and industrial m-
house fire-fighting personnel with clearance from the
local fire-fighting authority. The responsible oificial in
charge of the training snail notify and obtain tfie ap-
proval of the Regional Director prior to conducting the
training exercise. Training schools where permanent
facilities are installed for fire-fighting instruction aie ex-
empt from tin? notification.
(c) Open burning is peinutted for camp fires or other
fires that are used soicK lor recreational purples. f= ,• r
<.crennini.il occasion-., lor Mi'uiuoi noiK"ii."".!_-r-..i.::
preparation of food, and for uarniin:: of outdo.ir workers
using Salamanders or other dc-ices providing good com-
bustion, provided the materials specified in bection 4,|0
Environment Reporter
G-22

-------
VIRGINIA REGULATIONS
536:0515
(b) arc not burne'l.
(d)	In those arjas where no collection service for loaves
is available at llie adjacent street or public road. tlice/'ivi
burning of leaves is permuted between sunrise and 4:0C
p.m. provided that:
(1)	No nuisance or traffic hazard from smoke is
created.
(2)	T'-i location of the burning is r.ot ler.s than 300 feet
from any occupied building unless the occupant(s) has
given prior written permission.
(e)	For the disposal of ordinary household refuse by
homeowners or tenants in localities or portions of
locnlinrs where no collection service is available on the
adjacent street or public road on a scnedule of at least
once per week or collection boxes are not provided by the
locality, the open bunting of ordinary household refuse is
permitted provided that:
(1)	No nuisance or traffic hazard from smoke is
created.
(2)	Animal carcasses are not burned.
(3)	The location of the burning is not less than 300 feet
from any occupied buiiains unless the occupani(.si has
given prior written permission.
(0 Open burning is permitted for the destruction of any
combustible liquid or gaseous material by burning in a
flare or flare stuck.
(g)	For disposal of land-ciearing debris on the site of
the clearing operation resulting from tne development or
modification of roads and highways, parking areas,
railroad tracks, pipenr.es. power and communication
lines, building? or building areas, sanitary landfills, and
including forest management and agriculture practices
approved by the Ecc.ri' (see Appendix D). open burning is
permitted provided u.e following conditions are met:
(!) The person oerforming the burning shall inform the
Regional office of th; 3ocrd prior to the burning.
(2)	The burning siial be at least 1,000 feet from any oc-
cupied building cr buildings unless the occupants) has
given prior written permission
(3)	The burning shall not be unattended.
(h)	When the burning contemplated by paragraph (g)
of this section other than as a forest management or agri-
cultural practice is to occur within independent cities,
towns or Air Quality Maintenance .Areas, those responsi-
ble for the burning shall, prior thereto, obtain a permit
from the Board. Such permits will be issued only alter a
public hearing with 15 days prior notice in the affected
locality and if ".he following criteria are met:
(1)	The emission proposed to occur does not cause an
apparent health hazard.
(2)	The emission pi opused to occur does not promuie a
significant ions-'.erm effect on ambient air quality.
(3)	Disposal ,iy other means would produce serious
hardship without equal or greater benefits to the pubiie.
4.12 EXCEPTIONS ( \QCR 7i
(a) Open fires :n.\ be set in performance of an official
del', o! an-.	health or -alet) o;:kc:\ alter noli!',ca-
tion is! Slate and h^.i! i::r />ullutiagencies :!
'.lie lire :> neees>.iir\ !»
-------
525:0510
STATE A! ft LAWS
(b) The limits t>f Secirvi -I .10 shall not apply when ;he
opacity of the visible emission is due tu the presence of
uncoinbiii'jd •-*.;itcr.
4.22 TRAFFIC HAZARD
No o^ner or oihcr person shall discharge from any
source v-haisoever such quantities ol air pollutants, un-
ccmbmed '.vater vt other materials as may cause a traffic
hazard.
[Sections 4.23-4.29 arc reserved.]
EMISSION STANDARDS FOR PARTICULATE
EMISSION^ i'.'iOM FUEL BURNING EQUIPMENT
— (RULE E.\-3i
4.30 STANDARD FOR I'ARTICULATE MATTER
(a) No o'.w.t/- !t other person shall a'low to be emitted
Lrito the at:;-o:, ir.?re frvrn ar.y j::ei bunmv.* equipnien' or
to pass ;t convenien: measuring point r.ear the stuck cut-
let. per;uLu natter ir. the Hue gases to exceed th* ap-
propriate foiiov-ing standard:
(I) In AQCR I thru 6
(1)	Foi 'jp.-:: .".:ons 'A':ih ;or.u' heat input le:-s '.han 25
Tvlic:. ¦. :'Jfi rrcr hvi.r. tr. maxKTM::-. allowable
emission s'r.:il cc 0.- poi.:"iU.< >;! particulate per mi LI io ti
3t;i input.
(ii)	For operations with tot il heat input between 25
million (25 x 10*) and 10 biliion (10.000 x 10") Btu per
hour, the ir.iAinium allowable emi.vsion. in pounds pei
million 2iu in or.'.. V. shiili be determined by the follow-
iii'a cat: £ ~ O.S '25 HA.'31-i. wheie H is the total
heat input ,n trillions of Biu per hour.
(iii)	For cperut-CTS ui:h toui heat input in excess of 10
billion (|0.!;00 X 10"! Btu per hour, the maximum
allov'abie e:r!..-:u"n -.-ha.!! be 0.1 pouras of particulate per
million Btu ir.put.
(iv)	Figure 4.30A illustrates the above emission stan-
dard.
(2)	In AQCR 7
(i) For operations with total heat inptir less than S7
million (S7 x |u" ) Btu per hour, the maximum allowable
emission '.hall be 0.3 pounds of particulate per million
!3tu input.
(ii)	For operations with totI heat irimbetween S7
million (!>7 \ 10') and !0 billion (10.00'J x 10 ) Liiu per
hour, the maximum allowable emission in pounds per
million B;u input. E. shall he determined by tl~e iollow-
ing equation: E = 0.8425 11-0.2314, where H is the total
Iwai input in millions of L>:u per hour.
(iii)	for operations with total heat input in e.xeess of 10
billion (10.000 x 10') Stu per hour, the maMrr.urr.
allowable emission shall be 0.1 pounds of particulate per
million Btu ir.put.
(iv)	Figure 4.303 illustrates the above emission stan-
dard.
(b) For purposes cf this rule, the heat input shall be the
aggregate heat content of all fueis v.hcse products of
combustion pass through istacL or s,\ick.\. The itrct :;t-
put value used shall be the equipment manufacturer's"cr
designer's guarantee maximum input, or rrur.uT.u.n con-
tinuous hecv. input, or maximum continuous i.eat
determined by test. ".hit.never is applicable. The total
heat input of aii fuel burning umts at a plant or or: a pre-
mise normally operated sur.ul'.a'veousK shall be '-sec for
determining the irtaximun: jiio'.'. a-;e amount o(par:::::-
late matter which ma;, be emitted.
4.31	EXEMPTIONS
All fuei burning equipment t:sing solid fuel	rr.\-
imum heat input of less than 350.000 Btu per i-our s:iail
be exempt from this rule.
Ail funi burning equipment using gasor cii :n a max-
imum heat input of less than 1.000.000 3tu per hour sr.all
be exempt from this ruie.
4.32	BACHARACH STWDARD
No o*ner or other person shall cause or ai. jv. t > be
emitted into the outdoor atmosphere from any fuet burn-
ing equipment or to pass a convenient measuring point
near the breeching, smoke which exceeds NLirnser J on
the Barcharc.ch Scale, or the equivalent.
[Sections 4.33-4.39 are reserved.]
Environment Reporter
G-24

-------
VIRGINIA ^CCULATIONS	53G:0517
_
AtxouASLC pAnTZC-TATt mx::iov: rrc:f n'ut. E'jwtut: tqu:r>T!rT
It ( 104 BTJ I I'.aar )
rccvrjc 4.:03
AVxukiiz r.'.iTTCv*-1.— cv.::::c.-:s riox r.-i yjzinc rqvinTS"
tarrm
I I
V. * Total r.cac In^ue tn Mlllidti of STJ per ii:ur
S • »'4*luun Osiiatona in Founds oC Partlcuiacc
juszcr per Million ZTJ l!cuc Ir.pu:.
0.2:V
: i
illiiirH : • i:•:¦¦¦ i n ,r.i
;coc
12,023
:o:.o:3
n ( lo6 u:u / Mour )
1-23-76
Copyr»ght 1976 by The Qufeoy of Motionol Affair* Inc.
G-25

-------
5*G:-5'i!i
STATC An LAWS
EMISSION STAND * JIMj !OR i» MITICLI.ATK
E ,\1! S S I () \ S I'ROA! \i A N U t; A CT U R INC
Ol'KRATiOVs AND i-i;CITIVi: DL'ST — (RL'I.i:
EX-4)
equation E - 55.0 1'°" - 40, where
Ih/'hr :md I' = process	rate
(ii) AQCil 7 - Table 4.403
TA5I.C 4.40
E = emission rate in
in tons/iir.
4.40 MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS
Troccss
i r°'i r l',re
Maxir-.'jn A110'vab le
I.b/Hr
To:ia/!lr
Emission Kace
(a) General




Lb/!lr
(J) Unless covered by n specific standard for a par-
50
0.025
0.24
ticular process m purasrapn (b) of tins section no owner
LCO
0.050
0.45
or other pennn siiaii c
ause. sulfer. allow or permit me
150
0.075
0.66
emission of particulate matter from any prucess unit in
200
0. ICO
0.35
excess of the amount shown in paragraphs (a) f!) (i) and
(ii) of this section for the process weighr rate allocated to
250
300
350
0.125
0.160
0.175
1.C3
1.20
1.35
such process ¦
~-.il.

400
0.2CO
1.50
(i) AQCR 1 thru 6 —
Tabic 4.-10A
450
0.;:25
1.63

TAfiLE 4.40A
500
0.250
1.77



550
0.275
1.S5
Process t'elr
:t-.c V.aCe
Maxisun AUc'.-y/te
600
0. 3CO
2.01
Lb /He
ions/tic
Esission "ace
650
0.325
2.12


Lb/Hr
700
750
0.350
0.375
2.24
1 * /.
100
0.05
0.531
800
0.400
2.43
200
0.10
0.S77
850
0.4 25
2.53
400
0.7.0
1.40
SOO
0.4LO
2.62
600
0.30
1.33
950
0.475
2.72
SCO
0.40
2.22
1000
0.500
2.fc0
1000
0.50
2.5S
1100
^ *"
2. 97
1500
0.75
3.3S
1200
0.60
3.12
2'JCO
1.C0
4. 10
1300
0.65
3. 26
2500
1.25
4.75
1400
0.70
3.40
3C00
1.50
5.33
1500
.0.75
3.54
3500
1.73
5.96
1600
O.SO
3.66
' 4000
2. CO
5.52
1700
0.85
2.79
5000
2.50
7.53
iaco
0. SO
3.91
6C00
3.00
8.56
1900
0.95
4.03'
7COO
3.50
9.49
2000
1.00
4.14
SOOO
4. CO
10.4
2100
1.05
4.24
9000
4.50
11.2
2200
1.10
4.?4
10000
5.00
12.0
2300
1.15
4.44
12000
6.00
13.6
2400
1.20
4.55
16000
3.CO
16.5
2500
1.25
4.64
1EC00
9.00
17.9
2600
1.30
4.74
20000
10.00
19.2
2700
1.35
4.S4
30000
15.00
25.2
2300
1.40
4.92
40000
20.00
30.5
2900
1.45
5.02
50000
25.00
35.4
3000
1.50
5.10
60000
20.00
40.0
3100
1.55
5.13
70000
35.00
41.3
3200
1.60
5.27
80000
40.00
42.5
3300
1.65
5.36
90000
45.00
43.6
3400
1.70
5.44
100000
50.00
44.6
3500
1.75
5.52
120000
60.CO
46.3
3600
l.o'O
5.51
140000
70.00
47.S
3700
1.85
5.69
luOOOO
80.00
49.1
3300
1.90
5.77
200000
100.00
51.3
3900
1.95
5.85
1000000
500.00
69.0
4000
2.00
5.93
2QQ0000 I
000.00
77.6
4100
2.05
6.CI
6000000 3000.00
92.7
4200
2.10
6.03



4:<00
2.15
6.15
Interpolation of the
data in Table 4 40-\ for process
4400
2.20
6.22
weight rctef up io ('O.O'.H) ib/hr mi.ill be accompli^'icii by
/.SCO
2. i J
6. 2')
use of the equ
.UU'i: L =
¦¦ 4. ID P and interpolation ami
'i:<0 D
2.:~o
6.37
er.tnpok'tu'p
•.'I l'ic -i.'
t.i !.ir firncr.w nei^/it 'r:;o in e\-
4 700
2.3'.
6 .45
cess of 60,000 Ib/hr >1"
all be accumpli.thcd by use of the
4C00
2.40
6. -'2
Environment Peporfer
G- 26

-------
VIRGINIA REGULATIONS
S-Ib'l
53F:0'i1G
TA3IX	(Co.->Liuu^d)
Prvc.-r.". '.'ci-Vi' H.i'i!	llaxinv-M Alio-.-,1,1';
Lb/;ic
Tonu/llr
Emission ltacc


Lb/Hr
4900
2. A 5
6.60
5000
2.50
6.67
5500
2.75
7.03
6000
3.00
7.37
6300
3.25
7.71
7000
3.50
3.05
7500
3.75
8.39
8000
4.00
8.71
8500
4.25
9.03
9000
4.50
9.36
9500
4.75
9.67
10000
5.00
10.00
11000
5.50
10.63
12000
6.00
11.23
12000
6.50
11. o9
uooo
7.00
12.50
15000
7.50
13.13
16000
S.00
« ^ •» j
LJ. t *+
17000
3.5C
14.36
lfcOCO
9.00
14.97
19000
9.50
15.53
20000
10.00
16.19
3COOO
15.00
22.22
400CO
20.03
23.30
500!..;
25.00
34.30
6000 0
30.00
40.00
or mora
or move

Where the process weight rate fall? between two values
in Table ".-luB. the maximum ailcwaole emission rate
shall be determined by linear interposition.
(2)	Wh;rc the nature of any process or ooeration or the
design cf any equipment is such as to cerrr.it more than
one interpretation of this rule, the interpretation that
results in the minimum value for allowable emission shall
apply,
(3)	For purposes of this rule, the total process weight
rate for each individual process unit at a plant or
premises shall be used for determining the maximum
allowable emission rate of particulate matter that passes
through a .Mack or stacks.
(4)	This rule does not apply to fuel burning equipment
and uiar.crcihirs.
(b) Specific Industries f-\QCR 1 thru 6)
(1)	Petroleum F.efining Catalytic Cracking Units —
No owner or othir person shall cause, suffer, allow or
perm;: particulate emission* irom existing petroleum
catalytic ciacking unit, m e\cevs of 0 05 pc:v.ent o! l!ie
rate of catalyst iccirculaiion within the unit.
(2)	Hot N'i\ \-i-"i,i!t Plants— No n«/jit or other/»!'/¦-
--i'.'.ii lji'v. --ii.'fcr. .-i!,n'. ->r permit /"/rr/i ://<.¦ mailer
'he i = |«_-r.«iiv• n ot hot m'\ a.sj-h.iii ,'ani to
!>(.• ti.sch..r; c.i .'.'.to uu atmosphere in excess of the rate.s
sei lonii m fabie 4.40C.
TABLE 4.-J0C
Pro c.c\: z t.',.-i-.hc rr.ro.	H-xii-im Allow join
Tour,/He	Eai.ssi.un R.-lCs

Lb /Hr
5
10
10
16
15
22
20
28
25
31
50
33
100
37
150
40
200
43
250
47
300 or mora
50
Linear interpolation shall be used for rates between
any two consecutive rr.to* stated in Table 4 -0C. All such
airborne paniculate mutter emanating from the yards,
sidings or roads of >ucn operations shaii be controlled as
slipuialed in Section -i.4i. Relocated hut mi.\ asphalt
plants shall continue lo meet the standaid; iC. for:!: in
this paragraph provided no '¦iiooijication ta.-i.es place.
Should the plant be modified it shall be object to the new
and moriijird source standards of perfnrmar.c : set forth
in 40 CFR Part 60, Suopart I.
(3) Chemical Fertilizer Manufacturing Plants — N;o
owner or other person shall cau.se. suffer, alio v." or permit
particulate matter caused by chemical fertilizer manufac-
turing operations, which utilize recycle anc ir.vsicativ
connected dissimilar processes as a part of the manufac-
turing operation, to be discharged from any v.y.cA or oat-
let into the atmosphere in excess of the rate, snown i,j
Table 4.40D.
TABLE 4.40D
Process	Sstc	Dcission Rac*
Tons/ t:z
Lb/Kr
15
19.2
30
30.5
60
42.5
90
46.3
120
49.0
150
51.2
ISO
53.1
The process weight rate entry to be used in Table
4.40D for chemical fertilizer manufacturing processes
shall be considered as the production rate, or for
chemical fertilizer operations involving phwcalh. con-
nected dissimilar processes shall be the .sum of the
process weight rates of each of the dissimilar processes
The materials handling and screening equipment shall
not be considered processes for the determination of
process weight rute. For a process weight rate bet v. een
any two coi'sec utives tales stated in Table 4 -ilif) na\-
imuin allowable emissions oi paniculate matter si'.jil be
calculated hv -he following equation'
l-or pr:n •¦-,.	rate, up i"	; er
< , .
!•: - 4. to J
1-23-76
Copyright O 1976 by The Burocu of Notionol Affairs, Inc.
G-27

-------
£20:0520
STATE AIR LAWS
oc foe :-t -c ¦ ... i •_	. ¦ ¦; o'/'.t '..I t )..a jior liouc
~ "" Cl
K ••	- 40
Where E = emission rate in Ib/hr. and P = process
weight rate in tons/hr.
When one manufacturing operation, or combination of
physically connected processes, is vented through
separate stacks, the allowable stack emission rate for
each stack shall be such that :he sum of the emission
rates for all of the stacks from that operation ;s equal to
the allowable rates r're r; that operation vented through a
single stack. Fur purpose of emission testing, samples
taken of separate ,st::cks within a 3-riay period, on the
srmc fsr'.i'iz'.T :¦¦¦; : .-J! ;-c considered as simultaneous
lor the purpo.: •.c-.>ri7i|ninc total operation emissions.
(4)	Pulp .\r.i i\Miila — No oh nc or ether person
shall cau:., Suffer, allow or permit particulate matter
resulting from !¦•.' production ot r>ub and Daoer to b-^tiis-
chari^'i f.-'\~. stacrs or ciu.nneys into :-le atmosphere in
excess of the loiio.vin
;[?.'.<\ .'-nov.ioLi h.nissiuo oC
Tc*v-!!\Cv	yT¦*. I.' * j *l"i 1b/£i'tf.»v.i:,,ir\C
Ton <.'C V.r Cr^ci ?uLp
a;	r. 	3.0
ALL	Ji-roiv:-; T-.-. . Vo r.i	0.75
All	I.:'::.: f--s':s	t_.0
All i-ii'.a Vont.;	0.3
(5)	Production and Handling of Materials in Sand,
Grc^e! and Crushed S:cne Operations — No owner or
other person shaii cause, suffer, allow or permit any
material to be producei. handled, stockpiled or
transported without taking measures to reduce to a
minimum any particulate natter from becoming air-
borne. Where it is practical to measure the emission, the
emission shail no: e\ceed the limits established by Table
4.40A. All such airborne particulate matter emanating
from the yards, sidings or reads of such operations snail
be controlled as stipulated in Section 4.41. All crushers
shall be fitted with liquid sprays or other appropriate
systems which effectively limit the escape of airborne
dust. Vibrating and shaker screens handling dry
materials shall be enclosed or fitted wan a collector
system which will prevent the release of more than 0.05
grains per standard cubic foot. All feeders, elevators,
conveyors, transfer points, discharge points and loading
points shall be equipped with collectors, sprays or other
means when necessary to minimize the escape of dust.
(6)	Coal Thermal Drying Operations of a Coal
Preparation Plant — No owner or other person shall
cause, suffer, allow or permit particulate matter to be
vented into the atmosphere from any thermal driver ex-
haust in excess of the rates shown in Table 4.40E
Table 4 40 E
l-rcc-	r,.:rq	MjxLi-i.j .Ulov-.'uc
i O.l U.L-
Llj/lli"
100 ii¦-	/,5
200 or i.-.tc	]_05
Environme
G-
For any process weight rate between the two prncc.s v
weight rati"; stated in Table 4.401:. limitations shall he
determined by linear interpolation.
Any stack venting thermal drier exhaust gases into the
atmosphere shall contain How stniiuhienir.c device* or a
vertical run of sufficient length to establish now nutterns
consistent with acceptable stack sampling procedures.
(7)	-iir Table Operation of a Coal Preparation Plant
— No owner or other person shall cau.se, suffer, allow or
permit particulate matter to be ver.tcd into the at-
mosphere from any a:r tabie exhaust in excess of 0.05
grains per standard cubic foot of exhaust gas. In no event
shall the emission rate exceed the appropriate limit of
Table 4.40A. No owner or other person shall circurment
this subparagraph by adding additional gas to any tauic
or group of air exhaustj for the purpose of reducing the
grain loading. Any stack venting air table exhaust gases
into the atmosphere shall contain flow-straightening
devices or a vertical run of sufficient length to estaolish
flow patre, ns consistent witn acceptable stack sampling
procedures.
(8)	Portland Cement Piants — No owner or other per-
son shall cause, suffer, allow- or permit tne particulate
emissions from cement clams to exceed the emission
limits contained in Tabic 4 4Q-\.
(9)	Manufacturing of i'oa Products — No owner cr
other person shall cause, suffer, ailow or permit par-
ticulate matter caused by the working or sandi: g of
wood, to be discharged from any stack, vent or buiiding
into the atmosphere without providing., as a minimum for
its collection, adequate duct work and prouerlv des.gned
collectors, or such other devices, as approved ay the
3oard. Paniculate emissions shall conform to Table
4.40A. If process ioadi.ng rale cannot be calculated, the
grain loading shall not e\ceed 0.05 grains per standard
cubic fe-t of exhaust gas.
(10)	Secondary Metal Operations — No o^ner or
other person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit par-
ticulate (-missions from secondary metal operations as
listed in Appendix C into the atmosphere in excess of the
quantity as listed in Table 4.40F.
TABLE 4.40F
Proce.-.L*' '.-Vi -'-t: KaCe	ll?.xinu:n	/r.lila
Lb/Hv	tlsiinsiori
T.b/hr
1,000 or less
3.05
2, 0C0
4.70
3, oca
6.35
4,000
3. CO
5,000
9.0-
6,000
11.20
7,000
12.S.1
3,000
I4.;r>
9,000
15.00
1(1,000
16. c
12.000
IV.. 11
li'-.O'.M
?.i .f :i
J , oc>;
o.. <
20.0 'J 'J
2A.r")
j0,oot;
30. i
AO,000
36.CO
50,000 of in.r<;
42.00
it R»oort«r
23

-------
VIRGINI/". rUiGULATIOrJS
s-:b*
536:0521
For a prrnc.w wty.ht In:!ween unv two consecutive
process \vc;::iits staled in f.ible 4.40f; the emission
limitation ^r.ill he determined by linear interpolation.
The permi>',ible emission rates as siiown in I'.ible 4.4UF
shall apply during the melt time but shall not apply dur-
ing the time of preheat or preparing for shutdown. The ex-
emption for preheating and shutdown shall he limited to
two 20-minufc periods in a given S-hour period for each
furnace Umt.
(II) Light Weight Aggregate Industry — No owner or
other person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit the par-
ticulate emissions from light weight aggregate plants to
exceed the emission limits in Table 4.40G.
TABLE 4.40G
Prnc-fc;.;>
'.i. l-ica
ALIj;
Emiso ieu
Lb/lir
.176
. 3.S1
.702
1.C53
1.404
1.76
.2.64
3.51
4.3S
5.27
6.15
7.0?.
14.0
21.1
2S.1
35.1
52.7
70.2
57. S
105
123
140
15S
176

Tons/lir
.05
.10
.20
-30
.40
.50
.75
1.0
1.25
50
75
0
0
0
G.O
10.0
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
For a process weight rate between any two consecutive
rates in Table 4.4CC;. or for rates over 50 tons per hour,
the maximum allowable emission of particulate matter
may be calculated by the fallowing equation:
E = 3.51P
where E = emission rate in !b/'hr and P = process weight
rate in tons/hr.
(12) Feed MantiJ icturing Operations — No owner or
other person shall cause, su.'fer. allow- or permit the/v/r-
ticuiaie emissions from feed manufacturing plants to ex-
ceed the emission imits in Table 4.40A.
(i) The process i-eight rate entry to be used in Table
4.40A for feed manufacturing proce\s unit* .shall be con-
sidered ,i.s the p-iiiiitcHon rate.
The ,Ti v t-v., iij-.-i,\in run- enir\ ;o be used in Table
4.4CA lor I ecu i>:u/iufih uui/m i/nerainii's ir.'.olvini:
p':\,i>mu\;cd dissimilar pr
Mill! Oi * ' i.- ."?'<>( t'..	l! 'J
pi .KeN-.eN 1 lie inc.'. rui;\	. ,,
considered processes fur determm.i
icesses shall be li'.e
!li o; ihe iii^;m,i.ir
^I:.111 fn' be
ion ol process rale
4.41 FUGITIVE DUST
No owner or other person shall cause, suffer, allow or
permit any materials to be handled, transported or
stored: or a building, its appurtenances or u road to be us-
ed, constructed, altered, repaired or demolished without
taking reasonable precautions lo prevent particulate
matter from becoming airborne. Such reasonable
precautions may include, but arc not limited to ihe
following:
(a)	Use, where possible, of water or chemicals for con-
trol of dust in the demolition of existing buildings, or
structures, construction operations, tiie grading of roads
or the clearing of land;
(b)	Application of asphalt, oil. water or suitable
chemicals on dirt reads, materials stockpiles and other
surfaces wWch can create airborne dusts:
(c)	Installation and use of hoods, fans and fabric filters
to enclose and vent the handling of dusty materials.
Adequate containmeni methods shall he employed cur-
ing sandblasting or other similar operations:
(d)	Open equipment for conveying or transporting
materials likely to become airborne which wouid create
objectionable air pollution shall be covered, or treated in
an equally effective manner at ail limes when in motion:
(e)	The paving of roadways and tne:r maintenance in a
clean condition.
(f)	The prompt removal of dirt or other material from
paved streets over which such material has been
transported by trucking or earth moving equ'pment or
erosion by water.
[Sections 4.42 — 4.49 are reserved.]
EMISSION STANDARDS FOR GASEOUS
POLLUTANTS — (RULE EX-5)
4.50	GENERAL PROVISIONS
No owner or other person shall allow inc operation of
combustion instu/lation and process equipment so as to
disprrse into the outdoor atmosphere gaseous pollutant
emissions in such quantities or concentrations as to injure
human, plant or animal life, or cause a condition of ar
pollution.
4.51	SULFUR OXIDE EMISSIONS AND OTHER
GASES AND COMPOUNDS CONTAINING
SULFUR
No owner or other person shall cause, suffer, allow or
permit the emission from any source operation of sufu:
dioxide in an in-stack concentration exceeding 2000 jipir,
by volume except as provided in the following:
(a) Combustion Installations
III ,-
hustion iiiMa/ui'i'i>: i;i euess of that expressed o> i'".e
1'Hlowing equation'
(i) S = 2.(>4K ( \QCI< 1 ihrough 6)
I in S = ! 0'iK ( i\ 7)
w liei e.
S -- allowable eiili-sion of suili.r dioxide expre--,;.\;
Ibs'/hrs.
1-23-76
Copyright .r. 1976 by Tiie Qureou of Noficnol Affans, Ine
G-29

-------
530 0522
STATE AIR LAWS
K = actual hatt input at unci capacity expressed in
Btu x 10* per hr
(I) Whore there are one or more enmhustinn imtuUct-
tton units at a facility, ana where the facility can l;c
shown, to the satisfaction of the Board, to be in com-
pliance when the facility is operating at total capacity.
the facility will he deemed to stiil be in compliance if the
facility is operated at reuueed loau or one or more units
arc shut down for maintenance or -enair. This paragraph
is applicable only if the remawi.-.j	continues to
burn the same type of fuel .vith the same sulfur content,
or an equivalent, tnat was shown to- allow compliance
when the facility was operating at maximum load and the
actual emissions when operating at reduced load do not
exceed the maximum allowable emissions.
(b) Sulfuric Acid Plants
(1)	The sulfur divide in the taii gases from any sul-
furic acid manufacturing operation shai! not exceed a
centration of 2UC0 pans per million by volume and a
mass emission rate of 27 pounds per ton of ICO percent
acid produced when elemental sulfur is used for feed
materia!, or 2500 ppm by volume and a mass emission
rate of 45 pounds per ton of 100 percent acid produced
when other raw materials such as recycled spent acid and
ores are used as feed. These emission ieveis may be ex-
ceeded for a peried not longer than I- i.ours during start-
"P-
(2)	All plants shall reduce acid m:st emissions to not
more than 5.0 mg H2S04 including uncombined S03 per
standard cubic foot.
' (c) Hydrogen Sulfide
Nro owner or ether ,?cnc.t shai! cause or permit the
continuing emission of any refinery process gas stream or
any other process gas streun that contains H2S in con-
centration greater than 15 grains per 100 cubic fee: of gas
without burning or removing H2S in excess of this con-
centration provided thai S<~'2 emissions in the burning
operation meet the requirements of Section 4.51.
(d) Sulfur Recovery Operation
The sulfur dioxide in the ta;l gases from existing sulfur-
recovery operations shall not exceed a concentration of
8000 parts per million by volume and shall not exceed a
mass emission rate as specified in Tabie 4.51 A
TABLE 4.51A
Sulfur
Proclaci:'.on FV.tc
(Cons/ ci.iy)
50
100
200
300
400
.son
>!axiun:n Allowable SO;>
Mass Em'.ssiori Hace
(Lbs/hr)
415
830
1G60
2-^90
3320
'il'jO
(e) Kraft Pulp Vlill ,T.:tal Reduced Sulfur Fmijoions
The d.nl> average value per quarter lor reduced sultur
emissions Irom recover'. Inmates. lime kilns. dieesior-,
and multiple elle«.t evaporators of each kral'i pulp mil!
shall not exceed 1.2 .Juimda of total reduced sulfur as
H2S per ton of equivalent air dry pulp.
(0 Lightweight Aggregate
No owner or other person shall cause, suffer, allow or
permit fuel with a sulfur coiucnt in excess of j lbs per
million Rtu to be used in the processing of lightweight
aggregate.
(g) Non-Ferrous Smelters
No owner or other person shall cause cr permit
emissions of sulfur oxiuu» from p; aary non-ferrous
smelters to exceed that set forth according to the follow-
ing equations:
Copper Sr ='-=-c
I izscs
Zir.c Srr.elt-irs
Lead Str.felzsrs
y =- c. 2:>:
Y - 0.56^"'
Y =
O.SSv0-77
where X is the total sulfur fed to the smelter in Ib/hr and
Y is the allowable suifur emissions in ib/hr. Note: This
provision in effect requires removal ol about 90 percent
of the input-sulfur to the smelter.
4.52 HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
(a)	General
This section shall apply to stationary sources in AQCR
7 oniy.
(b)	Effluent Water Separators
(1) No ov.ner or other penon shall use any comDart-
ment of any single- or muinrie-compariment equip.ner.t
designed to separate water from gasuinc or otner
photochcmicaliy reactive volatile organic compounds
which compartment receives effluent water containing
200 gallons, a day or more of gasoline or other
photochemicaily reactive volatile organic compounds
from an; equipment processing, refining, treating, stor-
ing or handling gasoline or other photociiemtcaHy reuc-
live volatile organic compounds unless such con.oart-
ment is equipped with one of the following vacor loss
control devices except wnen gauging or samplir.g is
taking place:
(1)	A solid cover with all openings sealed and totally
enclosing the liquid contents of that compartment.
(ii)	A floating pontoon or double-deck type cover,
equipped with closure seals to enclose any space between
the cover s edge and compartment wall.
(iii)	A vapor recovery system which reduces the emis-
sion of all organic compound gases into the atmosphere
by at least 90 percent by weight.
(iv)	Any system of an efficiency equal to or greater
than paragraphs (b)(l)(i). (ii). or (iii) of this
section if approved by the Board.
(2)	Paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall not apply to
any effluent nater separator used exclusively in conjunc-
tion with production of crude oil. if the water fraction of
the oil-water effluent entering the separator contains less
than 5 parts per million hydrogen sulfide, organic sulfides
or a combination thereof.
(c)	Storage of l'"!atile Organic C<>'rnnunih
A'o owner or oilier prrsun shall nlace. store <;r ho:_; ri
any station.irv tank, reservoir or other eonumer of ::.'>r,e
than -iO.'Hii> gallons capae:!'. .in;.	i •
pntttttl. unlu^ ;.i.-tk. re.».i nir or otliei	:
pressure lai-k maintaining working pressure s e::'
all tunes to prevent vapor or gas loss to ihe .iimospr.ere.
or is designed and equipped with one of the following
Environment Reporter
G-30

-------
V1RCINIA nCGUL ATIONS
s-ai;-s
530:052IS
vapor loss control devices, properly installed, in good
working order and in operation:
(1)	A IT.uiin;; roof, consisUug .of a pontoon type,or.-,
doubie-deck-type roo!'. resting on the surtace of the liquid
contents and equipped with a closure seal, or seals, to
close the space between the roof edge and tank wail. The
control equipment provided for in this paragraph shall
not be used if the volatile organic compound has 1 -par
pressure greater than 11.1 pounds per square inch ab-
solute under actual average storage conditions. All tank
gauging and sampling devices shall be gaslight except
when gauging or sampling is taking place.
(2)	A vapor recovery or vapor loss control system,
which reduces the emission of organic compounds into
the atmosphere by at least 90 percent b> weight. All tank
gauging and sampling devices shall be gaslight except,
when gauging or sampling is taking place.
(3)	Other equipment of equal efficiency, provided such
equipment is approved by the Board.
(d)	Rulk Loading of Volatile Organic Compounds
(1) N'o owner or other person shall load volatile
organic compounds into any tank truck, trailer or
railroad tank car from any loading futility unless tiie
loading jaciiity is equipped with a vapor collection and
disposal system or its equivalent approved by the Board.
(.?) Loading shall be accomplished in sucn a manner
that all displaced vapor and air will be vented only tn '.he
vapor collection system Measures shall be taken to pre-
vent liquid drainage from the loading device when it is
not in use or ;o accomplish substantially complete
drainage before the loading device is disconnected.
(3)	The vapor disposal portion of the vapor collection
and disposal system shall consist of on-: of the following:
(i)	An absorber system or condensation system which
processes ail vapors and recovers at least 90 percent by
weight of the vapors and gases from the equipment being
controlled.
(ii)	A vapor handling system which directs all vapors to
a fuel gas system.
(iii)	Any system of an efficiency equal to or greater
than paragraphs (d)(3)(i"> or (ii) of this section is approved
by the Board.
(4)	Paragraph (d)(1) of this section shall apply only to
the loading ot volatile organic compounds at loading
facilities from which 20.000 gallons or more of such com-
pounds are loaded per working day, based on a 12-
month average.
(e)	Gasoline Transfer Vapor Control
(I) N'o cw:er or other person shall transfer gaso-
line from any delivery vessel into ar.\ stationary storage
container uuh a capacity greater than 2.000 gallons un-
less sue;-, container is equipped with a submerged fill pipe
and unless she displaced \apors I'roni the storage con-
tainer are processed h\ a system that prevents release to
the atmosphere ot no less than VU percent h\ weight of
organic c.irir-uinc-. ::i said '• .ipors displaced i rom the sta-
tionary container location. 'The vapor recovery por-
tion ,'l tiie *\>.ein shall include one or both of the tollow-
.r.g
(i) V \aj-or-iii'ju \.:por return hue !rom the :.ti>rage
container to the deliver;, vessel which shall 'ie connected
before	is i:ansi'erred into the container.
(ii) An absorption system or condensation system or
ihc equivalent which processes and recovers no less than
.70 peiccal by-.w_agjH- uLurxunt^contpawids. in. the_-dis-
placed vapor.
(2)	The vapor-laden delivery vessel mny be refilled only
at facilities equipped for 90 percent vapor recovery in ac-
cordance with paragraph (d)(3) of this section. The
delivery vc::;e! shall be so designed and maintained as to
be vapor tight at all times. For purposes of ihis sub-
paragraph. vapor tiant shall mean capable of holding an
initial 4 oz (6.9 in 1120) vacuum for 5 minutes without
dropping below 2.5 oz (4.3 inHZO).
(3)	The provisions of paragraphs (e)( 1) and (e)(2) of
this section snali not apply to the following:
(i)	Service stations whose total average gasolir.e
throughput is less than 26.000 gallons per month based
on a 12-month average of bulk receipts.
(ii)	Stationary' storage containers u^ed predominantly
for refueling of mobile farm equipment.
(iii)	Transfer made to storage tank? equipped with
floating roofs or their equivalent.
(4)	The provisions of paragraphs (e) (I) and (e) (2) of
this section shall be effective on March I. 19"6. except
that gasoline storage compartments of 'COO gallons or
less in gasoline delivery vehicles in use on February 3,
197*, will not be required to be retrofitted with a vapor
return system until January 1, !9?7. Owners claiming ex-
emption from this section under paragraph (e) (3) (i) of
this section shall submit a record of their momhl;. bulk
receipts to the Board for the l2-montiL periods ending
December 31. 1974. Dcccrnoer 31. 1975, und thereafter if
requested.
(f) Evaporation Losses From the Filling of Vehicular
Tanks
(1) No owner cr other person shall transfer gasoline to
an automotive fuel tank from gasoline 'dispensing
systems unless the transfer is made through a 'IK nozzle
designed to:
(1)	Prevent discharge to the atmosphere of v?pcrs con-
taining or; - c compounds from either the vehicle filler
neck or ch, ,nsing nozzle.
(ii)	Direct vapor displaced from the automotive fuel
tank to a system wherein at least 90 percent h;. weight of
the organic compounds in the displaces vapors are
recovered.
(iii)	Prevent automotive fuel tank overfiiis or spillage
on fill nozzle disconnect.
(2)	The system referred to in paragraph (0(1) of this
section may consist of vapor-tight ^apor return line
from the fill nozzle filler neck interface to the dispensing
tank or to an adsorption, absorption, incineration,
refrigeration-condensation system or the equ:1 alent.
Components of the systems required by par..ar;:pa (ei of
this section m.i\ be used iur compliance witti ,;jr.:nii
il") ( I) ol -Ins section
(3)	The provisions of paragraph (0(1) of -h'- '-cciion
sh.il! noi apj-i;. to the I. >llow ing
(i) (ia.\i>ltne iraiisiciN lo pre-1971 model -car
automobiles or lo <>;lit-i vehicles not rcqi:;"-:! to lie
equipped v. iih fuel evaporair. c emm-aor. control > - ^tc;*is
under 40 CiR Part 65.
1-23-76
Copyright (3 1976 by Tiie Bureau of National Affoirs( Inc.
G-31

-------
5J6.0524
state a::* laws
(ii) Service stations whose total average gasoline
through pui is les. than 2f>.l>'!;i gallons per month. based
on a 12-munth average of balk receipts.
(4) The provision;, of paragraph (f) (I) of ibis section
shall be effective IS montns after the Board has approved
such systems as described in paragraph (0(2) of this .sec-
tion. Owners claiming e\empuon from this section under
paragraph (f) (5) (nj of this section shall submit a record
of their month!;, bulk receipts to the Bourd for the 12-
month period ending January 31. 1976. and January 31,
1977. and thereafter if requested.
(g) Submerged Fill-Storage Vessel
No o^ner or other person shall place, store or hold in
any stationary Murage vessel of more than 2.000 gallons
capacity, any vr:!ati!e organic compound unless such
vessel is equipped io be iiiied through a submerged Jill
pipe or is a prepare lank or is lilted with a s\stem as
described in paragraoh (c) M) (ii) of this section.
(b) Pumps an:: Compressors
Al! pumps and compressors hanuling volatile organic
compounds shall have mechanical seals or other equip-
ment of equal efficiency far purpose of air pollution con-
trol as appro\ ed by the Board.
(i) Waste.Gas Disposal
(1)	No (jM'.'fr or ouer person shall emit a
pioicd-emical!;. rec::i\e organic compound from any
piant producing ethylene for chemical feed stock, or
utilizing ethylene as raw matcri: I. into the atmosphere ir.
excess of -0 pounds per day uni:-s> tiie u aste gas stream is
properly burned a; 1300 decrees F for 0.3 seconds'or
greater in a direet-fi.ime afterburner or removed by oilier
methods of comparacle efficiency.
(2)	No owner or other person shall emit continuously
gases of p/ioicchemicaily reactt\e volatile organic com-
pounds to the atmosphere in excess o'" -0 pounds per day
from a vapor blowdowr, system unless these gases are
burned by smokeless flar=s. or an equally effec:i\e con-
trol device as approved by the Board. This section is not
intended to apply to accidental, emergency or other in-
frequent emissions of these gases, needed for safe opera-
tion of equipment and processes
(j) Liquid Organic Compounds
(1)	No o*ncr or other person shall discharge more
than 15 pounds of organic compounds into the at-
mosphere in any one da> from any article, machine,
equipment or other contrivance in which any liquid
organic compound comes into contact '-Mth flame or is
baked, hcat-cured or heat-poK merized. in the presence of
oxygen unles.s 
subject to compliance wun paragraph (j) (I) of this sec-
tion.
(4)	Emissions of organic compound'; to ;he atmosphere
from the cleanup v. uh nhntocheiuicrJlv leccw.e :\::i:d
organic compounds ol an;, article. macr.ine. eo'-.r-nent
or oilier cor,' ance^ a escribed in nar..grar - tj) (1. ) c. 2).
or (j) (5) of this section shall ne induced uitn the ouier
emissions of organic compounds ;rom that article,
machine, equipment or otner contrivances for deter-
mining compliance »ith this section.
(5)	Emissions of organic compounds to the atmosphere
as a result of spontaneously continuing the dr\:ng of
products for the first 12 hours alter their rcmo1.al fioin
any article, machine, equipment or other contrivance
described in paragraph fj)' I). (j)f2), (j)(2)
of this section ?haiI be included with other emissions of
organic compounds from that article, macnine. eca't:-
ment or other contrivance, for determining compliance
with this section.
(6)	Emissions of organic compounds into the at-
mosphere required to be controlled by paragraoh (j) (1),
(j) (2), or (j) (3) of this section shall be reduced bv:
(i)	Incineration, provided that 90 percent or more of
the carbon in the organic compound being incinerated is
oxidized to carbon dioxide, or
(ii)	Adsorption, or
(iii)	Processing in a manner determined by the Board
to be not less effective than paragraphs (j) (6) (,0 or (ii) of
this section.
(7)	An o*ner incinerating, adsorbing or otherwise
processing organic compounds pursuant to this section
shall provide, properlv installed, calibrated, maintained
and operated, devices as specified bv the Board, for :n-
dica'.'ng temrerature. pressure, rate of How or oilier
operating conditions access.ir> lo deierni.ne the degree
and efleetnenev. of m/ pollution controi methods
(«S) \nv owner usini: liquid ur^nntc conuHwiuh ,,r ,mv
maicri.ik containing humd t>retim< < t.'iip'iuiul sha'l
upon request nippiv t:ic H.nirJ u: the manner .ir.:: !or:a
prescnbcd ii. '.witiea e'-.iience of the <.hcmii..il com-
positions. pn; sical properties and amount consumed for
each liquid (irgunu. compound used.
G-32
Environment RcpaHnr

-------
VIRGINIA REGULATIONS
. Wll't
53(i: 0525
(V) I hi: piowMon ui paragiaph y) o! this section shall
no'. apply i>r
(i)	Tin: transport or storage of liqtud orvar,-c rum-
pounds or materials containing liquid orgthuc com-
pounds.
(ii)	The use of equipment for which other requirements
are specific J hv paragraph (b). (c), (d). (c), d'j. or (g) of
this .section or which are exempt from air pollution con-
trol requirement* by said paragraphs.
(iii)	The spraying or application with other equipment
of insecticides, pesticides or herbicides.
(iv)	The employment, application, evaporation or dry-
ing of saturated halogenated hydrocarbons or
perchioretli} lene.
(v)	Development or research laboratory operation in-
volving tii- use ofphotochemical! v reactive liquid organic
compound.*.
(vi)	The use of any material, in any article, machine,
equipment or other contrivance described in paragraph
(ij t,!), (j) (2). Ij) (}}. or Ij) (-i) of this section if:
a The volatile content of such material consists only of
water and I'cj'.'ul organic compounds. and
b The liquid organic compounds comprise not more
than 20 perceiit of said volatile content, jiid
c The volatile content is not photochemicaily reactive.
(10) Notwithstanding the above provisions, alter May
3!, 1974, no o^-.ncr or other penon shall caase. suffer,
allow or permit the use of any photochemical!i reactive
liquid organic compound for the purpose of arycieaning
of clothing cr household items
(k) Architei tural Cnatit.gs
(1)	No owner o: other person shall sell cr ofrer for sale
m containers exceeding I gallon capacity, any architec-
tural coc.ting containing photochemicaiiy reactive
organic compound as solvent.
(2)	No owner or other persr.n -snail emnlov. apply,
evaporate, or dr. a:;;, architecture.: < oaitr.g, purchased in
containers e\ceedir,g 1 sailor. capacity, containing
photochemicaiiy reactive organic compound as solvent.
(3)	No owner or ot.ier person shall thin or dilute any
architectural c«a-.u;g with a photochemicaiiy reactive
organic romprnrtd
(1) Disposal and Evaporation of Liquid Organic Com-
pound.-
No owner or other person ,-liall. during any one day,
dispose of a total of more than 1-1/2 gallons of any
photochemical!\ reactive liquid organic compound hv
any means nidi will permit the evaporation of such
compound into the atmosphere.
4.53 MTROCh\ OXIDES EMISSIONS
Nunc Acid VI iiv.ifacitire— No owner or ot her person
shaH cause. seller. allo'v or pjrr.ht ;lie emi-.sio'-. of
''."i'// .	11-\[itl-shiI . i * •"ii't'jcn dioxide) from
nil; ic aciii 1 ,u '.t:: inp¦ -i> . Tiiu U:e oiitd'ior ;\t-
i:-o>p!:c:c ... ¦.•> ¦>! 5 s p.umds .v .mi; of i00 percent
* >i , i 'i I .v. .!
! 's'» ¦1 -1:i"¦ ¦' -l — a >•; ,i:e ; ese; '• i O ]
[..MISSION SIaV.)AR1)S i-'Ott Ol)OU — \RLLL
4.60	APPLICABILITY
This rule shall apply to ail operations that produce
odorous emissions.
4.61	GENERAL
No owner or other person shall cause, suffer, allow or
permit any source to discharge air pollutants u Inch cause
an odor objectionable to indr. ideals of ordinary sensibiii-
ty.
4.62	DETERMINATION OF VIOLATION
(a)	The determination of objectionable odor is to be
made after a thorough review of all data or evidence
relating to the situation which may be obtained by an in-
vestigation direct-."! by the Board by holding a nubiic
hearing in accordance with Section 2.04 (a) (1) to hear
co:np!aints. The investigation m;:\ include use of an odor
panel survey and/or other methods approved by tr.e
Beard.
(b)	Upon determination that an odor is violative of
Section 4.61, the owner shail employ such measures as
may be approved by the Board for me economically arvj
technologically feasible control of odorous erosions.
4.63	EXCEPTION
This rule is not intended to be applied to accidental or
other infrequent emissions of odors.
(Sections 4 64 — 4.69 are reserved.J
EMISSION STAND \RDS FOR INCINTr, \~fCAS —
(RULE EX-7)
4.70 GENERAL
No owner or other oerson shall cause. suffer, aiiov. or
permit tne operation of an incinerator *o as to discr.arg.-
into the ."^osphere particulate matter sufficient :o cause
a condit.. of a:r pollution.
4.VI STANDARD FOR PARTICULATE M \TTER
Incinerators -hall not discharge paniculate matter r.
excess of .14 grains per standard cumc t'oo; c:ry
gas corrected to 12 oercent carbon diovde (v.;: hoc; th j
contribution of auxiliary fuel).
4 72 FLUE-FED Ir-CI\ERATORS
Flue-fed incincaion (those winch t.sc the same f:L.
for feeding the refu-e and disv.h.ngmg she gases jl cor-
bustion) are prohibited for incineration usage.
[Sections 4 73-4.79 jie reserved.]
KMISSION sr\\|)	FO!( (()\I. R! i 1 ¦-
Di.M'OSM. \KK \ s — i KL I.i-. K\-Si
4 .s|) |'i RPOM
'I ill- nil'. Is .:di>:^!ed !nr the P'liou-e nl .. ..
.iis.111111' and 11 >¦ 111non j>,illuiie Bur • :u cf Mit:oncl Affoirs, Inc.
G-33

-------
53'i: JC2G
STATE ASH LAWS
po'Iuianti discharged from burning coal refuse disposal
areas.
4.31	NEW COAL R'iFUSE DISPOSAL AREAS
The operation of a end refuse disposal area, not used
for the purpose of coal refuse disposal prior to liic effec-
tivc date of this rule, is prohibited unless the procedures
for disposal have been submitted >o and aprrowd by the
Board prior to disposal. Application shall be made ac-
cording lo procedures appro', ec by the Board.
4.32	EXISTING COAL REFUSE DISPOS.'.L AREAS
Within 90 day: after the effective date of this rule or
after the aopiication procedure-, become available,
whichever is later. or \vii;i;n such additional pcrir.d as the
Boatd .r.a;. aat: .*:ze. art;. ^v.no desire.) continue
the operation of an c:tist;:v: c--d refuse disposal area sh.ili
make application to the Bjard according to Board
procedures, f.^r approval to continue operaitcn of sucii
area. The or-.Vr.fui; of an evsurg coal refuse disposal
area may eun'.:r.i:e while the application is under con-
sideration cy the Board and tnereafter unless disap-
proved by tha Board.
CONDJ'i'IONS FOR APPROVAL
(a)	.'si a;v",cod. r-:f. se d^rosai areas, tht L'^ard
may require con.riiarxe ¦»%i:!¦> certain operational con-
ditions (See Appendix E'i.
(b)	In no ca^e shail refuse and like materials (other
than cced refuse) be deposited on or near any coal refuse
dLposci area.
4.,;rd determine-* that atr pollution exists
or ma; be cre.ite-l. '.lie n^ner of t!ie and .t/.vw t!wpt>sal
area or the imner oi the land on winch such coul refu*e
ilr-pu\ii! urea is U"„.ili.\» shall submit to lite Hoard a
satisfactory i^roeram sclline lortn methods .ind
procedures to driii.l.ue. prevent or reduce -.ncn air/wilt.-
turn. This program .siuli i)e submitted within 30 da\s
alter notification and Jiall contain sufficient inlormation
to establish that such program can he executed with due
diligence.
4.86 EXCEPTIONS
Nothing in this rule is intended to permit any practice
which is a violation of applicable laws, ordinances,
regulations arc orders of lh: goverrr-:nta! entities hav-
ing jurisdiction.
[Sections 4.S7-4.S9 are reserved.]
EMISSION STAN BARDS FOR COKE OVENS AND
CHARCOAL KILNS — (RULE EX-9)
1.90	BEEHIVE COKE OVER'S
Beehive coiie overj should he constructed so '.hat all
emissions, both gaseous and particulate matter, are
directed throuih an air pollution coniroi device prior to
emission m the atmosphere. The control device shouid
also provide for the complete combustion cf a!! gases
emitted from the oven.
4.91	OTHER BY-PRODUCT COKE O'-'EXS
(a)	All hy-produrt coke over: batteries shell have air
pollution coi-tro! eat: r-rrent ivch 1!! control "clrj'ant
emissions according to applicable provisions of these
regulations.
(b)	All by-produc: coke ovens shall coriirol visible
emissions to the extent provider, in Rule EX-2 except 'hat
when charging and discharging coke ovens, visible
emissions greater than that provided in Section -1.20(a)
shall be permitted for a period or periods aagrear.nnr no
more than 2 minutes per charge and 1 minute per p >sh.
4.92	CHARCOAL KILNS
(a)	Charcoal kilns should be constructed so the.' all
emissions, both gaseous and particulate matter, are
directed through an atr pollution control device prior to
emission to the atmosphere. The control device should
provide for the complete combustion of ail gases from the
kiln.
(b)	Screening and crushing areas, loading and transfer
points or any other place wiihin the plant where fugitive
dust rmy originate should be enclosed and controlled ac-
cording to Section 4.41.
(e) Any air pollution control device used should
provide for control of all pollutant emissions according
to applicable provisions of these regulations.
[Sections 4.93-4.99 are reserved.]
EMISSION STANDARDS FOR MOSILE SOURCES
— (RULE EX-10)
4 100 MOTOR VEHICLES
(a) Emission Control ly. si-cms
(I) No ijH-ru r or other /\ r-nn shail cause, sufier. allow
or permu the removal, disconnection .>r i!i<.ib!;r.e "i
ciankcase emission control swciii ur uc-ice. e\h.n;»i
emission contrul system oi device, luel evaporative enus-
tnvironmenf Reporter
G-34

-------
VIRGINIA REGULATIONS
S-C.S-1
535:0527
s'on co,urol v> sl:71 or device. ¦ 1 r oilier air poll'ton con-
trol sy.>lcm or -Jv:\-!'jv: whicli Ikt* been irtstailed on a motor
1elueU¦ in accordance with tcilur.il law and re-iilations
while such motor vehule ib operating in the Com-
monwealth of Virginia.
(2)	Nor siu:!I any owner or oilier person defeat the
desian purrso^e of any such motor vehicle pollution con-
trol systc" or device by installing therein or thereto any
part or component which is not a standaid factory
replacement part of component of the device.
(3)	Nor si'.ali the motor \elude or it:, engine be
operated with the motor vehicle pollution control system
or device removed or otherwise rendered ir.operaoie.
(4)	The provisions of this section shali not prohibit or
prevent shop adjustments and/or replacement of equip-
ment for maintenance or repair or the conversion of
engines to low polluting fuels, such as, but not limited to,
naturil sas or propane.
(b)	Visible Eins.-ions
(!) No owner or other person shall cause or permit the
emission of > ''stole air pollutant; from ^awlinr-p-y^xrzd
motor '/eludes for Ionizer than 5 consect'tivr; ^ec^nHs
after the engine has been brought up to operating
temperature.
(2) No owner or otner person shall cause or permit the
emission of viVbie air pollutants from diesei-powered
motor \ehide- of a censity equal to or greater than 20
percent npaitiy for 'longer than 10 consecutive seconds
after the engine has been brought up 'o operating
temperature.
(c)	'"he proi"..!sii.'ii mgrne of a commercial »iowr whi-
e'e parked :r. a cujiness or residential aria ;!u.il not be
left running nioie iiun 3 minutes when '.lie vehicle is
patked. exeep: v.;-. en tr; propulsion engine provides aux-
iliary service other than for heating or air conditioning.
4.101 OTHER M03ILE SOURCES
fa) General
All mobile sources operating in the confines of this
State, including the an space over this St^te. shall con-
trol their emissions in strict accordance with the
applicable Federal laws and regulations.
(b)	Visible Emissions
The provisions cl Section 4.20 shall apply to the dis-
charge of visible emissions from all mobile .usurers, un-
less specif]:;: otherwise m paragraph (c) of this section.
(c)	Exceptions
(1)	Aircraft — Paragraph (b) of this section shall not
apply to aircraft.
(2)	Diesel Locomotives — Visible emissions from
operating diesel-powcred locomotives shall not exceed a
density greater than 30 percent opacity unless the
locomotive is:
(i)	Accelerating under load and then only for a max-
imum 'it 40 conseci:i:\e seconds for stabilization of the
neu operating condition.
(ii)	Being loaded alter a period 0! uile and then onl\ for
a maximum period 01 a consecutive minutes aiter the
eli.i:ii:».i condition
(111) started ^.old and then 011K for a maximum of 3(1
con.secuti\c minutes alter such a start.
Civ) Iking teitcd. adjusted, and/or broker.-in after
rebuilding or repair and then only for maximum periods
of 3 consecutive minutes for an aggregate of no more
than 10 minutca in any (-,0-minute period.
(3)	Ships and Other Watercrait — Vis;ole emissions in
c.-.cess of paragraph (It) of this section are authorized
when not at dock and for brief periods when at dock un-
der the following conditions:
(i)	During dock fials as required to test and calibrate
the ship's machinery control systems.
(ii)	When lighting off a cold machinery plant and get-
ting under way.
fiii) When used 011 shore to simulate dock and/or sea
trials.
(iv)	When soct blowing. Soot blowing shall be limiieJ
to once in each 24-hour periou and <".hall be allowed only
when vind conditions and direction are sucii as to prevent
a public nuisance and/or endangcrmant of the health and
safety of persons and nrocci ty both '.'.shore anu afloat.
(v)	During upset or breakdown, provided a report 01
Hie circumstances is made by the o^ner to the Board as
soon as possible. When appropriate, a 'urther report of
the complete correction of the faak si ail also be made.
(4)	Other Diesel-Powered Mobile Sources — Vistbl;
emissions from dicsel-powered mobile sources. which are
not otherwise rcgula'.ea by these regulations siati not ex-
ceed 20 percent opacity for longer iLm !0 consecutive
seconds after the engine has been Drought up to operating
ten perature.
4.102 EXEMPTIONS
Mobile sources used sclei;. for ceremamai purposes, an-
tiques and others of historical significance s ia!l be ex-
empt from the provisions of this rule.
PART V — SPECIAL PROVISIONS
5.0! APPLICABILITY
Tiie provisions of this part, ur.iess specified otherwise
shall be applicable to r.ew and modified sources.
5.02 COMPLIANCE
(a)	Ail sources shall be in compliance within 60 day-
after achievina the ma-a mum production rate hut not
later than ISO days after initial startup. Compliance shaii
be verified by performance test.
(b)	Compliance with standards of performance in this
part, other than opacity standards 0/ performance shall
be determined only by nerformar.ee tests established b;.
Section 5.03.
(c)	Compliance with opacity standards ojperformance
'in this part shall be determined by use of Test Method '>
of 40 CFR Part 60, .Appendix A.
(d)	The opacity •.tamterdi o! perlnrma/ice set forth t ;<< rU-ie
• (e) Variation from a M'ec'iicd ^'.anduui u! ;
-------
5.?f.i.05?C
5.03 EMISSION TESTING AND SAMPLING
(a)	Wi;';:- '¦.<) f|..ys .-|ficr achieving in- maximum
prnduct'im rc'f ;;t which the new or nnidified \nurci" will
be operated, but not later th:m ISO days alter initial start-
up o! such source, the owner of such source shall con-
duct performance test's) and furnish the Board d written
report of the results of such performance testis).
(b)	Performance tests shall be conducted and data
reduced in accordance with the test methods and
procedures contained in each applicable section and 40
CFR Part 60, Appendix A.
Any new or modified source, for which no standards of
performance are <=i forth in JO CFR Part 60, shail be
performance teyed b> appropriate reference methods in
40 CFR P::'-'. fiO. Appendix A.: if none is appropriate
then equi\c:!cr,t or alternative methods acceptable to the
Coard shah be u^cd.
(c)	Performance tests shall be conducted under such
conditio.is as the Board shall specify to the o" ner based
on representative performance of the source. The owner
shall i iake av^iLble io ihe Board such records as may be
necessary to determine the conditions of the performance
icj:-.. Operations car-rig periods or startup, shutdown and
mc.'function shall rot constitute representative conditions
performance tests unless otherwise specified in the
:.p;'.icaole stanc.-rrl.
(d)	The owner of a new or modified source shall
provide the Board 15 days prior notice of the perfor-
mance test to afford :t the opportunity to have an
observer present.
(e)	The owner of a new or modified source shall
provide, or cause to be pro.iued, performance testing
facilities as follows:
(1)	Sampling ports adequate for test methods
apphcable to such source.
(2)	Safe jamplina platform(s).
(3)	Safe access to sampling olatform(s).
(4)	Utilities for sampling and testing equipment.
(f)	Each performance test shall consist of three
separate runs using the applicable test method. Each run
shall be conducted for the i.n.e ana under the conditions
specified in the applicable standard of performance. For
the purpose of determining compliance with an
applicable standard aj performance the arithmetic means
of results of the three runs shall apply. In the event that a
sample is accidentally lost or conditions occur in which
one of ihe three runs mast be discontinued because of
forced shutdown, failure of an irreplaceable portion of
the sample train, extreme meteorological conditions or
other circumstances be\ond the owners control, com-
pliance may. upon the rpproval of the Board, be deter-
mined using tiie arithmetic mean of the results of the two
otr.er runs.
(g)	The Gourd ina> test emissions of air pollutants
Irom .my .'v*'. i>r modified source Upon request of the
Baurd tile '•»' >!;a!l prov ide facilities .is outlined in
paragraph (e> i>f ihis section.
(Ii) The Board m:i\ require (heijmner. at regular inter-
vals. to perform or have performed emission tests.
STATE A!R LAWS
5.04 MONITORING. RECORDS AND REPOR-
TING
fa) The Hoard'"!ay direct a:i owner to install, use ami
maintain monitoring equipment and sample the emission
in accordance with methods acceptable to the Board and
to maintain records ami make nermdic emission reports
as required in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b'l Records and reports. as the Board shall direct, per-
taining to air pollutants or fuel, shall be recorded, com-
piled and submitted in a format acceptable to tne Board.
(c) Any owmr subject to the provisions of tins part
shall maintain for a period of 2 years a record of the oc-
currence and duration of any startup, shutdown or
malfunction in opera; ion of any affected facility.
fd» A written report of excess emissions as defined in
each applicable section snail be suomitted to the Board
by each owner for each calendar quarter. The report shall
include the magnitude of excess emissions as measured
by the required monitoring equirri.-n: reduced to ihe
units of the acphcabic s'cr.dard of p:nonnar.ce. the d..:e.
and time of commencement and completion of each
period of excess emissions. Periods of excess emissions
due to star'up. shi-.:u-j - •? and malfunction snai! be
specifically identified. Tne nature aru cause of any
muifunction (if !:no'.'.ni. the correct;"; action take, or
preventive measures adopted shail he reported. Each
quarterly report is cue by the .-0th day following the end
of the calendar quarter. Negative reports are required for
any quarter for which mere have been no periods of ex-
cess emissions.
(e)	Any owner subject to the proyisions of this part
shall maintain a liie of all measurements, inciu iing
monitoring and performance testing measurements, and
all other reports and records reouirec b\ all applicable
sections. Any such measurements, reports anci records
shall be retained for at ieasi 2 years following f-: nut: of
such measurements, reports and records.
(f)	Any owner subject to the provisions of this part
shall furnish the Board written notification as follows:
(1)	A notification of tne anticipated date of initial
startup of any new or modified source not more than 60
days or less than 30 days prior to such date.
(2)	A notification of the actual date of initial startup of
any new or modified source within 15 days after such
date.
[Sections 5.05 — 5.09 are reserved.]
STAND\RDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR VISIBLE
EMISSIONS AND FUGITIVE DUST — iRULE NS-11
5.10	APPLICABILITY AND DESIGNATION OF
AFFFCTED FACILITY
The provisions of this rule are annhc.ible to .try facility
that emits or causes sisible emission or	>.iu
which is the ajiectcd Jaainy
5.11	RESF.RM.D
5.12	STANDARD FOR VISI!?I ii EMISSIONS
Unless specified otherwise in this p.in. 
-------
APPENDIX H
ADDITIONAL DATA ON THE USE OF POLYMER FILMS

-------
APPENDIX H
ADDITIONAL DATA ON THE USE OF POLYMER FILMS
FILM SELECTION
According to the Chemplex Company (Rolling Meadows, Illinois), who sup-
plies the resin to Poly Tech, the resin used to produce the selected film is
No. 2568, which has a density of 0.919 to 0.921 and a melt index of about
1.1. This suggests a reasonably high molecular weight, branched polymer.
Both of these characteristics are advantageous for the present application.
In addition, resin No. 2568 is routinely supplied with 100 to 400 ppm BHT
(butylated hydroxytoluene) as antioxidant. Although the resin can be obtained
without BHT, this is not advisable because the protection provided by the anti-
oxidant during processing may help in maintaining optimum properties. On the
other hand, versions of the resin containing slip additives and antiblock
additives should be avoided. If antiblock agents should be necessary to
improve handling characteristics, an inorganic additive such as diatomaceous
earth is preferable to the usual organic additive, earucylamide.
LDPE (low density polyethylene) is hydrolytically stable and inert to a
wide range of aqueous environments. It is also benign, if ingested by mam-
malian life forms. When exposed outdoors, oxidative degradation occurs,
greatly accelerated by sunlight. Initial exposure to weathering conditions
brings about crosslinking (Weichert and Kraus, 1968), which at a later stage
turns into chain scission and embrittlement. Opacifying pigments, however,
effectively inhibit this process (Stedman, 1969; Titus, 1968). LDPE is far
better protected by 1" channel black than by UV-absorbing additives, and ade-
quate protection of a black film has been demonstrated by a 25-year outdoor
exposure in Florida (Winslow and Hawkins, 1967). Ic has also been shown that
resins of relatively low melt index generally perform better with respect to
aging than similar resins of higher melt index (Kaufman, 1967a, 1967b). How-
ever, other resin parameters must be considered in evaluating weathering or
stress corrosion cracking resistance (Raff and Doak, 1964).
Information on seawater exposure of polyethylene is sparse. Claims
have been made, however, that polyethylene films will last indefinitely in
the underground damp-proofing and waterproofing of buildings (Jain and
George, 1970). LDPE film found by fishermen off the Scandinavian coast indi-
cate a high degree of deterioration (Holnistrom, 1975); however, the initial
state of degradation of the clear film was attributed to sun and air expo-
sure while che film floated on the surface of the sea. Other damage was
attributed to the growth of organisms on the film surface. A study conducted
at an ocean depth of 2370 feet included various polyethylene articles and foam
(Muraoka, 1967). After more than a year, most polyethylene articles were ir.
excellent condition while various other plastics were not.
H-l

-------
Information on Che effects of substances such as Kepone is not generally
available. However, a report on storing water samples for determining pesti-
cide content cautions against the use of polyethylene containers (Weil and
Quentin, 1970). At concentrations of 10 ug/2- of water, insecticides such as
DDT, dieldrin, heptachlor epoxide, lindane, and methoxychlor were completely
adsorbed on the walls of polyethylene containers within 2 to 6 days. This
suggests that Kepone (CioCI^qO) also be adsorbed by polyethylene surfaces.
The argument gains support from a statement by the Pesticide Chemicals Offi-
cial Compendium (published by the Association of American Pesticide Control
Officials, Inc.) that the hydrated form of Kepone is slightly soluble in
hexane, though insoluble in water. On this basis it may be conjectured that
a LDPE film would probably adsorb and concentrate any Kepone that may be
dissolved in the water.
While there is general agreement that the Kepone concentration in the
water is very low, it appears quite likely that dissolved Kepone will be
deposited on the film surface and probably penetrate into the film. Since
the polyethylene probably has an affinity for Kepone, it will not readily give
it up to the water on the other side, and successful contair.inent may be
achieved for a considerable period of time.
An agent which can dissolve into the polyethylene morphology may
increase the possibility of stress corrosion cracking. Point loading
resulting from the gravel deposits may exert low, unevenly distributed
strains. Such strains have, in recent years, been recognized as being dis-
proportionately more severe than the high strain rates operating in the
region of ductile yield generally encountered in plastic testing. An
assessment of the effect of Kepone on the life expectancy of the film cannot
be made without laboratory evalution, particularly in the absence of any
data on the partition coefficient, rate of diffusion, and capacity of
polyethylene for Kepone.
Unresolved questions remain regarding the performance of polyethylene
film. These questions relate both to the physical characteristics of the
resin used in the film and the interaction between the film and Kepone.
However, it appears that a black-pigmented LDPE film prepared from a high-
quality resin may be expected to have an extended life expectancy in an
aquatic environment. Compared to year-round exposure on land, such a film
would be subjected to milder temperature cycling and to reduced oxygen and
UV exposure. Even over portions of the bay which become exposed to the air
during low tides, it is likely that a silt deposit would soon shield the
film from sunlight. A permanent overlay of sand or gravel would add to
the life expectancy of the film.
Biological attack on the film needs to be considered unless the highly
polluted conditions of Bailey Bay preclude the survival of most biota.
Indications from the sparse literature are that LDPE can survive the ocean
environment in most instances. However, special chains of events can lead
H-2

-------
to considerable biological attack as outlined in Holmstrom (1975). Experi-
mental evaluation may be desirable/required to resolve the questions con-
cerning the applicability of LDPE to the bottom-sealing system.
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
The film-laying barge, shaped like a shallow "U" when viewed from above,
is designed for a 3-inch draft to permit working in shallow water. The
plastic film and gravel placing devices will be mounted in the open throat
of the U. The bottom and sides of the hull will be constructed of reinforced
aluminum sheet metal; the top of the hull will be thin fiberglass sheet to
minimize weight.
The film-laying barge will be pulled by floating synthetic-fiber
cables rather than being pushed by propellers or thrusters. In the shallow
bay (3 feet or less) propellers or thrusters would disturb the Kepone-bearing
sediment and would increase the draft of the barge, neither of which would be
desirable. One of the cables will be attached to the service barge; the
other two cables will be attached to positions on the bay shore, as shown in
Figure H.l.
The film-laying barge will be pulled from the bay shore toward the
service barge by means of a winch mounted on the deck of the service barge.
It will be returned to shore by means of two winches mounted on the deck of
the film-laying barge as shown in Figure H.2. These winches will maintain
tension in two cables, each of which is attached to a "dead man" or a driven
pile on shore. There are various ways in which the film-laying barge can be
guided to follow a precise course between the shore and the service barge.
One of the more accurate ways would be to use a laser beam as an aiming
device to help the operator control the two retracting winches on the film-
laying barge. The operator would observe the laser beam striking a plexi-
glas target. When the beam moved off target, indicating that the barge had
moved off course, the operator would brake the winch on the cable toward
which the barge needed to move to bring the barge back on course and the
laser beam onto target.
The equipment for the film-laying operation will consist of the film-
laying barge, a service barge, four 300-ton-capacity gravel barges, and a
pair of movable "dead men" or anchor points on the shore. The service
barge will support a 50-ton crane equipped with a 2-1/2-cubic-yard clamshell
bucket, which will transfer gravel from the gravel barges into the slurry
pumping system on the end of the service barge.
A typical operating scenario for the system is described in the
following section.
H-3

-------
OPERATING SCENARIO
The first task will be to clear the Bailey Bay shoreline from Jordan's
Point to Gravelly Run of timber, driftwood, and other debris to a distance
10 feet back from the high-tide line. This debris, if not removed could get
into the water during high water conditions and damage the emplaced ?las:ic
film. Also a clear shoreline is needed for laying the film above the high-
tide line and for anchoring the guiding cables.
Two approaches to the film-laying operation have been considered. The
first approach required dredging a 2-mile channel across the mouth of 3ailey
3ay to allow conventional gravel barges to lav alongside the service barge at
low tide. This channel will be connected to the James River by means of simi-
lar but shorter access channels (see Figure H.l), which will allow the gravel
barges to be brought into the 3ailey Bay channel from the river. Although
this approach would disturb the bottom sediment of 3ailey Bay, which may con-
tain pollutants other than Kepone that would be carried into the James River,
the film-laying support equipment would be kept out of the main river channel
and, therefore, would not present a navigation hazard.
In rhe second approach, the support equipment would be positioned in the
James River channel. This would avoid a dredging operation, but would require
positioning the support equipment on the outside of a bend in a river that
may carry heavy barge traffic during the film-laying operation.
Essentially the sane equipment would be used in both approaches. The
major equipment difference would be the requirement in the second approach
for more slurry pipeline and a booster slurry pump to be located midway
between the service barge and the film-laving barge. In both approaches,
film would be placed on the bay bottom and partially covered wich gravel
by the shallow-draft barge designed especially for the job.
The plastic film will be laid by the barge in the following manner.
The film will be stored at the base of the U, transverse to the sides, in
two 20-foot wide rolls mounted side-by-side, as shown in Figure H-2.
While the film-laying barge moves from the shore to the service barge, the
film will be unreeled from one roll at a time by a pair of rollers in much
the same way a bed sheet is pulled through a washing-machine wringer. The
lower roller will perforate the sheet to permit the sediment to outgas.
The film-laying operation will proceed across the current, with subse-
quent laying passes upcurrent from the previous pass. This will ensure
that the current does not lift the free edge of overlapped film strips.
The film will be 20 feet wide, with each strip overlapping the previously
laid strip by about 3 feet, giving an effective strip width of 17 feet.
The laying length will be from 1/2 to 3M mile. Additional film will be
loaded onto the film-laying barge as required from the service barge.
H-4

-------
PC
I
Ul
*¦ c!
<& >/ )/r :
I
n '*
H«*6ta
itoufK fcili
Channel, witn 7
s Channels to /
KiVer	i
Md 1 n
ACCC
J dine
VA"N»\ rTixo'""."!1'' •"> -	1
''i'^k CB\s„

L»«'4>

< i«l uoo
I IIKtM
l'IGUiUi 11.1. bailey liay, Showing Channels to be Dredged

-------
p:
i
ON
:.
I	"	1—
FIGURE II.
~w
y \
"S..
'W'M
r
IP \\ik
a5'
kR.. _ N?l
h=r—-
A
-/ -- \ •
/ \
•'I; /.JH iz
(Il tj
|,Ll^lnb-^rh==k
T
7|nq:.-;|" ..-rj'
: l'- 'K=-	'
Polymer Film Deployment (loucopt

-------
The film, released close to the bottom, will be caused to sink onto the
sediment by the gravel. The gravel, which will hold the plastic film on the
bottom, will be pumped from the service barge to the film-laying barge as a
slurry, It will be dispensed onto the plastic by means of a large, open,
fan-shaped nozzle which will split the slurry flow into several smaller
streams, and a conveyor belt, which will help place these streams gently
onto the top of the plastic. Both the rolls and the conveyor belt will be
driven by hydraulic motors which will be driven by a small air-cooled diesel-
hydraulic power supply.
When the film-laying barge has reached the end of its travel in laying
a strip of plastic, the anchor points for its propulsion cables will be moved
if required. The service barge will be moved 17 feet upcurrent by adjusting
its moorings or by moving it with a tugboat. On the shore, the laser source
and the two "dead men" will also be moved 17 feet upcurrent.
The film near the shoreline must be covered completely with gravel and/
or sand to protect it from the sun's ultraviolet radiation and to ensure that
winds do not work the film loose in the beach area when exposed by low tide.
Some of this heavier layer of gravel can be applied by the film-laying barge
and some by laborers on the shore.
When the film-laying operation is completed, the film-laying barge, its
laser guidance system, and the gravel slurry system will be dismantled and
stored in a warehouse in the Bailey Bay area. The film-laying barge hull
will be designed for disassembly into three subhulls. As much equipment as
possible will be left intact on these subhulls as disassembly. The dis-
assembly procedure will, therefore, be to remove the film-laying and gravel-
distribution groups from the main hull and then to break the main hull into
the three subhull sections. The components will then be loaded onto one or
more flatbed trucks or trailers. The laser guidance system and the pipeline
system will be disassembled and trucked away in a similar manner. The rest
of the system consists of rented or leased equipment which will be returned
upon completion.
Maintenance of the film-laying equipment will probably be required on
an annual basis, consisting mainly of inspecting and maintaining anticorro-
sion agents, such as grease films. Any engines used with the system will
have to be inspected, started and run briefly, and put back into the storage
condition recommended by their respective manufacturers. This maintenance
is not expected to require more than 1 man-month per year.
MAINTAINING THE EMPLACED FILM
Portions of the film covering the bay bottom will have to be renewed on
an average of every three years. This will be required primarily because of
the effect of the weather on the film, and will entail laying new film and
gravel over the damaged area. Most damage probably will occur close to the
shore and will result from conditions such as strong winds and high water.
H-7

-------
Consideration has been made of the potential causes of damage to the
film, both on the bay bottom and along the shore, for a 10 year time span.
Of the possible causes - boating, people on the shore, decomposition of the
film, and damage from the environment - in the absence of controlled labora-
tory experiments, only the environmental effects have been identified as
being probably detrimental to the film. Of these effects, high water condi-
tions, high wind, and bay freeze-up/thawing are expected to result in damage
to approximately 16,560 square feet of film over the 10-year period consid-
ered, which is 0.046% of the total film area. This approximates to 0.014%,
or 5,040 square feet of film, that will probably have to be renewed every
3 years. The potential damage sources are listed and discussed in Table H.l
and the damage estimates are summarized in Table H.2.
REFERENCES
Holmstrom. 1975. Nature.	255(5510) :622-623.
Jain, R. K. and J. George.	1970. Pop. Plast. 15 (12) :27-28.
Kaufman, Jr., F. S. 1967a.	AdpI. Polymer Svmp. Mo. 4, pp. 131-139.
Kaufman, Jr., F. S. 1967b.	Mod. Plast. 44 (8) :143.
Muraoka, S. 1967. Deep Ocean Biodegradation of Materials. Part IV,
Naval Facilities Engineering Command to U.S. Naval Engineering Laboratory,
Port Hueneme, California.
Raff, R. A. V. and K. W. Doak, ed. 1964. "High Polymers." Vol. XX,
Crystalline Olefin Polymers Part II. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (Inter-
science) , New York.
Stedman, H. F. 1969. Ann. Tech. Conf. Soc. Plast. Eng., Tech. Paper,
27th. 15:317-322.
Titus, Joan B. 1968. Plast. Tech. Eval. Center Report No. 32.
Weichert, D. and A. Kraus. 1968. Plaste Kaut. 15(2):96-98.
Weil and Quentin. 1970. Gas-Wasserfach, Wasser-Abwasser. Ill(11):26-28.
Winslow, F. H. and W. L. Hawkins. 1967. Mod. Plast. 44(8):141-142.
H-8

-------
TABLE H.l. POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO EMPLACED FILM
Potential Cause	Expected Effect
Boating
• Commercial
• Private
Foot Traffic
Decomposition
Environmental Effects
Normal Currents/Tides
• High Water/Flooding
The channel is so far away that loose barges
should not pose a problem. Any such drifting
carriers probably would go aground immediate-
ly after leaving the James River channel.
Buoys marking the area should keep private
boats out and eliminate this potential
source of damage.
Damage should not occur if people are kept
avay from the bank by fencing and/or warning
signs.
Decomposition due to sunlight, temperature,
wet-dry cycling, mechanical loading,
chemicals, and normal film-life expectancy
is estimated to be low over the 10-year
period.
No damage is expected even from drifting
debris
Strong currents accompanying flooding could
damage the film through increased water forces
and by debris carried into the bay from the
river and creek. It is estimated that approxi-
mately O.OL" of the total film area will be
damaged during each flood.
• High Winds
• Ice
High winds blowing water out of the bay could
damage the plastic not completely covered with
gravel. Such damage would occur approximate-
ly six times per year with a probability of
damaging approximately 0.00127, of the total
film area per year.
It is expected that the bay will ice over
approximately every 4 years. The damage
resulting from the breakup and movement of
the ice will affect approximately 0.0027o
of the total film area.
H-9

-------
TABLE II.2. ESTIMATE OF FILM AREA THAT WILL BE DAMAGED DURING A 10-YEAR PERIOD
Cause of
Damage
Percent of Film Damage
Total*
(Sq. Ft.)
Year of Damage
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Flood
—
—
0.01
—
—
0.01
—
—
0.0L
—
10,800
Wind
0.0012
y







0.0012
4,320







>¦
Ice
—
—
—
0.002
—
—
—
0.002
—
—
1,440
Total^sq.ft.)
432
432
4,032
1,152
432
4,032
432
1,152
4,032
432
16,560
Running Total
432
864
4,896
6,048
6,480
10,512
10,944
12,096
16,128
16,56(1

* Based on 36,000,000 Square Feet Total Area

-------
APPENDIX I
SUBMITTAL FROM ALLIED CHEMICAL, INC.
ESTIMATING QUANTITIES OF KEPONE RESIDUALS

-------
^p$5lmicaJ
LawOaptrtmant
P.O. Bos 10S7A
Moffiaoww. New JarMy 07960
Hoveaber 10, 1977
Mr. Charles Terrell
Environmental Protection Agency
Marine Activities Branch WH585
401 M. Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr." ferreli
Herewith the inventory list of Kepone wastes held
by Allied. Zf you need anything else, let ma know.
Enclosure
ila
i-l

-------
KEPONE WASTE INVENTORY - 9/19/77
LIFE SCIENCE.WASTES
	Pounds	
Est.
	Stored at Hopewell STP	 Gross Wt. Net Wt. Kepone
a)	85 drums of dry Kepone powder & dirt
with concentrations estimated to 80 to
85%
b)	159 drums of wet sludges from tanks con-
taining varying amounts of Kepone, up
to an estimated 40 to 50%
c)	10 drums of wet muds from tanks contain-
ing varying amounts (40 to 50%) of
Kepone and traces of HCP
d)	12 drums of liquid caustic soda with
trace amounts of Kepone
e)	99 drums of wet granular activated car-
bon with ca. 40 lb of Kepone removed
from EPA mobile carbon adsorption unit
f)	35 drums of wet powdered activated car-
bon contaminated with est. 5 to 10 lb
of Kepone
g)	98 drums of tank car sludge with ca.
91% water and 9% solids
h)	7 drums of contaminated work clothes,
sample jars, trash, etc.
i)	23 drums from Toledo Test Burn (1 drum
of ca. 100 lb tech. Kepone inside steel
container, 1 cyl. acetic acid/Kepone
feedstock, 1 drum acetic acid feed-
stock with ca. 30 lb Kepone, wash waters,
scrubber caustic water, trash, etc.	4,227	2,801	130
j) 8 drums of Broaddus Warehouse dust &
dirt from October 1976	1,253	757	10
Total: Hopewell	202,055 163,162 20,700
1-2
20,361
69,908
5,564
6,008
42,003
14,055
37,622
1,054
15,091
60,050
4,944
5,264
35,865
11,885"
25,885
620
6,300
12,000
1,000
40
10
1,200
<10

-------
	Pounds	
Est.
	Portsmouth Naval Base	 Gross Wt. Net Wt. Kepone
96 drums of off-spec. Kepone of varying
concentrations & moisture. Range of
Kepone 18 to 90%	25,152 19,200 8,100
Total: Life Science Wastes	227.207 182.362 28.800
1-3

-------
KEPONE WASTE INVENTORY - 5/8/78
ALLIED CHEMICAL CORPORATION
Pounds
Stored at Baltimore Site
Est.
Gross Wt. Net Wt. Keoone
1. Kepone Materials
a)
162 drums of Tech. Grade
48,104
35,613
32,000
b)
44 drums of 80%
7,687
4,712
3,770
c)
14 drums of 25% Spec. Mix
2,408
1,371
343
d)
285 drums of 5%
89,664
70,516
3,525
e)
1 drum of Ant & Roach (0.125%)
279
198
<1
f)
2 drums of Unknown Content
432
310
nil
g)
9 drums of Compound 9160
1,549
901
nil
h)
1 drum of Compound 9160 with 16 lb
of 50% Kepone
199
127
8

Total: 518 drums
150,322
113,748
39,646
Misc. Materials Contaminated with Keoone



a)
27 drums of cardboard, bags & fiber
drums
3,185
1,511
20
b)
20 drums of scrap metal & motors
10,147
8,907
nil
c)
2 drums of dust collector bags
295
171
20
d)
4 drums of Hydroscience laboratory
wastes
910
644
<1

Total: 53 drums
14,537
11,233
40
Laboratory Retained Samples - Herbicides
(Sumitol, Cacarol, Tenaran)




30 drums
6,061
4,129
nil
1-4

-------
	Pounds	
Est.
	Stored at Baltimore Site	 Gross Wt. Net Wt. Kepone
4.	Mirex Wastes - Paraffin Wax Contaminated
with (0.03 to 4.4% Mirex)
16 drums	3,188	2,000	20
5.	Decontamination Wastes Containing
Arsenic
a)	173 drums past production sludge
(Kepone from washout tank - 7000 ppm
arsenic)	78,997 65,247 4,600
b)	97 drums of waste from Kepone for-
mulating area (composite 1800 ppm
arsenic range to 5% to <1% to >10%
Kepone)
38,648
32,636
3,000
87 drums of waste from non-Kepone
pesticide areas


<1
(1) 35 drums (Solution)
14,158
11,988

(2) 31 drums (Sludge)
13,410
11,478

(3) 21 drums (Solution & Sludge)
8,442
7,130

Total: 357 drums
153,655
128,479
7,600
Total - Baltimore: 974 drums
327.763
259.589
47.306
(a) Arsenic content extremely variable - concentration data represents best
averaged value. Lead, chromium copper and alkali salts are also present.
Mercury present in sludge.
1-5

-------
APPENDIX J
TEXT OF EMERGENCY RULE CLOSING JAMES RIVER
TO SPORT.AND COMMERCIAL FISHING

-------
: i//?h8
I I y LQrrrj
.*• ir\- -A
i p.. ?.
t>y-- ~£
¦--_- - n^-:y
COMMONWEALTH of V1RQINIA
Department of Health
MES & KcNLEY. M O.
**,SS,0*6B	Richmond. Va. 23219
January 1, 1978
... EMERGENCY BOLE
-yXSGXHIA STATE BOARD OF HEALTH
Prohibiting the. Taking of Crabs and Fish from the
Chesapeake Bay/James River and Its Tributaries
WHEREAS the Virginia State Board of Health is aware of conditions existing
in the James River" from the fall line at Richmond, to its mouth at the
Chesapeake Bay and the southern most portion of the Chesapeake Bay, which
constitutes a potential danger to the health and welfare of the citizens of
the -Commonwealth due to the unauthorized and unwarranted release or discharge
of Kepone (Chlordecone) to the environment;
WHEREAS a January 1976 report of a study conducted by the National Cancer
Institute implicates Kepone as a carcinogen in.test animals^
WHEREAS Ingestion of small amounts of Kepone may lead to accumulation and
concentration in fat and body organs to levels which may be toxic to humans;
	 ' •
WHEREAS the long term effects of exposure to low levels of Kepone in the
environment on the public health and safety have, yet to be determined by
scientific research;
WHEREAS the United States Food and Drug Administration pursuant to the
recommendations of the US Environmental Protection Agency has revised previous
action levels and established the following action levels for Kepone in the
edible portions of finfish, shellfish, and crabs as acceptable levels of safe-
ty for human consumption;
Parts per Million (ppm>
Finfish	0.3
Shellfish (clams, mussels, oysters)	0.3
Crabs	0.4
WHEREAS awareness of the above facts prompted the Virginia State Board of
Health to issue an Emergency Rule on December 13, 1975 and to extend, said
Order on June 24, 1976 and December 28, 1976 prohibiting the taking of finfish
and crabs from the James River and its tributaries as revised on February 2,
1977; to extend said Order on June, 1977 as revised on September 16, 1977;
J-l

-------
EMERGENCY RULE - VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF HEALTH
Page 2 -
January I, 1978
WHEREAS samples of certain species of fin fish and crabs In the James River
and its tributaries and Chesapeake Bay continue to exceed the action level
established by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration; (As set forth in.
Appendix, Part I of this Order)
WHEREAS the act of catching fish and releasing same back to the stream does
not present an undue hazard to health and is not prohibited by this Emergency
Rule;
WHEREAS the taking of bait minnows in the fresh water portion of the James River
and its tributaries does not constitute an undue hazard to health and is not
prohibited by this Emergency Rule;
WHEREAS Governor Mills E. Godwin, Jr. authorized the Virginia State Department,
of Health on Hay 20, 1976 to open the James River and its tributaries for the
harvesting of channel catfish and revised on March 18, 1977 for harvesting of
all catfish from the James River and its tributaries;
WHEREAS Governor Mills E. Godwin, Jr. authorizad the Virginia State Department
of Health on September 16, 1977 to permit the harvesting of hard crabs under
the following provisions^
1/ The commercial taking of female hard crabs for processing and
marketing is permitted is that portion of the James River lying
seaward of the James River Bridge to the Hampton Roads Bridge-
Tunnel excluding the tributaries. The mouth of the Elizabeth
River is defined by a line from Craney Island to Tanner Point,
the mouth of the Nansemond River and die Chuckatuck Creek by the
Route 17 Bridge and the mouth of Batten Bay by a line from the
north shore of the Chuckatuck to the southern most.tip of Candy
Island.
2/ The taking of female hard crabs for household use or in the
recreational fishery is permitted in that part of the James
River lying seaward of die James River Bridge excluding the
tributaries.
3/ The possession or sale of peeler crabs and soft crabs is still
prohibited under the Emergency Rule.
4/ The commercial and recreational taking of male hard crabs is
prohibited in that portion of the Chesapeake Bay south of a
line from the Buckroe Fishing Pier to Thimble Shoal Light
along Thimble Shoal Channel to Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel.
5/ No harvester shall have in his possession male crabs while
crabbing in the James River waters and the restricted area of
Chesapeake Bay. Any male crabs in possession of such harvesters
shall be seized and returned to the waters.
J-2

-------
EMERGENCY RULE - VIRGDHA STATE BOARD OF HEALTH
Page 3 -
January 1, 1978
ijhkmpas Governor Hills E. Godwin, Jr., on the basis of evidence that shad
and herring migrating into the James River in the early part of the season
vlll possess acceptable Repone residue levels, authorized the State Health
Department to open the James River and its tributaries for shad and herring
fishing*
WHEREAS on the basis of evidence that turtles in the James River will possess
acceptable Kepone levels, the State Health Department is authorized to open
the River and its tributaries for taking of turtles;
WHEREAS there is a potential for elvers (baby eels) in the James River and
based on the fact that migrating elvers do not possess a digestive system
for 4-5 weeks after entering the River and further on the fact that such
elvers will be reared in Kepone-free ponds, the State Health Department is
authorized to open the River and its tributaries for the taking of elvers.
NOW THEREFORE, acting under the authority granted to the State Board of
Health in Sections 32-6 and 32-12 of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended,
the following Emergency Rule is hereby promulgated:
Effective immediately, tie taking of crabs and the catching,
netting, or taking of fish from the James River and all of
its tributaries from the fall line to its mouth-is-pro-
hibited until January 1, 1979 except as indicated above for
catfish, crabs, shad, herring, turtles, and elvers. The
taking of male crab in the Chesapeake Bay is prohibited as
indicated above. The fall line is defined by the crossing
of the Fourteenth Street Bridge in the City of Richmond.
The mouth of the James River is defined by the crossing of
the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel which extends from
Willoughby Spit on the South shore northwesterly to the toll
plaza at the southwest end of Willard Avenue on the North
shore. Excepted from this Order is that portion of the
Appomattox River upstream from its fall line in Petersburg
near the Seaboard Cost Line Railroad Bridge in the vicinity
of Virginia State College and the Chickahominy River above
Walker Dam.
Violation of this Rule is a misdemeanor as set forth in Section 32-15 of
the Code of Virginia.
Pursuant to Chapter 3.2 of Title 44 of the Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended, the Governor delegates to the Virginia
Marine Resources Commission and the Cocmission of Game and
Inland Fisheries the authority to enforce this Order in the
event it is violated.
J-3

-------
EMERGENCY RULE - VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF graT.-m
Page 4 -
January 1, 1978
The Department of Health, vill receive, consider, and respond to petitions by
any interested person at any time for reconsideration or revision of this
Bnergency Rule. Suck petitions should be directed to:
It is further ordered that certified copies of this Role be forwarded to the
Governor of Virginia, the Attorney General,, the State Water Control Board, die
Commissioner of Game and. Inland Fisheries, Che Marine Resources Consulssion.,
die Virginia Institute of Marine Science, the Boards of Supervisors of Charles
Cicy, Chesterfield,. Henrico,, Isle of Wight, James City, Sew Kent, Prince
George, and Surry counties, and the Mayors of the Cities of Chesapeake,
Colonial Heights, Hampton, Hopewell, Newport News, Norfolk, Petersburg, Ports-
mouth, Richmond, Suffolk, and Williamsburg.
Commissioner of Health
Virginia State Department of Health
Boon 400, James Madison Building
109 Governor Street-
Richmond, Virginia. 23219
STATE BOARD OF HEALTH
J-4

-------
SUPPORTING DATA
January 1, 1978
December 22, 1977	I. Flnfish Data - Collections of finfish from the
James River In 1977 continued to demonstrate
Kepone levels in excess of the established action
level. Resident species measured as high as 2.4
ppm Kepone in edible meat. Migratory species
collected below the James River Bridge increased
front a mean level of 0.083 ppm in. April and Hay
samples to an average of 0.41 ppm in June and
an average of 0.76 ppm in September. The increase
followed the 1975 experience where fin fish
collected in the same area increased from a
quarterly average of 0.18 ppm to 0.92 ppm average
by the end o'f the year. In 1976, more than 60
percent of samples exceeded the action, level by
the third quarter while more than 90 percent
exceeded the action, level in 1977.
Crab Data - Samples of male crabs in the James
River and southern most portion of the Chesapeake
Bay continued to demonstrate concentrations of
Kepone above the action leveL.at-all stations.
There were high is' of 1.0 ppm in Che vicinity of the
James River Bridge, 1.57 ppm at the mouth of the
Nansemond River, 0.57 ppm at the mouth of the
Elizabeth River, 1.64 ppm on the Hampton Flats,
0.7- ppm on the Newport News Bar and 1^85 ppm in
Uilloughby Bay. Along Thimble Shoal channel, the
average concentration found in male crabs was
0.96 ppm with, a bi£h of 1.8 ppm and 90 percent
above the actios level. Other male crab levels
off Suckroe Beach and Ocean View were 0.64 ppm,
1.40 ppa and 1.04 ppm.
Summary - Kepone- remains readily available in
the River system with no anticipated changes in
the coming season. All sampling for catfish,
shad, and herring supported continued exception
to the ban and continued monitoring showing the
same seasonal experience. Seasonal increases in
contamination levels to above the action level
can be expected in other migratory species.
H. Emergency Rules Promulgated todate Pursuant to
Sections 32-6 and 32-12 of the Code of Virginia
•(1950) as Amended Re; The Taking of Finfish and
Shellfish from the James River and Its Tributaries
J-5

-------
SUPPORT!^ DATA
Page 2 -
January 1> 1978
September 16, 1977
June 15, 1977
June 6, 1977
March 18* 1977
Febriary 5, 1977
December 23, 197&
June 24, 1976
June 11, 1976
May 25, 1<976
April 14 % 1976
February 37, 1976
February 5, 1976
December- 13, 1975
"Prohibiting the Taking of Crabs and Fish from
Che James River and Its Tributaries"
"Prohibiting the Taking a£ Crabs and Fish from
the James River and Its Tributaries"
"Prohibiting the Taking of Crabs and Fish from
the James River and Its Tributaries"
"Prohibiting the Taking of Crabs and Fish from
the James River and Its Tributaries"
"Prohibiting the Talcing of Crabs and Fish from
the James River and Its Tributaries"
"Prohibiting the Taking of Crabs and Fish from
the James River and Its Tributaries"
"Prohibiting the Takfrrg of Crabs from the James
River and Its Tributaries and the Taking of Fish1'
"Prohibiting the Taking of Crabs from the James
River and Its Tributaries and_the Taking of Fish"
"Prohibiting the Taking of Crabs from the James
River and Its Tributaries and Che Taking of Fish"
"Prohibiting the Taking of Crabs from the James
River and Its Tributaries and the Taking of Fish"
"Prohibiting the Taking of Crabs from the James
River and Its Tributaries and the Taking of Fish
for Hmicm Consumption"
"Prohibiting the Taking of Crabs from the James
River and Its Tributaries- and the Taking of Fish
for Human Consumption"
"Closing of the James River and Its Tributaries
to die Taking of Fish"
III. Action Levels Established by United States Food &
Drug Administration
The US Food & Drug Administration pursuant to the
recomaendation of the US Environmental Protection
Agency has^established the following action levels
for Kepone in the edible portions of finfish, shell
fish and crabs as acceptable levels of safety for
human consumption.
J-6

-------
SUPPORTING DATA
Page 3 -
January 1, 1978
Parts per Million (ppm)
February 9, 1976
March 17, 1977
March. 22, 1976
Shellfish (clams, mussells,	0.3
& oysters)
Finfish	0.3
Crabs	0.4
17. Report on Carcinogenesis Bioassav of Technical
Grade (Keoone) Carcinogenesis Program. Division
of f-*ncer Cause and Prevention, National Cancer
Institute
January, 1976	S'^^ry - A carcinogenesis bioassay of technical
grade chlordecone (Kepoue) vas conducted using
Osborne-Mendel rats and B6C3F1 mice. Chlordecone
vas administered in the diet for 80 weeks at two
dose levels, with the rats sacrificed at 112 weeks
weeks and the mice at 90 weeks. The starting dose
.levels were 15 and 30 ppm for male rats, 30 and'
6(7 ppn for female rats, 40 ppm for male mice and
AO and 80 ppm for female mice. As these dose
levels were not well tolerated, the dose levels
were reduced during the course of the experiment
such that the average dose levels were as follows:
8 and 24 ppa for male rats, 18 and 26 for female
rats, 20 and 23 ppm for male mice and 20 and 40
ppn for fsnale mice. Clinical signs of toxicity
were observed in both species, including general-
ized tremors and dermatologic changes. A signi-
ficant. increase (P ^ .05) was found in die
incidence of hepatocellular carcinomas of high.,
dose level rats and of mice at both dose levels of
chlordecone. The incidences in the high dose
groups were 77. and 22% for male and female rats
(compared with 0 in controls for both sexes) and
88% and 47% for male and female mice (compared with
16% for male room controls and 0 in females). Tor.
the low dose groups of mice, the incidences were
81% for males and 52% for females. In addition,
the time to detection of the first hepatocellular
carcinoma observed at death was shorter for treated
than control mice, and in both sexes and both
species, it appeared inversely related to the dose.
In chlordecone-treated groups did not appear
significantly different from that in controls.
J-7

-------
SUPPORTING DAIA
Page 4 -
January I, 1978
V." Pelted States Environmental Protection Agency
Report to Dec^Her 16, 1975 Re: Extent o£
R^pone Cont^^ation of Hooewell Community and
Lover- Janes River Basin
December 16, 1975	T5*e	Effects Research Laboratory, United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Research
TStiangle Park, North Carolina in a report
Articled, "Preliminary Report on Kepone Levels
' I^Kind in Environmental Samples from Hopewell,
rrf a Area" found:
a/ 1 to 4 parts per billion of Kepone in
vater samples from Bailey's Creek;
b/ greater than 0.1 parts per billion of
Kepone in water samples taken from the
Appomattox River;
c/ O.U to 0.28 parts per billion, of Sep one
In vater samples taTcgn from the James
River;
d/ fish and fish part samples contained from
0.02 to 14.4 parts per million of Kepone;
e/ oyster and clam samples taken from the
fall line at Richmond to Hampton Roads
contained 0.21 to 0.31 parts per million
of Kepone; and
£/ sediment samples taken from Bailey's
Creek, Appomattox River and James River
bottoms contained 1 to 4 parts per million
of Kepone.
VI- Events Leading to Closure of Life Science Products,
Hooegell.. Virginia
July 18, 1975	>&Cate Health Department, Bureau of Epidemiology —
State Epidemiologist contacted by Center for
Iblseaae Control in Atlanta, George concerning
detection of Kepone in blood sample taken from an
Employee of Life Science Products, Inc. in Hopewell,
Virginia.
J-3

-------
SUPPORTING DATA
Page 5 -
July 22, 1975
July 23, 1975
July 24, 1975
January 1, 1978
State Health Department, Bureau of Industrial
Hygiene - Industrial Hygiene conducted survey
and atmospheric samples were taken on and off
the plant site. Inspection confirmed hazardous
conditions and lack of proper personnel'
equipment.
State Health Department, Bureaus of Epidemiology
and Industrial Hygiene - State Epidemiologist and
Industrial Hygienist visited Life Science Products
Plane, in Hopewell. Examination of ten . (10)
employees revealed seven (7) employees with
symptoms of neurological illness, several severe
enough to require hospitalization.
Inspection of the Plant revealed building, air,
and ground contamination with Kepone and its
precursors (compounds used to make Kepone),
inadequate personnel protection precautions, and
unsafe operating conditions.
State Health Department, Bureaus of Epidemiology,
Industrial Hygiene, Division~of-Engineering, and
Attorney General's Office meeting with officials
of Life Science Products, Inc.
Acting under the authority granted to tne State
Board of- Health izx Section 32-12 of the Code of
Virginia, special order was prepared requiring"
the Company to cease production of new Kepone and
begin. -fTrmtpd-farely to clean no the site under
carefully supervised conditions.
Plant management agreed to comply voluntarily" with
tiie conditions and the order was not issued,
bat was held in the event of non-compliance.
The owner submitted a timetable for cleanup and
disposal which was acceptable to the Health Depart-
ment.
J-9

-------
APPENDIX K
DETAILS OF ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES
IN THE JAMES RIVER

-------
APPENDIX K
DETAILS OF ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES
IN THE JAMES RIVER
BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Seasonal Dominance of Fish
Seasonal dominance of fish in the tidal James River has been studied
during the years 1967 to 1971 and in February and June of 1972 by VIMS
scientists (VIMS, 1973; Wass and Wright, 1969). Relatively few species
have an entirely estuarine existence throughout the year.
The hogchokers are the most ubiquitous estuarine fish from the poly-
oligohaline to the lower fresh-water zones at all seasons. White perch are
the dominant species during the winter and spring, while the bay anchovy
and the spot are dominant in the summer and fall. Most of the. marine and
estuarine species use the estuarine zones (poly-oligohaline) as nursery
and feeding grounds. Lower salinity (oligohaline) and tidal fresh-water
areas mainly serve as spawning and nursery grounds for anadromous and fresh-
water fish. The polyhaline zone exhibits more variation in species dominance,
whereas the fresh-water zone has a more stable fish fauna the year round.
Winter. During the winter the higher salinity zones are dominated by
the hogchoker and anadromous fish, e.g., herrings (blueback herring and
alewife) as well as white perch (Figure K.l). The bay anchovies and the
Atlantic croaker are abundant in the lower portions of the poly-meshohaline
areas. The freshwater species, channel and white catfish, penetrate downstream
to the oligohaline zone and are among the dominants in the area. The tidal
freshwater zones are almost exclusively dominated by freshwater species,
mainly catfish (channel, white, and brown bullhead) and spottail shiner.
Spring. The hogchokers are the most dominant fish in the spring (Fig-
ure K.2). The marine fish, such as weakfish, spot, and spotted hake, enter
the estuary and become dominants in the poly-mesohaline zones. The white
perch dominate the oligohaline zone along with the channel and white catfish.
The tidal fresh-water portion above RM 36 was not documented during the 1967-
1971 study period. However, it is known that, of the anadromous fish, the
alosin group and striped bass as well as white perch move into the fresh-
water zone to spawn and remain there throughout the spring.
Summer. In the summer the poly-mesohaline zones are populated predomi-
nately by marine species: weakfish, spot, silver perch, and Atlantic croaker
(Figure K.3). The oligohaline and tidal fresh-water areas are more populated
with estuarine (bay anchovy, hogchoker), anadromous (alewife), resident (white
perch) and fresh-water species (channel catfish). The spot and hogchoker are
dominants in all salinity regimes. The fresh-water zone is prime nursery
ground for all newly hatched juveniles during the Slimmer.
K-l

-------
&
IAMES ItlVEIt
Winter 1967-1971
February 1972
/
MILES
5
r
0
10
5 10 15
KILOMLIfltS
"M
20
1	llliiehack Herring (Alosa aestivalis)
2	Alewife (A. pseui/oharengus)
3	While Calfhli (Iculurus cams)
4	Urown Uullhcail (I. nubulosui)
5	Channel CaliUh (I. piincialus)
6	White I'cmIi (Moro/iti americana)
7	Spoll.iil Shiner (Nairapis ImJsonlns)
U I logt holier (I (inula in
-------
SPRING

/
IAMES RIVEIt

0
l_
r;-
o
MILES
S
n m
10
J
5 10 15
KII.OMflEliS
- I
20
1	llay Anchovy (Anchoa mUchilli)
2	Weak Ihli (Cynoscion regain)
3	While CalfUli (Ictnluriu talus)
4	Channel Callhli (I. punctatui)
5	Spul (I cioiloinm xanf/iimis)
6	While I'eit li (Moroi»e amcric.tna)
7	Oysler Tnadikh (Qpsnnus law)
(I llojjiholter (Trineclcs niaculdlus)
'J Spotted I lake (Uroftliycii rutins)
A.RM 0-13
B:RM 19—26
CRM 32
D:RM 36
FIGURE K.2. Seasonal. Dominance of Fish During the Spring. The larger the circle, the more
dominant the speci.es (Vims, 1,973).

-------
SuMMIh
y
rV/
IAMES ItlVEIi
Summer 1U67-1971
Itinc 1972
MILES
0	5	10
	1			J
I			i		"I
0 5 10 15 20
Kit QMLTt'llS
1	Alcwife (Alosa pieiuiuhitrenyus)
2	Day Aiuliovy (Anchoa mllchllli)
3	Silvci reiili {fiairditslla cluyutra)
4	WcaKiili (Cynoicioti regain)
5	Channel Calli^li (Iciahuus puncialtnj
6	Spot (leioj/onujs xanlhurus)
7	While I'eicli (Moront! americaita)
U llu(;(liol(cr (Irinuclm iiuliiI.Miii)
'J CmulteifA/irro/tn^un iiiu/iifdlut)
A:KM 0—13
U:RM 19-26
C:KM 32
D:RM 36
FIGURli K.3.
Seasonal Dominance of Fish During llie Summer. The larger Lhe circle, Lhe more
dominant Lhe species (VIMS, 17J).

-------
Fall. As the fall season approaches, most of the marine fish move down-
stream and later enter the ocean for wintering (Figure K.4). Anadromous fish
also concentrate in the lower estuaries. The croaker becomes dominant in the
oligohaline zone and the catfish are abundant in the fresh/salt-water inter-
faces. Again the hogchoker dominates through the entire estuary. At this
time most juvenile fish have moved to the more saline part of the estuary
from their spawning and nursery grounds in the fresh-water zone.
Freshwater Fish
Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus)
Brown Bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus)
White Catfish (Ictalurus catus)
Three major catfish species occur in the James River: channel catfish,
white catfish, and brown bullhead. Of these, the channel catfish is the most
numerous and most widely distributed with its major concentration areas being
in the RM 30-80 area (Figure K.5). The brown bullhead is also abundant,
mainly in the areas between RM 55 and RM 66 and in the Turkey Island oxbow
area. The white catfish is found mostly in the RM 40-60 range but is the
least numerous among the catfish group.
Channel catfish spawn during late May through early July. Brown bullhead
spawn from April to June. Both fish mainly utilize the oxbow habitats as a
nursery ground (VIMS, 1973; Lanier, 1971; Menzel, 1943).
Biomass projections developed by VIMS yield the following estimates:
	Summer (k%) River Mile	
Species
White Catfish
Channel Catfish
Brown Bullhead
Winter
James River (kg)
3.3 x 104
3.3 x 103
3.3 x 104
0-15	16-25
0	0
0	0
NA	NA
26-35	36-45
2.9 x 106
1.5 x 105
NA
Total
0-45
3.3 x 10
5.0 x 10
NA
4.0 x 103
r
8.8 x 10°
NA
Estuarine Fish
Hogchoker (Trinectes maculatus)
Bay Anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli)
These two fish are not commercially harvested in the James River but
are of ecological importance due to their numerical dominance and ubiquitous
distribution throughout the estuary and fresh-water zone up to RM 80.
The hogchoker is the most ubiquitous fish in the James River. This
bottom-feeding flatfish is found in all salinity zones at all seasons. Spawn-
ing occurs from May through September with a peak in July to August. Spawning
grounds are in the meso-to polyhaline zone where salinities are greater than
K-5

-------
P4
I

i
|AMES ItlVEIl
1	Ak'vvHc (Alasa pseiuloharengus)
2	llay Anchovy (Anchoa inltchilli)
3	YVcakliih (Cynoidon regnlis)
4	While CalJIili (Ictiihirm cams)
CImiiiicI Calttsli (I. ptntctnlu%)
Spol (I o/oslofiitts xaiilliuiui)
Atlantic Ou.iltcr (Micropogon undulntut)
Wliile I'crdi (Moroite amciicjna)
llitKili(ilii;i (lrincctci iiucuImus)
A:RM 0-13
U:RM 19—26
C;RM 32
D:RM 36
MILLS
5	10
	1 — — I
r* — — — —|
5 10 IS 20
KILOMtmtS
FICJURli K.4. Seasonal Dominance of I'Jsli During the Fail. The larger the circle, the more
dominant the species (VTMS, 1973).

-------
K
I
--j
ritESIIWATEU FISII


JAMES IllVtlt
Habitats of Channel Catfish and Biown Bullhead
Major concentration area lor Catfish (RM 30—UO)
0
I-
MILES
—.--J::—		J
	v_:r — ^
5 10 IS 20
KILOMErEKS
Major concentration area (or Dullliead (KM 50—66)
;r*| Major concentration area (or While Catfish (RM^O^O)
FIGURE K.5.
Distribution of Major Freshwater Fish (Channel Catfish, Brown Bullhead and
White Catfish) (VLMS, 1973; EngineerJng-Science Co., 1974)

-------
9 ppth. The juveniles are distributed from mesohaline to fresh water with
major concentrations in the oligohaline zone. Young hogchokers remain in
the nursery areas in the first year and descend farther downstream with the
following year migration (Figure K.6). The hogchokers spend their winter
in the channel at oligo- to polyhaline areas (VIMS, 1973; Van Engel and
Joseph, 1968).
The bay anchovy is one of the most numerous fish and an important forage
food for many fish in~the James River. They are small but grow rapidly and
move in large schools. Spawning occurs between April and September (peaking
in July-August) mainly in the polyhaline water with a salinity of 13-15 ppth.
Juvenile anchovies are widely distributed from meso- to fresh water but tend
to congregate in the areas of the salt/fresh-water interface (oligohaline
zone). Adult anchovies are randomly distributed throughout the estuary from
oligo- to mesohaline in the warm season (spring to fall). They stay in
deeper waters and the lower portion of the polyhaline zones in winter (VIMS,
1973; Dovel et al., 1969; Van Engel and Joseph, 1968).
Biomass projections developed by VIMS yield the following estimates:
Summer (kg) River Mile
Winter	Total
Species James River	(kg) 0-15	16-25	26-35	36-45	0-45
Hogchoker 5.7 x 104	.3.6 x 106	8.2 x 103	1.0 x 106	7.0 x 105	6.1 x 10
Bay Anchovy 2.8 x 10*	1.5 x 10^	3.4 x 10^	3.1 x 10^	2.6 x 10^	1.9 x 10'
Anadromous Fish
Alewife (Alosa psuedoharengus)
Blueback Herring (Alosa aestivalis)
American Shad (Alosa sapidissima
The alosin fish are widely distributed throughout the Chesapeake Bay and
its major rivers, including the James River (Figure K.7). All of these fish
spawn in the tidal fresh-water sections of the river between Jamestown Island
(RM 42) and Richmond (RM 110) but primarily above the RM 64 (VIMS, 1973).
Spawning of the alewife takes place from mid-March to mid-May when water
temperatures range from 11 to 23°C. Blueback herring spawn from mid-April
through late May where the temperature is above 14°C. The American shad
spawns from early April to late May. Adult herrings move down to the lower
estuary after spawning and remain there throughout the summer. Juveniles
remain in the river between RM 35 and RM 80, but the majority of them appear
to stay in the areas between RM 60 and RM 80. Young alosins move out of the
estuary in November-December, (VIMS, 1973).
K-3

-------
tSTUAHINt HSII
i
JAMES IllVCIt
r
1
Nursery area for llogcliolter and Day Anchovy
MlltS
0 5	10
I—	—J _ _ 1
r=-— — r - — — - i
0 5 10 15 !!<»
KIlOMtrtllS
Spawning area (or llogclioker (Po/y-MesoJia/i/ie.May-September) f
Spawning ,«irea for Hay Anchovy (I'olyhaline , April-September) J J
\
FIGURE K.6. Spawning and Nursery Areas for Lhe Estuarjne Fish, Hogchoker and Bay Anchovy
(Van F-ngcl and Joseph, 1968; VIMS 1973)

-------
ANADROMGUS FISII
IAMES IIIVEIt
I
I
General distribution
MIUS
0	S	10
	1	1	i
p- •«" ^ M ta	M	M M |
0 S 10 IS 20
KILOMLILIIS
Spawning area (above KM60)
AletvHc — mltl March to mid May
lllueback llcnlng — inid April lo laie May
Sliad — early April lo late May
5^1 Nursery area (above KMiS)
major conccnlialiom al KM60 ~
I'ICUUL K.7. Dlstr ibut ion of the Herrings

-------
Studies from 1969 chrough 1975 show that more than 93% of the juvenile
alosins caught are blueback herring, approximately 4% are alewife, and less
than 3% are American shad (Hoagmen et al. , 1973; Hoagman and Kriete, 1975).
Populations of juvenile alosins in the James River have declined considerably
during the past several years. Since 1970 the estimates of year-class alewife
populations were reduced from 118 to 4 million and shad from 30 to 1 million
in 1975. The populations of blueback herring decreased from 1,633 million
in 1970 to 62 million in 1974, but increased to 1,908 million 1975. The abrupt
increase of year-class biuebacks (30-fold increase) in 1975 from the previous
year has not been explained (Hoagman and Kriete, 1975).
Biomass projections developed by VIMS yield the following estimates:
Summer (kg) River Mile
Winter	Total
	Species	 James River	(kg) 0-15	16-25	26-35	36-45	0-45
Alewife 2.3 x 104	NA	NA	NA	MA	MA
Bluback Herring 4.3 x 10"^	0	2.8 x 104	2.8 x 10 4	2.8 x 10^	5.9 x 104
American Shad 4.6 x 10^	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Striped Based (Morone saxatilis)
White Perch (Morone americana) - White perch are resident in the James
rather than anadromous.
The striped bass is one of the most important commerical and sport
anadromous fish in the Chesapeake Bay area. The bass is highly tolerant to
varying salinities and widely distributed throughout the Bay and up to the
tidal fresh-water section of the rivers.
In the James River, the striped bass spawn during April-June in the
area between Jamestown Island (RM 42) and Turkey Island (RM 80) with the
major concentrations occurring around RM 60-72 zones (Figure K.8). Favor-
able spawning grounds are where the river flows rapidly. After spawning, most
adults move downstream but remain in the river throughout the summer, actively
feeding along the shoal areas (VIMS, 1973).
Juveniles are mainly concentrated at RM 36-53 and move gradually downstream
as they grow (VIMS, 1973). Both the adult and young striped bass winter in
deeper waters (greater than 9 m or 30 ft) of the River and Bay (Lippson,
1973). It is known that the striped bass return to the same river in the
following year and thus the James River fish are rarely mixed with those from
ether rivers that flow into the Chesapeake Bay (Massinann and Pacheco, 1961).
The white perch is primarily estuarine with greatest abundance occurring
m tidal waters of 5—18 ppth salinities. Though resident, they are also con-
sidered as semi-anadromous since they migrate to the tidal fresh water for
K-ll

-------
BASS AND PliUCll
mm
IAMES lllvElt
General Distribution
- 1 w!^ ,
' yVi. >
MILES
0	5	10
1	¦ wm+ - I i ¦ ij	i |
| w~ mC i^: mm M p« •« M ka
0 5 10 15
KILOMtltltS
- I
2U
Spawning area
striped I) ass (KM 42-tiO with
major concentration between KM 60—72)
While I'erili (above KM 40)
Nuiseiy area — Striped llas$ (KM 36—53)
Nursery area White Perch (KM 42—72
with peak abundance around RM 40)
9
FIGURli K.8. Distribution of the Striked Bass and White Perch (MansueLi, 1964; Lippson,
J973; Massman and l'acheco, 1961; VIMS, 1973)

-------
spawning (Mansueti, 1964; St. Pierre and Hoagman, 1975). The white perch
spawn in mid-April through mid-May when water temperatures are between 10
and 15°C (Figure K.8). They appear to spawn in the Chickahominy River and
fresh-water section of the James above RM 48. Juvenile white perches are
widely distributed in the areas between RM 42 and 72 (VIMS, 1973).
Migrating patterns of the white perch are similar to those of striped
bass. Adults remain in the tidal fresh water until early June then move
downstream. Juveniles spend their first summer and fall in the shallow beach
areas. Both move into the waters deeper then 30 to 40 ft for wintering.
Recently, white perch abundance has been drastically reduced to nearly 1 to
3% of its normal population since a massive fish kill in the early 1970's
(St. Pierre and Hoagman, 1975); the exact cause of which was not determined.
Biomass projections developed by VIMS yield the following estimates:
Winter		Summer (kg) River Mile	
Species James River (kg) 0-15 16-25	26-35	36-45 Total 0-45
2	4	4	4
Striped Bass 4.0 x 10	0 2.8 x 10 2.7 x 10	0	5.5 x 10
White Perch 4.5 x 103	0 1.3 x 105 2.5 x 10^ 1.7 x 106 2.1 x 106
Marine Fish
Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus)
Croaker (Micropogon undulatus)
Weakfish (Cynoscion regalis)
Silver Perch (Bairdiella chrvsura)
There are more than 18 species of marine fish occurring in the fresh and
brackish waters of Virginia including the James River (Massmann, 1954). The
above four species, all of the family Sciaenidae (drums), are the dominant
marine fish in the James River estuary. All enter the Chesapeake Bay and its
estuarine rivers during the warmer months and return to the sea in winter.
They spawn along the coasts of the ocean and the bay. Young fish spend at
least their first year in the estuaries and gradually descend toward deeper
and more saline waters as they mature.
Spot are the most abundant among this group. They spawn from November
to January. Young spot enter the James estuary up to fresh water (RM 60) , but
most juveniles are found in the shallow waters of meso- and polyhaline zones
(Figure K.9). Spot are the dominant fish in these areas throughout the
summer months (VIMS, 1973; Van Engel and Joseph, 1968).
Atlantic croakers enter the estuarine waters in early spring and swim as
far as the tidal fresh-water zone (RM 60). Abundance of the croaker is much
less than that of the spot and it fluctuates considerably depending largely
K-13

-------
MARINE FISH

IAMES IllVlilt
V.J;
MILiS
0 5 10
I— 	 	,		 I
p>- —*-¦•» — ~f>	|
0 5 10 15 20
MIOMtUllS
Major nursery area (or Silver Perch, WeaMish and Spot
Major nursery area for Atlantic Croaker
I'IGIJRE K.9. Distribution of Nursery Areas for the Spot, Weakfish and Silver Perch (VIMS, 1973)

-------
upon water temperatures. Adult croakers leave the estuarine waters for the
ocean as the spawning season approaches. Spawning season extends from early
fall to winter (Haven, 1957; Van Engel and Joseph, 1968). Juveniles begin to
migrate into the river in late summer and early winter. Young croakers are
the most abundant in the fall and winter at meso- to oligohaline zones at
RM 18-48 (VIMS, 1973). Striped bass prey upon young croakers (5-10 cm).
Weakfish (or seatrout) spawn from May to August. Young weakfish move
into the Chesapeake Bay and the James River oligohaline zone in July and
August. They slowly retreat to polyhaline water in October. Adult weakfish
leave the Bay in fall and are absent in winter (VIMS, 1973).
Silver perch are the dominant fish in the poly- to mesohaline zones
during the summer. They occasionally occur in the fresh-water area (RM 50).
They spawn from May to August in the Bay and the polyhaline zones of the
James River. Most juveniles are found in the poly- and mesohaline zones up
to RM 30. Like other marine fish, the silver perch retreat from the bay in
the fall and are absent in winter (VIMS, 1973).
Biomass projections developed by VIMS yield the following estimates:
Star.er	(kg) River	Hila	
'¦< ir.iar	Tcial
Species -laaes River (kg)	0-1;	16-23	2c-35 36--5	0-45
s?oc 5.3 x 1C"	2.1 x 107	1.3 :< !07	1.2 x 10''	1.2 x 10?	6.4 x 107
Aciannic Croakar 1.4 x 1Q5	1.5 107	4.2 x !0S	1.4 x 10°	4.9 x 103	2.6 x 10'
Weakfish MA	MA	MA	MA	M«.
Silver Perch MA	MA	MA	MA MA	MA
Dominant Benthic Invertebrates
There are distinct differences in the faunal systems between different
salinity zones along the James River. The lack of diverse habitats and high
pollution loadings render the tidal fresh-water zone less diverse in species
composition. There is a constant shifting of fresh-water and estuarine organ-
isms in the oligohaline zone. The major deposition of alluvial sediment
load and mixing of fresh and saline waters provide the greatest turbidity
and make this zone the harshest environment in the entire James estuary
(Diaz, 1977). The lower portion of the James River has the most complex
community structure of all. The relatively constant high salinities ana
the largest variety of sediment types existing in the mesopolvhaline zone
support a much more diversified fauna.
K-15

-------
Of che 29 benthic invertebrate species considered to be dominant, only
7 species are confined to fresh water. Eighteen species are distributed in
the saline waters (poly-oligohaline) and the remainder are dispersed to
oligo-fresh-water zones. The distribution of dominant benthic invertebrates
in the James River during the summer and fall of 1972 is shown in Figures K.10
and K.ll (Diaz, 1977).
At that time the tidal fresh-water zone was dominated by three major groups
during the summer and fall (Diaz, 1977): oligochaete worms (Limnodrilus spp.
and Ilvodrilus templetoni), dipteran larvae (Coelotanvpus scapularis), and the
Asian bivalve (Corbicula manilensis). The wedge clam (Rangia cuneata) was
dominant in the lower portion of the fresh-water zone (Cain et al., L972).
The oligohaline area was also dominated by three major groups: polychaete
larvae (Scolecolepides viridis). amphipods (Gaimnarus daiberi) (Diaz, 1977)
and the wedge clam (Rangia cuneata). An estuarine oligoc'naece (Peloscolax
heterochaecus) was dominant around Jamestown Island and off Mulberry Island
area during fall.
More complex patterns of dominance were observed in the mesohaline zone.
Nearly 12 out of 70 species were found to dominate these waters (Diaz, 1977).
The polychaete worms and amphipods were dominant throughout Che area in both
seasons. Heceromastus filiformis, Nereis succinea and Poivdora liani were
the representative polychaetes, while Leotocheirus olumulosus and Coroohiuic
lacustre were the prominent amphipods. The Corophium lacustre was extremely
abundant reaching more than 10,000 organisms per m^ around RM 17 off the mouth
of Warwick River during the summer of 1972. -The marine barnacle (3alanus
improvisus), a dominant, along with a mussel (Branchiodontes recurvus).
appeared in the area between RM 17 and KM 25. An oligochaete (Peloscolex
heterochaecus), generally restricted Co lower salinity areas, was among che
dominants in the middle mesohaline area, possibly due to reduced salinicv
resulting from Tropical Storm Agnes in June, 1972 (Diaz, 1977; Jordan et al.,
1976; Larsen, 1973).
Qligochaetes and Polychaetes
One of the more striking features of the James River faunal system is
the distribution of two major annelid groups, the oligochaete and polychaete
worms (Figure K.12). The oligochaete worms, basically fresh-water forms,
are heavily concentrated throughout the entire freshwater zone and penetrate
into upper reaches of the mesohaline zone. The polychaetes are marine forms
and generally found in the area below Hog Island. The oligohaline zone is
where both groups occur together. Among the 20 recorded dominant benthic
organisms in the James River, 16 species are annelid worms (Diaz, 1977;
VIMS, 1973).
Limnodrilus is the first fresh-water taxon to become a dominant in the
estuarine James River where the salinity is still measurable (Figure K.13).
The Limnodrilus spp., often cited as indicator organisms for polluted condi-
tions, are very abundant in the Hopewell area with more than 3,000 per m^.
K-16

-------
LEGEND - Density of Organisms
BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES
©
500-1000/m1 ^OO/in1 <100/mI
1000-2000Ail
>2000An
©
@
©
|AMES lUVER
CD
Barnacle (Ualanus improvisus)
Diplera (Coelotanypu* scapularls)
Clam (Cofbicula manilensis)
I'ulycliacte (Hetcromastus (iliformli)
Amphipnd (Cammarus daiberi)
Aiiipliipotl (Leptochcirtis plumulosus)
Oligotliaclc (Limnnilrihii $pp.)
0	Tunicate (Mol^nh nmnhaitensis)
uini lacuUre)
MILES
10
— J
r — — — — |
5 10 15 20
KILOMEIEKS
FIGURE K.10. Distribution of Dominant Uenthic Invertebrates During the Summer of 1972 (Cain
and I'eddicord, 1971; Larsen, 1974; Diaz, 1977)

-------
LKCLNI) - Density of Organisms
© © ©
500-1000/m' <500/111' <100/
IIENTIIIC INVEKTCDIIATES
1000-2000^1)
>2000/mJ
(0)
W
IAMES IIIVEII
Mil IS
5
10
r:
0
— ~ 1—¦ ¦—
5 10 cj
KHOMt IlltS
I'll
1	Mussel (Uranchldonles recurvm)
2	l)i|»lera (Cocloianypus tcapularis)
J Chin (Corbiculu ntanJJtim/s)
4	I'olythaelc (llclcromailns fil(urmh)
5	Ani|ilii|iu(l (Gammarut ibiberi)
6	Ampliipoil (Lepiochtiirui plunuilows)
7	Oliyoili.ieli; (limnodiihii i/tp)
0 Tiuiicalc	inanhullemii)
9	Mydutlu (Ncrcii siicdncd)
10	Qligu(li.ielc (I'uIihcolex heturodiaetui)
11	CIjiii	cuneala)
12	l'iily( li.iL'ic (Sculacolopida vlridli)
li Am|iliijio(lfC<>rnj)/iiifoi /jimlre)
F1UUUE K.li. Distribut ion of Dominant lienthic Invertebrates During the Fall of 1972 (Cain
anil L'eddicord, 1971; Larsen, 1974; Diaz, J977)

-------
OLIGOCIIAtTES & POLYCIIAETES

y
r
o
MlltS
5	10
. J—
S 10 15
KILOMETiliS
"I
20
Oligochaetes (Major Sp.: Limnodrilus jpp.)
Polycltaeies (Major Sp.: Nereis succinea
Heteromastus filHurmls
Scolecolepides viridis
JAMES UIVEIt
FIGURE K. .1.2. Dis tr i bu t J on of Oligocliaete and Polychaete Worms
(Diaz, 197 7; Engineering-Science Co., 1974)

-------
OLIGOC1IAEIES
|AMES ItlVElt
LEGEND
Density of Organisms
ff?l >2000/ in*
1000-2000/m
500-1000/ni
MILES
> 500/m
0
5
10
IS
20
KILOMtUllS
FIGUUE K. 13. Distribution of 01 i jjochaete Worms, Limnodr ilus spp.
(Diaz, 1977)

-------
Above and below the Hopewell area the numbers are reduced, but they are main-
tained above 1,000 organisms per about 28 km (15 mi) downstream from the
Hopewell. The abundance of the worms is less than 500 per m^ below RM 55
(Diaz, 1977).
The numbers of polychaete worms are not as high as the oligochaete worms
and seldom reach more than 500 organisms per nr. Nevertheless, Scolecolepides
viridis was once observed reaching its maximum density of 900 per m2 near the
Surry area in the spring (Cain et al., 1972). Scolecolepides viridis is more
common in the oligohaline zone, while Heteromastus fillformis and Nereis
succinea are widely distributed throughout the lower estuary.
Crustacea
Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidus)
The blue crabs are distributed from the Chesapeake Bay to nearly the
fresh-water zone of the James River. The blue crabs are the second most
important commercial species in the Chesapeake Bay since the Bay provides
almost 50% of the total catch in the U.S. (VIMS, 1973).
Blue crabs spawn in the Chesapeake Bay during the summer and early fall
months. As early as August, the hatched crabs reach "first crab" stage from
the planktonic larval megalopa stage and begin migrating into the river.
Major nursery grounds in the James are located between RM 10 and RM 34
(VIMS, 1973).
Young crabs reach sexual maturity and legal fishing size (5 in.) in one
to one and one-half years (Lippson, 1973). Adults are mainly distributed
up to approximately RM 41, with a peak catch occurring at RM 31 (Figure K..14).
Males remain in the brackish water throughout the year, while females are
restricted to polyhaline zones. The blue crabs are very susceptible to
changes in environmental conditions, e.g., DO, salinities, and pesticide
concentrations (VIMS, 1973).
Molluscs
Hard Clam (Mercenaria mercenaria)
Soft Clam (Mva arenaria)
Wedge Clam (Rangia cuneata)
Asian Clam (Carbicula manilensis)
The clams are dominant molluscans in the James River. The hard and
soft clams are resident species of the river. The wedge (also called "marsh"
or "brackish water" clam) and Asian clams have been introduced to the James
River recently.
The distribution of the hard clams is limited to waters of high salinities
(15 ppth) and thus they occur only in the polyhaline zone (Figure K.15). The
K-21

-------
¦I*
BLUE CltAU
JAMES IllVClt
V
Nursery Area
MILES
L~
r
10
0
S
IS
KIlQMLIlliS
FTGUKIi K.14. Fishing and Nursery Areas of Blue Crab, Calinectes
Sa|> iiJus (Engineer i	iuncu Co., 3 976; VfMS, 1973)

-------
CLAMS
MILES
0	5	10
f-r-rsl.-"=rL "r - i
0 5 10 15 20
KILOMITlEliS
JAMES KIVEIl
Hard Clam (Mercenarla mercenarla)
Soil Clam (Mya arenaria)
Wedge Clain (Rangla cuneata)
Asian Clam (Corblcula manllensis)
FICURE K.15.
Distribution of the Hard, Soft, Wedge and
Asian Clams (Engineering-Science Co., 1974;
Diaz, 1977)

-------
hard clam spawns twice a year—June, July and again in September. Although
young clams (under 10 mm in length) are susceptible to predators such as
oyster drills and blue crabs, the mortality of larger clams is very low
(VIMS, 1973; Lippson, 1973). They reach marketable size of 3.8 cm (1.5 in.)
in 3 to 4 years (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1974).
The soft (or steamer) clams are found in sand and sandy-mud bottoms
along the shallow shores of the mesohaline James River. They spawn during
the colder months of October-November and March-April. The soft clam attains
a length of 7.6 cm (3 in.) in 2.5 years (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
1974). Since their distribution coincides with the more valuable seed
oyster beds, these fast-growing and abundant clams are not yet commercially
harvested in the James estuary (VIMS, 1973).
The wedge clam, a southern species, was introduced into the James River
in the early 1960's. These clams are now widely distributed from approximately
RM 10 to RM 65, where salinities range from 0 to more than 10 ppth (Fig-
ure K.16). Maximum concentrations-of the wedge clam occur between Jamestown
Island and Upper Chippokes Creek (RM 40-53) with an average density of 100 to
200 organisms per mr (Diaz, 1977) and a maximum density of more than 600 per
(Diaz, 1977). Maximum density of more than 600 per m- was also reported near
Surry area (Cain et al., 1972).
The Asian clam, a fresh-water species, was introduced to the James River
about 1968. This species became a dominant throughout most of the tidal
•fresh-water zone by 1972 (Diaz, 1974). The" clam has further penetrated into
•the oligohaline zone down to Hog Island with a salinity of as high as 5.5 ppth
(Figure K.15). The biology and salt tolerance for the Asian clam are not
well known (Diaz, 1977).
Biomass projections developed by VIMS yield estimates of 4 x 10^ kg
(9 x 106 lb) and 9 x 106 kg (20 x 106 lb) of meats for Rangia and Corbicula
respectively in the James River. The Rangia estimate covers the area nautical
mile 15 to 60, while that for Corbicula covers the area nautical mile 35 to
80.
American Oyster (Crassostrea virginica)
The James River estuary is the most productive and the only major source
of seed oysters in Virginia. In 1971, approximately 16,000 m3 (440,000 bushels)
of seed oysters were harvested from the James River oyster beds and accounted
for 76% of seed production in Virginia (Larsen, 1974). The public oystering
grounds (oyster beds) occupy about 1.1 x 10® m^ (28,000 acres) (VIMS, 1973).
Major oyster beds extend from Deep Water Shoals above Mulberry Point to the
mouth of the Nansemond River (Figure K.17). The most productive area is
located on Wreck Shoals off the Warwick River. The oysters are sub tidal and
thus most of the oyster beds occur in shallow water of 3 m (10 ft) or less.
Establishment of oyster beds in deeper waters is prevented by seasonal dis-
solved oxygen deficiencies.
K-24

-------
71
I
NJ
l_n
7*
WEDCE CLAM
(AMES ItlVEIt
Density of Organisms
<50 /m
111 50-100/m'
PI > 100/m1
MILES
0
5
10
15
KILOMHlltS
FIGURE K.16. Distribution o£ the WeJge Clam (Rangia Cuneata) During the Summer of 1972
(Diaz, 1977)

-------
¥
OYSTEH UCOS
C-BUf WAIia UIOAIS
MOWNUIOAU
•ilji
|AMES IllVCIt
WKICK illOAIt
(Kluu huduiiiti Ami
NAIjUMONO CIVU
0
S
10
KILOMLIIKS
PIGUKli K.17. Distribution of Oyster lieds (lingJneeriny-Scieiu:e Co., 1974)

-------
The oyster setting process continues from July through September with a
peak setting occurring in late August and early September (VIMS, 1973;
Andrews, 1951). Favorable salinities for oyster seed areas range from 6 to
15 ppth. The area below the James River Bridge where the salinity exceeds
15 ppth no longer produces commercial seed oysters due to the presence of
predators and disease organisms. The prime enemies of the oysters are the
oyster drills (Figure K.18), (Uroslpinx cinerea and Eupleura caudata, a
fungus (Labyrinthomyxa marinum or Dermocystidium marinum) and a parasitic
protozoan (Minchinia nelsoni - MSX). These organisms are mainly restricted
to areas of salinities greater than 15 ppth. The oyster drills occurring in
the lower salinity zone are generally smaller and cause little damage to
the oysters. Many of the oyster drills in the lower estuary were killed by
fresh water during the Tropical Storm Agnes in 1972, but MSX is still present
(VIMS, 1973; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1974; Loesch et al., 1975).
The number of oysters has been reduced recently due to overfishing,
siltation, and the invasion of infestating organisms. The oyster fishery
in the polyhaline zone is also hampered by the high counts of fecal bacteria.
Waterfowl
The James River marshes (Figure K.19) are one of the finest waterfowl
areas in tidewater Virginia, especially the marshes of the Presquile National
Wildlife Refuge near Hopewell, and Hog Island Waterfowl Management Area. The
dabbling ducks such as the mallard, black duck pintail, northern shoveler,
blue-winged teal, and green-winged teal are usually found in or near marshes
where they feed on seeds of emergent vegetation. The marshes also attract
large numbers of Canada geese and a few snow geese. A fair number of whistling
swans and American coots (not a true member of the waterfowl family) are typical
migrants found in these marshes (Meanley, 1975).
Protected bays, river mouths and the open river have a somewhat different
waterfowl species composition from the marshes. Protected bays and river
mouths, such as the Nansemond River, are likely to have diving ducks, includ-
ing canvasbacks, ruddy ducks, ring—necked ducks, and redbreasted mergansers.
The open river, especially at the mouth of the James, near Hampton Roads, is
where the sea ducks such as the old squaw, and scoters are found, as well as
other divers, such as the common goldeneye, scaup and bufflehead (Meanley, 1975).
Peak waterfowl numbers are present in December when most migrants,
except the early-migrating blue-winged teal, have arrived (Fairfax Suttle,
Waterfowl Biologist). Since most of the waterfowl remain for the winter, the
January aerial surveys conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are
fairly representative of migratory and wintering waterfowl use of the James
River marshes (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1977).
Very few species or numbers of waterfowl remain in the marshes to breed.
The primary nesting species are wood ducks, mallards, black ducks and a few
blue-winged teal, plus a resident flock of 500 Canada geese located at Hog
K-27

-------
1*
OYSTER DRILL
'Oiir waiu ttiOAit
IIOWH UIOAlt
JAMES IIIVEIt
NOXIOIK
nor i wiu
WttCK ItlOAU
NANilMONO IIVU
		 ,
r-
0 5 10 15 20
KILOMflCliS
FIGURE K.lfl. Distribution of Oyster Drills (Engineering-Science Co., 1974)

-------
Mt.MINl SrKtW'IU
Mitth Am 4k
Mrfil.w d
UUik
AlltLlU 4I» Vvlgfctlll
I'mUil
Wituli iKitk
SlltlW (dHJSfc
lliNiil'
fntlrtlril #J)f»
Mi if liti •
Ikliiitdlcii AlituMLiut
lO JdMMiy. IJ.OUU*
/
Mf.MlNI 4
MiHik Aiiit
M*ILui
BUk U.it
Pinuil
r »|*p
KmlJ|f Puck
ItlllMCkJ AImiiuI^IKC 1
UCMINl 1
M*ihh Aum
MtflbitJ
BUI CWk
Auvciu «n Wigcun
ffulcClt-ll l«y|
ftetllte^d
CAJivjUxtck \
W 4U(J »|»p \
Kuddy(Kui \
fcteigjfUcl (|ip	\
0(kh HUci
Okbqutw
I
ro
vo
u
r_.
Cwiaium QiMcneye
J AiiumUiife
^ ialimuiy. b.UJO
c
lutnuitd AbunJ^mc
iniWi J WAtf AUIM M'Hkli AVIMAG4*
Infeoujiy. 2.000
@3
U

c
n
WtflANO IVftS
InLud ticm
Sc4kOi»«itiy iluudud Biiins oi IUi&
Inland fifcih Meidowt
Inland !*lulluw ffeili Mil diet
Slitiili Swampk
Wooded Swamp*
Cu«vUl fieili
Co^ul SlidUow ficili KUitlai
Ciul Siliiiv
Cuii^ul SjIi Meadow
liiegulwly I liiodcd Stfli Mjjihev
|$i«l«4ily Hooded Sail HUikhe*
FIGURE K.19. Common Overwintering Waterfowl Species (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1973;
U.S. Department of the Interior 1977)

-------
Island. Nearly all waterfowl nesting occurs at Hog Island or Presquile
refuges (Personal communication from Fred Scott, editor, The Raven; Mr. Olson,
manager, Presquile National Wildlife Refuge, Hopewell, 23 May 1977; and
Clyde Abernathy, manager Hog Island Waterfowl Management Area, Surry, 1 June
1977).
Data on waterfowl abundance are limited primarily to the aerial survey
data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service taken in January, Christmas
Bird Counts from Hopewell and Newport News published in American Birds, and
species lists for Presquile (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1971) and
Hog Island (Vepco, 1973c). Christmas bird count data for Newport News
(Bystruk, 1973a-b, 1974a-b, 1975a-b, and 1976a-b) indicate chat the lesser
scaup and red-breasted merganser were fairly common overwintering species.
These ducks are not reported by species in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
aerial survey data.
Shorebirds, Gulls, and Terns
Only three species of shorebirds (killdeer, greater and lesser yellow-
legs) are common on the shores, beaches, or tidal flats of the James River
during the breeding season (Figure K.20). Two species, the killdeer and
common snipe, are common during the winter. All of the other shorebirds are
present primarily during the spring and fall migration, with only a few addi-
tional species occasionally seen during the wintering or breeding seasons (U.S.
Department of the Interior, 1971; Vepco, 1973c).
Two species of shorebirds, the common snipe and American woodcock, are
game species. The snipe is a common winter resident of fresh-water meadows
and marshes. The woodcock, however, is a relatively uncommon inhabitant of
wet thickets and wooded swamps during the entire year (U.S. Department of the
Interior, 1971; Vepco, 1973c; Sprunt and Zim, 1961).
Four species of gulls regularly seen along the James River are: the
herring, ring-billed, great black-backed, and laughing gulls. Of these four,
the herring and the ring-billed gulls are the most common (Meanley, 1975).
In addition, the Bonaparte's Gull has been seen fairly commonly during
Christmas Bird Counts at Newport News (3ystruk, 1973a-b, 1974a-b, 1975a-b,
and 1976a-b). Gulls are omnivorous feeders and, although they usually eat
seafood, they also visit crop fields for peanut residue, worms, grubs, and
grasshoppers (Meanley, 1975).
Of the five species of terns occurring at Presquile National Wildlife
Refuge and Hog Island Waterfowl Management Area, only the Forster's and royal
terns are common during one or more seasons of the year. None of the terns
remain during the winter (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1971; Vepco, 1973c).
Marsh and Perching Birds of the Wetlands (Excluding Waterfowl)
At least 42 species (Figure K.21) of marsh and perching birds (exclud-
ing waterfowl) are commonly found during one or more seasons in wetlands along
K-30

-------
Iid.il Ihlt «mil It
low Slime
COMMON MIOKMIHUS, GIIIIS*, AND
IIUNS* <1* SlIOHf. UIACII, AND IIDAl HA|&
Stdtuuil On (inciter*
llug
( (l« dl tildi k Im< U'li Cull
loniciS lent
K«<>j| li'iit
* t \jh> £nll-, «mtl icim «.til bfc iiiund tji hum
IjiiiI hi Hit; Im>'S oi on llie open iivci
li ¦ tl«« i Season
V\ VViiiic'i Hi-'.hIl'iiI
FIGURE K . 20. Common Shoreb.irds, Gulls,* and Terns* of Shore, Beach and Tidal Flats (U.S.
Department of tlie Army, 1973; U.S. Department of the Interior, 1971; Vepco 1973)

-------
•V

7
OJ
NJ
CUMMON MAK^II	0IUI» Ul tlU WlIIANIU (UOIIUINC IVA||M|<»WIJ
fllliMllIf f tMMlJ Mk M«f4)U
fci4kt»U4j OltlUirlUt*
Hctliklctl lu kM4iu|n"*
$i«M*lt4| OtfUill wr f|»<«i
-
u
WUllL'l Willi
1. w
—
IiIj> k -UiiMiicJ Nijjlii Iteiim
-
\v
' <«4*y Cjibud
I.U
u
Allidli dli UllU'll*
w
-
blue gl4| CjlJllJllllCI
tt
u
Mdhti 1 IjkvL
IV
-¦
VViuic «.-|cd Vmcu
I.U
—

I.U

ULhI-mikI »ltm WmIiIli
l.tt
-
I KjiI*
-
1. U IV
PumIojimMJi^ VV^ililt i
l.tt
-
Ski d9
1
-
I'dtbU V • 41 ¦'!«• •
1. fi
u
r.uiiHM.n Si«i|»c*
vv
w
YtiUiifc* iu«n|M.d tV*iMi:<
1. w
w
Aim IN 4ii ( im*I*

vv
Vilknv lliliMlril V\4il<(« l
1. (1
—
lit licil kin^lijiri
I.U. vv
-
fuUtc l\«»l4rt
I. b
u
lolit inw
1. u
u
liMUkblu VValilliuiiili
l.b
—
long lullti! MjiiIi IVtcu
I.U
-
Ki'Mih^ VV4iLIi:i
I.U
—
( ki«nti«4iii Ycliimilmiji
1. u
u
ll4*wJcil VVjiMci
I.U
—

1
1
Aiikim «ii Ni'tl.uii
I.U
-
k« •< iviii|;liI UIjiMiOiI
l.ll. vv
I.U vv
K.iUl UIjiIImhI
1

jII4»
I.U
vv
Auk ih 4ii 1 rtjMlini h
I.U
I.U. w

• i .JMM |lllt|
"" I 14«*•» hi	0 Uil-ciIiii);	U'iiiIli Hi '.hit til
**• ( omul* iiitg ll<€ vm'iIjiwJ |)|m % (Mcvcnl jU>it£ l|.« • iv«-«
Conlil Silidt
Cottul SjIi Klcidow
tiieguUily flooded Sill KUfthei
flnodud SaIi Miiilici
KS Coltltl licik
Coitul Mullnw ficib Mihliei
Coitul Deep f itili Miulici
W Inlanil fictli
Scitunilly flooded Uiiini ui flilk
Inland (ictli Meadow*
(nUnil Slullow f ictli Miitliei
Sluub Swiiit|)v
Wooded Swimpt
0
L
r-
i—
FIGURE K.21. Common Marsh and Perching Birds of the Wetlands (Excluding Waterfowl)(U.S.
Department of the Interior, 1971; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1973, Vepco,
1973; Wass, 1972)

-------
the James River (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1971; Vepco, 1973c). Half
of these species are normally found only in the swampy wetlands, especially
the swamps with large trees. Some of the species associated with the marshes
are more abundant in fresh-water marshes (e.g. sora and common snipe); others
are more common in salt-water marshes (e.g. snowy egret and clapper rail).
All of the above, plus numerous additional species migrate through the Lower
Chesapeake Bay area and are described by Wass (1972) as to their abundance
and habitat preferences.
Two species of raptors known to frequent the James River marshes are of
concern due to low population levels. The southern bald eagle, which is
on the Federal Endangered Species list, no longer nests along the James River,
but is frequently seen between Richmond and Hog Island (personal communica-
tion, M.L. Wass, biologist, Virginia Institute of Marine Science). The
osprey, which is on the Audubon Society's "Blue List' (Arbib, 1976), is
present at Presquile National Wildlife Refuge during April and May (personal
communication, Mr. Olson, manager,. Presquile), but does not nest anywhere
along the James. Both raptors are showing slight population increases in
nearby areas of the Chesapeake Bay (Wass, personal communication).
The large roosts of red-winged blackbirds in the lower James River
basin are particularly impressive. These grain-eating birds group together
in tidal marshes at night during the fall and winter in roosts numbering up
to 500,000 birds or more. One important attraction are the nearby peanut
fields, but the redwings also feed on corn, sorghum, weed seeds, and insects
(Meanley, 1975).
The "reeabird" or bobolink can also be found roosting in large numbers
in fresh and brackish river marshes, although it does not remain for the win-
ter like the red-winged blackbird. The bobolink nests in meadows, but migrates
to the coast in late summer to feed on wild rice, millet and other aquatic
plant seeds.
Four species of rails, all game birds, have been reported from the James
River marshes. The sora and clapper rails are relatively common, while the
king and Virginia rails are less abundant (U.S. Department of the Interior,
1971; Vepco, 1973c). Crustaceans, insects, and small fish are important
foods of these secretive marsh inhabitants, but the king and sora rails also
eat a large quantity of plant food during the winter (Sprint and Zim, 1961).
Mammals
Wetlands provide the food, cover, nesting areas, and other essentials
necessary for several species of mammals (e.g. mink, muskrat) to complete
their life cycle within the limits of wetlands. These communities also
provide food or cover for species (e.g. deer, fox) that depend on other
types of habitats (e.g. uplands) for resources necessary to maintain their
existence.
K-33

-------
The coastal saline wetlands, which occur between the mouth of the James
River and approximately Jamestown Island, support substantial populations of
muskrat and raccoon. Muskrats are among the most important mammals in the
brackish marshes and are especially abundant in areas of Olney three-square,
a preferred food, and humus, which allows construction of tunnels and canals.
Meadow voles and rice rats are often found in association with muskrats and
may inhabit the muskrats' lodges in areas with fluctuating water levels
(Meanley, 1975). Raccoon, muskrat, and rice rats are among the most common
mammals at the Hog Island Waterfowl Management Area, located near the boundary
with coastal fresh wetlands. Gray fox are common in the area of Hog Island
while mink and otter are uncommon residents (Vepco, 1976). Other mammals
present which may use the wetlands include white-tailed deer and cottontails
(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1973). The value of wetlands to mammals in
the region is shown in Figure K.22.
The coastal fresh wetlands extend approximately from Jamestown Island
to Richmond. These are fresh-water marshes where the water levels are
affected by the tidal fluctuations. Inland fresh wetlands occupy the
upper reaches of the James and along its tributaries where there is little or
no tidal fluctuation. There are few inland fresh wetlands in the study area
except around Presquile National Wildlife Refuge. The fresh wetland areas
have lower biological productivity than the saline wetlands, but because they
have a greater vegetation diversity they support a larger array of mammalian
species. Inland wetlands provide more resources to mammals than do the
coastal wetlands (see Figure K.22). The fresh wetlands at Presquile
National Wildlife Reserve are used extensively by muskrat and raccoon (U.S.
Department of the Interior, 1975); red fox, white-tailed deer, cottontail,
gray squirrel, opossum, and striped skunk are also present (personal communi-
cation, Mr. Olson, Manager, Presquile).
Vascular Plants
The tidal James River is in the Atlantic Coastal Plain and is within the
broadleaf-needleleaf forest, or specifically an oak-hickory-pine forest.
The first flora of Virginia was based on John Clayton's collection and des-
cribed by Gronovius (1762). Fernald (1939), Massey (1950), and others have
described and listed plants growing along the James River. The vascular
flora along the river consists mainly of marshes and swamps (Figure VI.26)
and can be divided into three main categories of wetlands based on the classi-
fication of Shaw and Fredine (1971).
Coastal Saline Wetlands. "Regularly flooded salt marshes" are where the
soil is covered at average high tide with six inches or more of water during
the growing season. The vegetation is mainly saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina
alterniflora), eelgrass (Zostera marina), and widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima).
In Virginia, saltmarsh cordgrass may produce up to 6 tons/acre/year or 95% of
the seaside marsh vegetation (Wass, 1972). "Irregularly flooded salt marshes"
are where the soil is covered by wind tides due to storms at irregular inter-
vals during the growing season. The vegetation is dominantly black needlerush
K-34

-------
HI IAIIVC VAIUtiOf WtllAND HPtSIO MAMMAIS


CuMlal
C04U4I
Inland

ViUne
ficJ*
flL'Jl
$l,tM 1"
WkiIjiuU
WclUmK
Wclliittii
IVlmc-UilctJ IK:ci
low
Moderate
Model jic*
Ci4y St|inricl
None
Nunc
low

low
Madeuiv

ftjtcotin
Model Jftt*
Modeule*
lliUli"
OjH»)lillk
Nunc
1 ow
low
llcJviM
Nonu
low
lllgli
Oltct
Moite
Model Jie
lltgli
Mink
low
High
lliBl»
Mutkul
Model 4lu°
lliBli*
llilili-
itniii
NiNItt
low
MmltUlo
C(4|f fo»
low
low
1 uvv
Kcd fui
low
low
1 ow
flicu KjI
lllbl>"
High

-Mtudow Vidu
Mudeulu*
Modeule*
1
\ ^
'KupuiieJ (.oiiiinoitly utouiing
I
U>
Ln
9
L-

10
_i
JU	u
iihtmrirn
I
.>0
Will AND I VMS
f ] tllliltll flCkll
Scjmiully HoutlcJ Uiiint oi llii>
InljuJ hcth KlL'jditwi
liiljihi Siullow f»evl» MJiiltcl
Sliiuli
Wooded Swjuyk
^ Ciiitlil I
CtuMdl bltallow fii'tlt
Ouj.iJ |K:cf» licvd Mjivhct
^ CiMtUl Salute
CoJ>nl Sjll Muj«Iow
liicgtilaily flooded Sail MjhIici
Ke£tiLily flooded Sail Miiklic*

7
FIGURE K .2 2. Mammals Associated witlt the James River (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 1973,
MeanJey, 1973; U.S. Department of the Interior, 1975)

-------
(Juncus roemerianus) and widgeon grass with shrub species such as marsh elder
(Iva frutescens) and groundsel tree (Baccharis halimfolia). "Coastal salt
meadows" are where the soil is always water-logged during the growing season,
but rarely covered with tidewater. The vegetation is mainly saltmeadow hay
(Spartina patens), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) and blackneedle rush. In
fresher parts, one finds Olney threesquare (Scripus olnevi) and saltmarsh
feabane (Pluchea foetida).
Coastal Fresh Areas. "Coastal shallow fresh marshes" are where the
soil is always water-logged during the growing season and it may be covered
at high tide with as much as 6 in. of water. These marshes are on the
landward side of deep marshes along tidal rivers, sounds, and deltas. The
vegetation consists of big reed cordgrass (Spartina cvnosuroides) which forms
dense stands in shallow marshes, Carex spp., bulrushes (Scirpus robustus and
other species), spike rushes, marsh flebane, threesquare, sawgrass (Cladium
jamaicense), cattails, (Typha spp.). arrowheads (Sagittaria spp.). smartweeds
(Polygala spp.) and arrow^arum (Peltandra virginica). "Coastal deep marshes"
are where the soil is covered at average high tide with 6 in. to 3 ft of
water during the growing season. These marshes occur along tidal rivers and
bays. The vegetation is cattails (Tvpha latifolia and T. angustifolia), wild
rice (Ziziana aquatica), pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata), rice cutgrass
(Leersia oryzoides), submerged plants such as Potomageton spp., and bigstem
panic grass (Panicum virgatum). Common reed (Phragmites communis) is put
into this category of coastal deep marshes but it is not known to have yet
invaded the marshes of the James River (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1973;
Wass, 1972)..
Inland Fresh Areas. "Seasonally flooded basins or flats" are where the
soil is covered with water, or just water-logged during variable seasonal
periods but usually drained during much of the growing season. This type is
found both in upland depressions and in overflow bottom lands. Seasonal
flooding occurs and vegetation varies according to the season and duration of
flooding. The vegetation includes hardwood (Quercus spp., Acer rubrum, Ilex
opaca, Carya sp., Liquidambar styraciflua, Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Ulmus sp.,
Platanus occidentalis). smartweeds, millet (Echinoclea walteri), teargrass,
edible nutgrass (Cyperus esculentus). marsh elder, and cocklebur (Xanthium
strumarium). The "inland fresh meadows" occur where the soil is usually
without standing water during most of the growing season but is water-logged
within at least a few inches of its surface. The vegetation consists of
grasses, sedges, rushes, and various broad-leafed plants. "Inland shallow
fresh marshes" are where the soil is usually water-logged during the growing
season and is often covered with as much as 6 in. or more of water. The
vegetation includes sawgrass, arrowheads, and pickerelweeds. "Shrub swamps"
are where the soil is usually water-logged during the growing season and is
often covered with 6 in. of water. The vegetation consists of alder (Alnus
serrulata), willow (Salix nigra), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), and
dogwood (Cornus sticta). "Wooded swamps" are where the soil is water-logged
at least within a few inches of its surface during the growing season and is
often covered with as much as 0.3 m (1 ft) of water. The vegetation consists
of water oak (Quercus nigra), tupelo gum (Nvssa aquatica). swamp black gum
K-36

-------
(N. svlvatica), and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). A list of vascular
plants (nearly 350 species) known to occur along the lower James River is
given in Appendix D along with habitat type. A typical cross section of
wetland area is shown in Figure K.23.
Marshes are extremely productive of plant biomass due to the density of
vegetation, physically rich in nutrients, abundant water, relative rapid rate
of decomposition of organic matter and other factors which are reviewed by
Keefe (1972). Marsh areas are between two and ten times more productive than
the James River (Engineering-Science Co., 1974). Productivity figures for
seven community types found along the James River (Table K.l) are based on
Silberhorn et al. (1974) and Moore (1976). Marshes are extremely important
habitats for commercial and sport fishes. In Virginia, 95% of these fishes
are dependent on these marshes (Silberhorn, 1976).
Erosion plays a large role in the distribution of plant communities.
The rate of erosion has been decreasing along the James River in the past
years due to protection measures in unstable areas and the requirement of a
permit before any activity is performed (Virginia Code, 1975). The areas of
erosion and accretion activity are diagrammed (Figure K.24). The shoreline
of Presquile National Wildlife Refuge bordering Turkey Island cutoff has been
experiencing erosion recently (Owen et al., 1975a) due to wind and wave
action. In Charles City County erosion is also due to downhill rain runoff
(Owen et al., 1976a) and heavy upstream rains which undermine trees. Roots
of the fallen trees are dislodged allowing for additional erosion. Shore-
line erosion in Surry County averages 0.3 to 0.85 m per year (1.0 to 2.S ft
per year (Owen et al., 1976b) with most of the sediments coming from the
Eastover area. In James City County the shoreline erosion rate per year is
0.6 m (2 ft) for the area between Skiffes and College Creeks and is especially
severe at First Colony—nearly 0.3 m (1 ft) a month (Hobbs et al., 1975b).
Riprap, gabions, bulkheads, and revetments are used for erosion prevention and
thus one would not expect to find established vegetation in these areas. Isle
of Wight County has little erosion due to extensive marshes along the creeks.
In recent times, with erosion protection measures, areas have become
revegetated, such as along Mogarts Beach (Owen et al., 1975b). Ragged Island
marshes and shorelines erode at a rate of 0.37 to 0.79 m per year (1.2 to
2.6 ft per year). Ninety-four percent of the City of Suffolk (formerly
Cities of Suffolk and Nansemond) shoreline is marsh and the remainder is
beach (3%) and artificially stabilized (2%). Shoreline erosion problems of
Newport News are not significant (Hobbs et al., 1975c). The same is true for
the City of Hampton portion that borders on the James River (Hobbs et al.,
1975a) as the shoreline is protected by bulkheads or seawalls. Exceptions to
this are small areas in the vicinity of Hampton Roads Bridge, along Malo
3each in the Chesapeake Bay.
K-37

-------
v\
I
u>
oo
+WETIANDS+ meant all that land lying between and contiguous to mean low water and an elevation above
mean low water equal to the factor 1.5 times the tide range, and upon which is growing certain plants
Code of Virginia, 62,1-13.3 (I), Virginia Wcthnds Act)

M

1
urna iimii or dminiiion
- mean iiicii waih
Plnus taeda
Spartina patens
llaccharls lialimHolia and Iva (rutescens
|)htklili> spkata
(uncus rocmciianus
Sparlina alicriiiilora
W~~
	MfANUUVWAHH
]
MIAN
llOf
BANC!
fllVAIION
tqUAl IO
- I.S IIMIS
Hit IlUt
IIANCi
Zoitcra marina
Ituppia maritlnia
FIGURE K.23. PlanL Relations for TLdal Wetlands (Adapted From Silberliom et al., 1074)

-------

TABLE K.l. PRODUCTIVITY RATES OK MARSH COMMUNITIES AND
(S1LVERHORN ET AL., J974; MOORE 1976)
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Community Type
Yield(tons/acre/year)
Environmental Contribution
I.
Sparclna alternlfolia
4
Optimum detritus, roots and
rhizomes are food, deterrant to
shoreline erosion, sediment
trap, rated highest In priority
II.
S. patens
1-2
Erosion deterrent, filters
sediments and wastes
III.
Juncus roemerlanus
3-5
Highly resistant to erosion,
traps sediments, but not as
effective as II
IV.
Iva frutescens/
Baccharis halimifolia
2
Effective trap for flotsam,
adds diversity to the ecosystem
V.
Spartlna cynosurioides
3-6
Detritus less available than in
I, effective erosion buffer,
flood water assimilation
VI.
Typha spp.
2-4
Traps upland sediments, food
for wildlife
VII.
Peltandra virnlnica/
Pontedcrla cordata
2-4
Detritus available to marine
environment, susceptible to ero-
sion, especially in winter
months

-------
-fN
O
it
o-j
|AMES IIIVER
0 Severe critical erosion
• Severe erosion
o Moderate erosion
a Accretion
MILtS
L_
0
5
10 IS
20
KILOMflfltS
FICIIKL: K.24. Areas of Soil Erosion and Deposition (liobbs III et al., 1975a,b,c; Owen et al., 1975a,b,
1976a,b,c; Rogers et al., 1976)

-------
The acreage of tidal marshes and swamps for the James River given by
VIMS (1973) is 12,298 (Table K.2) or 5 x 10^ m^. Their subtotal and total
figures are less than those given by Wass and Wright (1969) since areas not
affected by the flowing James River were excluded in this study.
A detailed county inventory of the wetlands, including mapping of the
vascular plant species at the scale of 1:24,000, is being conducted by VIMS
(Personal communication, Dr. Gene M. Silberhorn, project leader, 21 June
1977). Funding is partly from the U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Office
of Coastal Zone Management. This study is utilizing remote sensing provided
by NASA Langley and NASA Wallops Flight Centers, Virginia Department of High-
ways and Transportation, and VIMS, which is extensively supported by ground
truth. A separate volume for each county and city area is being prepared.
Two published studies on mapping the vascular flora of the river have
been made. A diked disposal area was mapped by Silberhorn and Barnard (in
Peloquin et al., 1975) during a natural plant succession study on an island
less than two square acres near Windmill Point (RM 58). Three years after
completion of dredged material deposition on the tidal flat, 58 species of
vascular plants were identified which is a relatively high diversity for so
small an area. A vascular flora map for Jamestown Island was prepared by
Loetterle (1970) with emphasis on tree species.
K-41

-------
TABl.li K.2. Marsh and Swamp Acreage; (VIMS, 1973)
Water/Land Feature Name	USGS Topo Quadrangle	Marsh Area	Swamp Area
Hoffler Creek
Newport News S
171

Ragged Island
Newport News S, lienn's Church
310, 411
--
Mulberry Island
Mulberry Island, Yorktown
1275
--
Lawnes Creek
Hog Island, Bacon's Castle
680
--
Hog Island
Yorktown
410

Chlppokes Creek
Hog Island
362
--
College Run
Hog Island, Surry

213
Grove Creek
Ilog Island
110

Passmore Creek
Surry
295
--
Back River
Surry
119
--
Pitch and Tar Swamp
Surry
150
—
Sandy Bay
Surry
200
—
l'owhatan Creek
Surry
235
95
Grays Creek
Surry
603
390
Kennon Marsh
Charles City
410
266
Klttewan Creek
Charles City
296
148
Weyanoke FoLnt
Charles City
170

Hundred Creek
Charles City

100
Flowerdew Hundred
Charles City

128
Herring Creek
Westover
314
310
Harrison Lake
Westover
--
120
Powell Creek
Westover
165
452
Chappell Creek
Westover
--
110
Jenny Creek
Westover

106
Eppes Creek and Island
Westover
--
147
Eppes Island
llopewe 11
--
159
Bailey Creek
llopewel 1
--
309
Eppes Creek
llopewe 11
--
132
Johnson's Creek
Hopewell

200
Presque Isle
llopewe 11

600
Curies Neck
llopewe 11
160
817
Turkey Island
Dutch Cap
165
176
Subtotal	7134	5164
Total	12,298

-------
REFERENCES
Andrews, J. D. 1951. "Seasonal Patterns of Oyster Setting in the James
River and Chesapeake Bay." Ecology. 32;752-758.
Arbib, R. 1976. "The Blue List for 1977." Amer. Birds. 30(6):1031-1039.
Barrick, S. 0., M. D. Daw, P. S. Tennyson, F. J. Wojcik, J. J. Norcross,
and W. J. Hargis, Jr. 1971. The Chesapeake Bay Bibliography. Vol. 1.
The James River. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Spec. Sci.
Rept. No. 58, Gloucester Point.
Boesch, D. F. 1973. "Classification and Community Structure of Macro-
benthos in the Hampton Roads Area, Virginia." Mar. Biol. 21:226-246.
Brehmer, M. L. 1972. Biological and Chemical Study of Virginia's
Estuaries. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Water
Resources Research Bulletin 45, Blacksburg.
Burbidge, R. G. 1974. "Distribution, Growth, Selective Feeding, and
Energy Transformation of Young-of-the-Year Blueback Herring, Alosa
aestivalis (Mitchell), in the James River, Virginia." Trans. Amer.
Fish. Soc. 103:297-311.
Bystruk, D., ed. 1973a. "The Christmas Bird Count 325. Hopewell, VA."
Amer. Birds. 27:273.
Bystruk, D., ed. 1973b. "The Christmas Bird Count 330. Newport News,
VA." Amer. Birds. 27:275-276.
Bystruk, D., ed. 1974a. "The Christmas 3ird Count 331. Hopewell, VA."
Amer. Birds. 28:283-284.
Bystruk, D., ed. 1974b. "The Christmas Bird Count 336. Newport News,
VA." Amer. Birds. 28:286.
Bystruk, D., ed. 1975a. "The Christmas Bird Count 352. Hopewell, VA."
Amer. Birds. 29:309.
Bystruk, D., ed. 1975b. "The Christmas Bird Count 358. Newport News,
VA." Amer. Birds. 29:311-312.
Bystruk, D., ed. 1976a. "The Christmas Bird Count 362. Hopewell, VA."
Amer. Birds. 30:318.
Bystruk, D., ed. 1976b. "The Christmas Bird Count 369. Newport News,
VA." Amer. Birds. 30:321-322.
Cain, T. D. and R. Peddicord. 1971. "Benthic Studies." Slurry -
Preoperational Ecological Survey. Prepared for Vepco.
K-43

-------
16,
17.
18
19-
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Cain, T., R. Peddicord, R. Diaz, D. Dressel, E. Tennyson and M. Bender.
1972. Surrv - Preoperational Ecological Studies. Virginia Institute
of Marine Science, Dept. of Ecology - Pollution, Gloucester Point.
Diaz, R. J. 1974. "Asiatic clam, Corbicula manilensis (Phillippi), the
tidal James River, Virginia." Chesapeake Sci. 15:118-120.
Diaz, R. J. 1977. The Effects of Pollution on Benthic Communities of
the Tidal James River. Virginia. University of Virginia, Dept. of Marine
Sciences, Ph.D. Thesis Charlottesville.
Dicks, B. 1977. "Changes in the Vegetation of an Oiled Southampton
Water Salt Marsh." pp. 208-260. In: J. Caimes, Jr., K. L. Dickson,
and E. E. Herricks, eds. Recovery and Restoration of Damated Ecosystems.
Proc. Intern. Symp. Recovery of Damaged Ecosystems, held at Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia,
23-25 March 1975. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Dovel, W. L., J. A. Mihursky, and A. J. McErlean. 1969. "Life History
Aspects of the Hogchoker, Trinectes maculatus, in the Patuxent River
Estuary, Maryland." Chesapeake Sci. 10:104-119.
Engineering-Science Co. 1974. Lower James River Basin Comprehensive
Water Quality Management Study. Final Report Prepared for the Virginia
State Water Control Board, Planning 3ullatin 217-3, Richmond.
Fernald, M. L. 1939. "Last Survivors in the Flora of Tidewater
Virginia." Rhodora. _41:465-504, 529-559, 564-574.
Gronovius, J. F. 1762. Flora Virginica. Leiden. (Facs. publ. for
the Arnold Arboretum, 1946.)
Haven, D. S. 1957. "Distribution, Growth, and Availability of Juvenile
Croaker, Micropogon undulatus. in Virginia." Ecology. 38:88-97.
Heinle, D. R. 1966. Production of a Calanoid Copepod, Acartia tonsa,
in the Patuxent River Estuary. Chesapeake Sci. ]_: 59-74.
Hoagman, W. J. and W. H. Kriete. 1975. Biology and Management of River
Herring and Shad. Annual report for period October 1974 - September 1975.
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point.
Hoadman, W. J., J. V. Marriner, R. St. Pierre, and W. L. Wilson. 1973.
Biology and Management of River Herring and Shad in Virginia. Completion
report, anadromous fish project, 1970-1973. Virginia Institute of
Marine Science, Gloucester Point.
Hobbs, C. H., III, G. L. Anderson, R. J. Byrne, and J. M. Zeigler. 1975a.
Shoreline Situation Report. City of Hampton, Virginia. Virginia
Institute of Marine Science, Spec. Rept. Appl. Mar. Sci. Ocean Engineer
No. 76, Gloucester Point.
K-44

-------
29.	Hobbs, C. H. , G. L. Anderson, M. A. Patton and P. Rosen. 1975b. Shore-
line Situation Report. James City County, Virginia. Virginia Institute
of Marine Science, Spec. Rept. Appl. Mar. Sci. Ocean Engineer. Mo. 81,
Gloucester Point.
30.	Hobbs. C. H. , III, G. L. Anderson, R.. J. Byrne, and J. M. Zeigler. 1975c.
Shoreline Situation Report. City of Hampton, Virginia, VIMS, Spec.
Rept. Appl. Mar. Sci. Ocean Engineer. No. 11, Gloucester Point.
31.	Jordan, R. A., R. K. Carpenter, P. A. Goodwin, C. G. Becker, M. S. Ho,
G. C. Grant, B. B. Bryan, J. V. Merriner, and A. D. Estes. 1976. Ecologi-
cal Study of the Tidal Segment of the James River Encompassing Hog Point.
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Spec, Sci. Rept. No. 78, Gloucester
Point.
32.	Keefe, C. W. 1972. "Marsh Production: A Summary of the Literature
Contri." Mar. Sci. 16:163-181.
33.	Lanier, J. A., III. 1971. Catfish Management in the James River.
Virginia. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, MS Thesis (College
of William and Mary), Gloucester Point.
34.	Larsen, P. F. 1974. Quantitative Studies of the Macrofauna Associated
with the Mesohaline Oyster Reefs of the James River, Virginia. College
of William and Mary, Ph.D. Thesis, Williamsburg.
35.	Lippson, A. J., ed. 1973. The Chesapeake Bay in Maryland. An Atlas of
Natural Resources. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
36.	Loesch, J. G. , D. S. Haven, and J. P. Whitcomb. 1975. An Investigation
of the Seed Oyster Reserves in Virginia and Testing and Modifying of Gear
to Harvest Oysters. Final report, 1 July 1973 - 30 June 1975. Virginia
Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point.
37.	Loetterle, L. E. 1970. The Vascular Flora of Jamestown Island, James
County, Virginia. College of William and Mary, MS Thesis, Williamsburg.
38.	Mansueti, R. J. 1964. "Eggs, Larvae, ana Young of the White Perch,
Roccus americanus, with Comments on its Ecology in the Estuary."
Chesapeake Sci. 5_:3-45.
39.	Marshall, H. G. 1967. "Plankton in James River Estuary, Virginia.
I. Phytoplankton in Willoughby Bay and Hampton Roads." Chesapeake
Sci. 8:90-101.
4Q. Massev, A. B. 1950. Virginia Flora; an Annotated Catalog of Plant
Taxa Recorded as Occurring in Virginia. Va. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. 155.
41. Massmann, W. H. 1954. "Marine Fishes in Fresh and Brackish Waters of
Virginia Rivers." Ecology. 35:75-78.
K-45

-------
42.	Massmann, W. H. and A. L. Pacheco. 1961. "Movements of Striped Bass
Tagged in Virginia Waters of the Chesapeake Bay." Chesapeake Sci.
2:37-44.
43.	Meanley, B. 1975. 3irds and Marshes of the Chesapeake Bav Country.
Tidewater, Cornell Maritime Press Inc., Cambridge, MD.
44.	Menzel, R. W. 1943. "The Catfish Fishery of Virginia." Trans. Amer.
Fish. Soc. 22:364_372-
45.	Moore, K. A. 1976. Gloucester County Tidal Marsh Inventory. Virginia
.Institute of Marine Science Spe. Rept. Appl. Mar. Sci. Ocean Engineer,
No. 64, Gloucester Point.
46.	Nichols, M. M. 1972. "Sediments of the James River Estuary, Virginia."
Geol. Soc. Amer. Mem. 133:169-212.
47.	Ott, F..D. 1973. "The Marine Algae of Virginia and Maryland Including
the Chesapeake Bay Area." Rhodora. 75:258-296.
48.	Owen, D. W. , M. H. Peoples, and G. L. Anderson. 1975a.	Shoreline
Situation Report. Henrico, Chesterfield, and Richmond.	Virginia
Institute of Marine Science, Spec. Rept. Appl. Mar. Sci.	Ocean Engineer.
No. 98, Gloucester Point.
49.	Owen, D. W., G. B. Williams, M. H. Peoples, C. H. Hobbs, III, and
G. ¦ L. Anderson. 1975b. Shoreline Situation Report. Isle of Wight
County, Virginia. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Spec. Rept.
Appl. Mar. Sci. Ocean Engineer. No. 97, Gloucester Point.
50.	Owen, D. W., L. M. Rogers, and M. H. Peoples. 1976a. Shoreline Situa-
tion Report. Charles City County, Virginia. Virginia Institute of
Marine Science, Spec. Rept. Appl. Mar. Sci. Ocean Engineer. No. 115,
Gloucester Point. (Chesapeake Res. Consort. Rept. No. 49).
51.	Owen, D. W., L. M. Rogers, M. H. Peoples, and G. L. Anderson. 1976b.
Shoreline Situation Report. Surry County, Virginia. Virginia Institute
of Marine Science, Spec. Rept. Appl. Mar. Sci. Ocean Engineer. No. 112,
Gloucester Point.
52.	Owen, D. W., L. M. Rogers, M. H. Peoples, and D. Byrd. 1976c. Shoreline
Situation Report. Prince George County, Virginia. Virginia Institute
of Marine Science, Spec. Rept. Appl. Mar. Sci. Ocean Engineer. No. 114,
Gloucester Point.
53.	Peloquin, E. P., J. D. Lunz, and L. Halloway. 1975. The Propagation of
Vascular Plants at the James River Habitat Development Site. James River.
Virginia. Scope of work, working draft. U.S. Dept. of the Army, Water-
ways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineering, Vicksburg, MS.
K-46

-------
54.	Rogers, L. M., D. W. Owen, and M. H. Peoples. 1976. Shoreline Situation
Report. City of Suffolk, Virginia. Virginia Institute of Marine Science,
Sepc. Rept. Appl. Mar. Sci. Ocean Engineer. No. 116, Gloucester Point.
55.	St. Pierre, R. A. and J. Davis. 1972. "Age, Growth, and Mortality of
the White Perch, Morone americana, in the James and York Rivers, Virginia."
Chesapeake Sci. 16:192-197.
56.	St. Pierre, R. A. and W. J. Hoagman. 1975. "Drastic Reduction of the
White Perch, Morone americana, population in the James River, Virginia."
Chesapeake Sci. 16:192-197.
57.	Shaw, S. P. and C. G. Fredine. 1971. Wetlands of the United States:
Their Extent and Value to Waterfowl and Other Wildlife. U.S. Dept. of
the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Circular 39.
58.	Silberhorn, G. M. 1976. Tidal Wetland Plants of Virginia. Virginia
Institute of Marine Science, Education Ser. No. 19, Gloucester Point.
59.	Silberhorn, G. M., G. M. Dawes, and T. A. Barnhard, Jr. 1974. Coastal
Wetlands of Virginia. Interim report No. 3. Guidelines for Activities
Affecting Virginia Wetlands. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Spec.
Rept. Appl. Mar. Sci. Ocean Engineer. No. 46, Gloucester Point.
60.	Sprint, A., IV and H. S. Zim. 1961. Gamebirds; a Guide to North
American Species and Their Habits. New York, Golden Press.
61.	U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Directorate of Licensing. 1974. Surrv
Power Station Units 3 and 4, Virginia Electric and Power Company,
Docket Nos. 50-434 and 50-435. Final environmental statement related
to construction. Washington, DC.
62.	U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District.
1973. Chesapeake Bay Existing Conditions Report. Summary. App. A.
The People and the Economy. App. B. The Land - Resources and Use.
2 Vols. App. C. The Bay - Processes and Resources.
63.	U.S. Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District. 1974.
James River, Virginia, Maintenance and Dredging. Final environmental
statement.
64.	U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 1971. Birds of the Presquile National
Wildlife Refuge. Refuge Leaflet 160-R2.
65.	U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1975.
Presquile National Wildlife Refuge; Presquile in Miniature. Refuge
Leaflet 51620-1.
K-47

-------
66. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region V.
1977. [Unpublished waterfowl trend survey sheets. Five year summary,
1973-1977.] Newton Center, MA.
6 7. Van Engel, W. A. and E. B. Joseph. 1968. Characterization of Coastal
and Estuarine Fish Nursery Grounds as Natural Communities. For the
period Nov. 1965 - Aug. 1967. Virginia Institute of Marine Science,
final contract report to the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of
Commercial Fisheries.
68.	Vanoni, V. A. 1975. Sedimentation Engineering. ASCE Task Committee
for the Preparation of the Manual on Sedimentation of the Sedimentation
Committee Hydraulic Division, American Society of Civil Engineers.
69.	Virginia Academy of Science, James River Project Committee, comps. 1950.
The James River Basin; Past, Present and Future. Richmond.
70.	Virginia Code. 1975. Laws of Virginia Relating to Wetlands and Sub-
aqueous Lands. Issued by Marine Resources Commission, reprinted from
the Code of Virginia of 1950 and the 1975 cumulative supplement.
Michie Co., Charlottesville, VA.
71.	Virginia Electric and Power Company. 1973a. Surrv Power Station Units
1 and 2, Six-month Operating Report No. 1, May 25. 1972 through Decem-
ber 31, 1972. Docket No. 50-280. Richmond.
72.	Virginia Electric and Power Company. 1973b. Surry Power Station
Units 1 and 2, Six-month Operating Report, January 1, 1973 through
June 30, 1973. Richmond.
73.	Virginia Electric and Power Company. 1973c. Surrv Power Station
Units 3 and 4. Applicant's Environmental Report, Construction Permit
State. 2 Vols. Docket 50434-13, -14. Richmond.
74.	Virginia Electric and Power Company, Environmental Services Department.
1976. The Effects of Surry Power Station Operations on Fishes of the
Oligohaline Zone, James River, Virginia. Richmond.
75.	Virginia Institute of Marine Science. 1973. James River Comprehensive
Water Quality Management Study (3c study). Vol. 1. Summary. Vol. 2.
Biological Data. Vol 3. Chemical Data. Vol. 4. Physical Data.
Gloucester Point.
76.	Wass, M. L., comp. 1972. A Checklist of the Biota of Lower Chesapeake
Bay with Inclusions from the Upper Bay and the Virginia Sea. Virginia
institute ot Marine Science, Spec. Sci. Rept. No. 24, Gloucester Point.
77.	Wass, M. L. and T. D. Wright. 1969. Coastal Wetlands of Virginia.
Interim report to the Govenor and General Assembly. Virginia Institute
of Marine Science, Spec. Rept. Appl. Mar. Sci. Ocean Engineer. No. 10,
Gloucester Point.
K-48

-------
78.	Weiss, C. M. and F. G. Wilkes. 1974. "Estuarine Ecosystems that Receive
Sewage Wastes." pp. 71-11. In: H. T. Odum et al., eds. Coastal Ecologi-
cal Systems of the United States. Vol. 3. Conversation Foundation
Washington, DC.
79.	White, J. C., M. T. Baranowski, C. J. Bateman, I. W. Mason, R. A. Hammond,
P. S. Wingard, B. J. Peters, M. L. Brehmer, and J. D. Ristroph. 1972.
Young Littoral Fishes of the Oligohaline Zone James River. Virginia.
1970-1972. Surry Nuclear Power Station preoperational studies. Virginia
Electric and Power Company, Richmond.
EC—49

-------
APPENDIX L
DESCRIPTION OF BIOLOGICAL DEGRADATION STUDIES
AT BATTELLE

-------
APPENDIX L
DESCRIPTION OF BIOLOGICAL DEGRADATION STUDIES
AT BATTELLE
Materials and Methods
Sediment cores were obtained and stored in cellulose acetylbutyrate
cylinders sealed with caps at both ends during the James River sampling
cruise of June 29, 1977. Cores were of nonuniform lengths, and therefore,
presented a problem in maintaining cores as replicate microcosms without
causing aerobic conditions while reducing core lengths to uniformity. The
solution found was to place cores in plexiglas cylinders having twice the
length of the core plus 5 cm (2 in.) to allow equal sediment-water ratios
among experimental units.
Figure L.l shows the sediment-water assembly. To accomplish the sam-
pling of the water column and sediment water, Amicon hollow fiber membranes
(30,000 mol. wt. limit) were used. Initially, a hole was drilled in the
side of the sediment chamber (through plexiglas cylinder and plastic core
wall) at the proper location and a 10 cm (4-in.), 16-gauge needle was passed
through the hole to the opposite side of the chamber. The exit hole was
then drilled and the needle drawn through. Four hollow fibers were pushed
through the needle and the needle removed. One end of the hollow fiber was
tripped and sealed with silastic cement; the drill hole was plugged with
silastic cement. At the other end, a short 16-gauge needle with Luer-Lok
hub was slipped over the hollow fibers and cemented with silastic to the
side of the chamber. (The length of the needle was sufficient to pass
through both the plexiglas cylinder and core wall.) The ends of the hollow
fibers were trimmed and a tuberculin syringe was fixed to the Luer-Lok hub.
Reverse-osmosis filtered and autoclaved water was used to make up the water
column. The 5 cm (2 in.) at the microcosm top was left empty to allow air
sampling and pressure adjustment if methane or H2S were liberated.
Monitored parameters during	equilibration and pretreatment periods
included: Ca"1""*", NO3-N, and Cl~.	Stability of these parameters, judged by
minimal variance and predictable	diurnal behavior, was used to determine
when ^C-labeled Kepone would be	added.
Three replicates of contaminated sediment-water microcosms were selected,
based on monitored parameters and similar size, for further experimentation.
Three control microcosms were chosen using these same criteria. On Novem-
ber 11, 1977, these microcosms were inoculated with 0.1 ml acetone in the
sediment hollow-fiber membrane port. Contaminated microcosms received
12.5 uCi ^C-Kepone in the acetone. After 1 week, monitoring of parameters
was resumed and ^C redistribution was examined weekly.
L-l

-------
Cut away 0/ sediment chamoer
"op (Plexiglas 3isc)
Hoi low Fiber Membranes
Plexiglas Chamber Wall
Hollow Fiber Membranes
-Cere Wall
_ Sameling 3ort 3
Zone of Secucirg .'lues
Silastic PI
End Sea lea
Hollow Ffber _
Memoranes ~~
7/a'
Tuberculin Syringe —
Silastic Seal
1/V
Cue away ciosaup cf a
tyoical sampling port
Top view of top disc
FIGURE L.l. Sediment-Water Assembly
L-2

-------
Results
Table L.l shows total yg (Ca"1""1", Cl~, and NO") in water and sediment
interstitial water during the equilibration and pretreatment periods. Dur-
ing the equilibration period, only CI" in the water column differed between
contaminated and control microcosms. However, by the time of treatment,
all parameters differed significantly between contaminated and control
microcosms. It is unclear whether these differences are attributable to
Kepone or an artifact of heterogeneous microcosm size.
TABLE L.l. MONITORED PARAMETERS IN WATER AND INTERSTITIAL SEDIMENT
WATER DURING EQUILIBRATION AND PRETREATMENT PERIODS FOR
CONTAMINATED AND CONTROL SEDIMENT-WATER MICROCOSMS
3 X (S.E.)
'JZ Total

Equilibration
Period

Pretreatment
Period


Ca
CI NO,
Ca
CI
_no3


J


Contaminated





Water
32 24
1401*
3318*
2580*
1608*

(295)
(279)
(127)
(109)
(35)
Sediment
3305
2596
5292*
3087*
14 71==
Water
(441)
(3961
(213)
(207)
(73)
Control





Water
3338
2239*
3894*
1765"
1893*

(553)
(450)
(53)
(53)
(137)
Sedinent
5150
2980
6523*
2513*
2335*
Water
(1921)
(423)
(234)
(113)
(1551
Behavior of monitored parameters through time was similar between water
and interstitial sediment water. Concentrations of Cl~, NO3-N, and Ca++ in
water were approximately one-half that in sediment water (Figures L.2, L.3
and L.4).* Differences between contaminated and control microcosms occur
sporatically through the pretreatment period and cannot yet be easily
interpreted.
Differences in column height were adjusted by determining the ratio between
contaminated and control water and sediment volumes and multiplying concen-
trations of more dilute conditions (controls) by the ratios for water and
sediment, respectively.
L-3

-------
WATER
Pretreatment Date from October 25, 1977
FIGURE L.2. Calcium Concentrations (Adjusted for Differences in Water
Volumes) in Water and Sediment Water of Contaminated
and Control Microcosms During the Pretreatnent Period
L-4

-------
SEDIMENT INTERSTITIAL
WATER
Control
Contemi rated
_J	I	I	1	1
2bX	31X	3X1	6X1	9X1
Pretreatment Date from October 25, 1977
FIGURE L.2. (Continued)

-------
40
WATER
35
30
25
15
m
10
Control
5
Contami n^ed
9X1
5X1
31X
3X1
28X
25X
Pretreatment Dates from October 25, 1977
FIGURE L.3. NO3-N Concentrations (Adjusted for Differences
in Water Volumes) in Water and Sediment Water
of Contaminated and Control Microcosms During
the Pretreatment Period
L-6

-------
~ 40
I
I i
SEDIMENT INTERSTITIAL
WATER
I Contaminated
1 ^
Control
-N*
25X 2SX 31X 3X1 6X1 9X1
Pretreatment Date from October 25, 1977
FIGURE L.3. (Continued)

-------
30
WATER
25
.. Contaminated
0
Control
10
5
2SX
31X
3X1
6X1
9X1
Pretreatment Date from October 25, 1977
FIGURE L.4. Chloride Concentrations (Adjusted for Differences
in Water Volumes) in Water and Sediment Water of
Contaminated and Control Microcosms During the
Pretreatment Period
L-8

-------
SEDIMENT
INTERSTITIAL
WATER
20
25
20
Control
15
10
3
25X	23X	31X	2X1	6X1	Til
Pretreatment Date from Octaoer 25. 1977
FIGURE L.4. (Continued)
L-9

-------
APPENDIX M
MATHEMATICAL SIMULATION OF SEDIMENT AND KEPONE
TRANSPORT IN THE TIDAL JAMES RIVER

-------
APPENDIX M
MATHEMATICAL SIMULATION OF SEDIMENT AND KEPONE
TRANSPORT IN THE TIDAL JAMES RIVER
A brief description of the sediment and contaminant transport model,
FETRA, and mathematical simulation results on sediment and Kepone migration
in the tidal James River was presented in Chapter VII. A more detailed
discussion is provided in this appendix.
MATHEMATICAL MODEL FORMULATION OF TRANSPORT MODEL, FETRA
The FETRA code consists of the following three submodels: (1) a sediment
transport model, (2) a dissolved contaminant transport model, and (3) a par-
ticulate contaminant transport model.
Sediment Transport Model
Transport of cohesive sediment (silt and clay), nonconesive sediment
(sand), and organic material (that being transported independently with sand,
silt and clay) are modeled separately since movements of sediments and adsorp-
tion capacity vary significantly. The model includes the effects of:
1.	convection and dispersion of materials
2.	fall velocity and cohesiveness
3.	deposition on the river bed
4.	resuspension from the river bed (bed erosion and armoring)
5.	tributaries
Sediment mineralogy and water quality effects are implicitly included through
the	above mentioned effects 2, 3 and 4.
Governing Equations—
The governing equation of sediment transport for the three-dimensional
case is:
(1)
where
Cj = concentration of sediment of j type (weight of sediment per
unit volume of water)
M-l

-------
c * time
U = velocity component of longitudinal (x) direction
V = velocity component of lateral (y) direction
W = velocity component of vertical (z) direction
W =» fall velocity of sediment particle of j1-*1 type
x,y,z 3 longitudinal, lateral and vertical direction in Cartesian
coordinates, respectively
e . ,e .,£ . = diffusion coefficients of longitudinal, lateral and vertical
XJ VI ZJ directions for jth sediment type.
Boundary conditions are:
if
(W - W ,)C, - e . t—j = 0	at z = h	(2)
s] ] zj 5zJ
(1-Y) W .C. + e . » S. - S, at z = 0	(3)
sj j zj 3z Dj Rj
T^j =0	at y =¦ 0 and B	(4)
where
B = width of the river
Sn = sediment deposition rate per unit bed surface area for jsediment
j type
S_ = sediment erosion rate per unit bed surface area for jsediment
Ri
J type
Y a coefficient, i.e., probability that particle settling to the bed
i$ deposited.
In this study, y was assumed to be unity, that is, for the same flow condition
all suspended matter settling on the river bed stays on the river bed without
returning to the flow. It is also assumed that the vertical flow velocity, W,
is negligible.
Let
C. = C. + cV	(5)
J J 1
M-2

-------
U = U + u"	(6)
V = V + v"	(7)
3c'.' 3 c'.' 3WC
3x 3y ¦bz" " °
where
C. ,U,V = depth averaged values of concentration of sediment for jc^
type, longitudinal velocity, and lateral velocity, respectively
c'.\u",vM = fluctuations from the depth averaged values of concentration of
^	sediment of type, longitudinal velocity, and lateral veloc-
ity, respectively.
By substituting the above expressions into Equation (1) and integrating it
over the entire river depth, this equation becomes:
{t+ fe(Bh> + - (Ej+ 9 I + « + u"> I. i
z = hi	z = h
ah) I	3(C + c") )
+ (V + v") | T1 + W (C. + cV) | + £ 	i		 |
, 3y / s-; j J u z-i 3z	1 , \
z = h y	JJ J z = h j	z = n >
.he. ^ rlL , -3C.\ ^ J_ / 3C.\ ^ u3 / 3C.
3 - hl-r—] + l>i~j + V—3 I + h^— I £ -—j + h^— e -r—j
\3tJ 3y 3yJJ 3x \ xj dxJJ jy \ yj 3yJ
- n	h	(
- f- f u"c."dz - f- f v"c."dz - W (C. + c.M) I
3x J	J	3y J	J	I S-; 1	I	n
o J	J o J	I J J J z = 0
3 (C. + c7) )
+ V 13z 1 |	(9)
3	z - O)
The equation of continuity, the kinetic water surface boundary condition and
Equation (2) make the left side of Equation (9) zero. As in the Boussinesq
diffusion coefficient concept, let:
u		
f u"c."dz = (u"c.")h
x J	J
3C.
hD x—J
Xj ax
(10)
and
a
f v"c."dz = (v"c.")h = -
i J	J
SC.
hD -5—j
yi 3y
(11)
M-3

-------
where DXj and Dyj equal the dispersion coefficients of x and y directions for
jth sediment type. Hence Equations (2), (3), (9), (10), and (11) yield the
following final expression of sediment transport:
3C.
It?
+ U -
h
3h \ 3C.
3 x/ 3x^
V -
Zi Jl i£i
h 3y/ oy"
where
K = e + D
xj xj xj
K». - e + D
yj yj
The finite element method was used to solve Equations (4) and (12).
Erosion and Deposition of Noncohesive Sediments (Sand)—
Erosion and deposition of noncohesive sediments are affected by the
amount of sediment the flow is capable of carrying. For example, if the
amount of sand being transported is less than the flow can carry for given
hydrodynamic conditions, the river will scour sediment from the stream bed
to increase the sediment transport rate. This occurs until the actual sedi-
ment transport rate becomes equal to the carrying capacity of the flow or
until the available bed sediments are all scoured, whichever occurs first.
Conversely, the river deposits sand if its actual sediment transport rate
is above the flow's capacity to carry sediment. DuBoy's formula is used to
estimate the flow capacity, Qs, which is then compared with the actual amount
of sand, Qsa, being transported in the river water. Hence:
\ "	(13)
Q - Q
SDj * ""A-1	(U)
where
A = the river bed surface area
Erosion and Deposition of Cohesive Sediments (Silt and Clay)—
Sediment erosion and deposition rates, Srj and Srjj , are also evaluated
separately for each sediment size fraction because erosion and deposition
characteristics are significantly different for cohesive and noncohesive
M-4

-------
sediments. Since only Partheniades (1962) and Krone (1962) formulas for
erosion and deposition rates, respectively, are presently available, these
formulas were adopted in this study:
(15)
2W .C
(16)
where
C h
= erodibility coefficient for sediment of j ' type fraction
= bed shear stress
th
t „ = critical shear stress for sediment deposition for 1 * sediment type
C°j fraction
~cR
= critical shear stress for sediment erosion for jsediment type
J fraction.
Values of M-j, tCQj and TCRj must be determined by field and/or laboratory
tests for a particular river regime. These values for the Columbia River
(Washington) and the Clinch River (Tennessee) were reported in recent mathe-
matical simulation studies concerning sediment and radionuclide transport in
these two rivers (Onishi, 1977a; Onishi, 1977b). The availability of bed sedi-
ments to be resuspended was also examined to determine the actual amount of
sediment erosion.
When Che fall velocity, Wsj, depends on sediment concentration and no
aggregation occurs, the fall velocity may be assumed (Krone, 1962):
W = K.C.4/3	(17)
sj J J
where
Kj = an empirical constant depending on the sediment type.
Erosion and Deposition of Organic Materials—
Recent studies (Shupe and Dawson, 1977; Huggett et al., 1977) revealed
the Kepone is not only adsorbed by inorganic suspended sediment (mainly cohesive
sediments) but also adsorbed by organic matter. Unfortunately, there have not
been enough studies on transport characteristics of organic materials. Since
the mechanics of erosion and deposition of organic matter are somewhat similar
M-5

-------
co chose of cohesive fine sedimenc, Equacions (15) and (16) were utilized for
this case. The selection of the values of WSj, Mj, tcdj and TcRj should
reflecc che characteristics of these materials, e.g., density, size, cohesive-
ness, compatibility, ecc.
Dissolved Contaminant Transport Model
In this study, it was assumed that the association of dissolved contaminant
(such as dissolved Kepone) with suspended sediments (both organic and inorganic
matter) is the primary mechanism of Kepone uptake. The model includes the
effects of:
1.	convection and dispersion of dissolved contaminant within the river
2.	adsorption (uptake) of dissolved contaminant by sediments (cohesive and
noncohesive inorganic sedimencs and organic matter) or desorption from
the sediments into water
3.	chemical, and biological decay of contaminant
'•i. tributaries. (Contaminant contributions from wastewater discharges,
overland runoff flow, fallout and ground water to a river system may be
treated as a part of tributary contributions.)
Effects of water quality (e.g., pH, water temperature, salinity, etc.)
and sediment characteristics, (e.g., clay minerals), are taken into account
through changes in the distribution (or partition) coefficient, Kd^.
The governing equation of dissolved Kepone transport for the three-
dimensional case is:
3G
w
0 t
3G 3G . 3G
3 , 	w. L 3 . 	w. 3 , 	w.
3x Xw 5x 3y yw 3y 3z Zz.w 3z
j
(13)
In addition to the previously defined symbols:
K._ = distribution (or partition) coefficient between dissolved
J contaminant and particulate contaminant associated with j
sediment
M-6

-------
K = nondimensional coefficient: equal unity if contaminant adsorp-
tion or desorption associated with jch sediment occurs (K^j = 1);
equal zero if neither contaminant adsorption nor desorption
associated with jsediment occurs (Kdj = 0)
G. = particulate contaminant concentration associated with jch sedi-
^ ment (weight or contaminant per unit weight of sediment)
G = dissolved contaminant concentration (weight of contaminent per
unit volume of water)
e ,e , e = longitudinal, lateral and vertical diffusion coefficients for
7w 2w dissolved contaminant
\ = chemical and biological decay rate of contaminant (nil for Kepone)
Distribution coefficient,	defined by:
K. = —J—1	(19)
d-! f /V f C.	U '
J	WW	W J
where
f = fraction of contaminant sorbed by jch sediment
sj
f = fraction of contaminant left in solution
w
= weight of sediment
V = volume of water
w
f
Sj C.G.
	= 2 j
f	G
w	w
Hence Equation (19) may be rewritten as:
G. = K, G	(20)
j dj w
The adsorption of contaminant by sediments or desorption from the sediments is
assumed to occur toward an equilibrium condition with the mass transfer rate,
Kj, if the particulate contaminant concentration differs from its equilibrium
values as expressed in Equation (20)•
M-7

-------
The boundary conditions for dissolved pollutant transport are:
3G
WG - e -r—— =0	at z » h	(21)
w zw 3z
Let:
3G
» 0	at z = 0	(22)
oZ
3G
=0	at z » 0 and B	(23)
G - G + G"	(24)
www
3G" 3G"
tj	rj
3ir=3r=0	(25>
where
Gw = depth averaged value of pollutant concentration
« fluctuation from the depth averaged value of pollutant concentration
By substituting the above expressions, together with those in Equa-
tions (5) through (8), into Equation (18) and integrating it over the entire
river depth, Equation (18) becomes:
*	+ ir (MO + 4r	- (G + G") | {I7
w(3t 3x	3y ) w z a hi
G		 ' -	- 	~	" ¦ ax
z a h
U + (u + u") |
+ (V + v") I |fe!+|(w+w»)(C + G") I -e	(G + G") | !
' 3y (	w wJ '	3z w w' 1
z = h J ) (	z = h	z = h)
+ e	(G + G") |
zw 3z w W
*/"»
3\j	C\J	Ou	0v7	0U
= - h (^ + U + V ~r~~~) + D ^-^-r + D
3t	3x	3y	x„ 3x 3x yw oy 3y
» (	3G ) , (	3G )
+ h —— \ (e + D ) -—~ i + h -r— i (t + D ) -— j
3x | x„ x„ 3x j 3y | yw yw ay j
- A.hG - h 7 K^C. (K, G - K G.)	(26)
w J 1 j dj w pj j
M-8

-------
where and D„ are dispersion- coefficients of x and y directions defined
,	*w	Yw
by:
h	3G
f u"G " dz = - h D t-2-	(27)
J w	Xw 3x
o
h	3G
f V"G "dz = - h D	(28)
J w	yw 3y
The equation of continuity, the kinetic water surface boundary condition
and boundary conditions shown in Equations (21) and (22) then make the left
side of Equation (26) zero. Hence, the final transport equation of dissolved
pollutant is:
3G	Dv	3G	Dy ,, 3G
_Ji + /tj _ Jv 111) _Ji + (V - ill)
3t	h 3x 3x	h 3y 3y
~	3G .	3G
= t- (k rr-^) + t- (k —¦) - (X + £ K. K, C.)G
3x Xw ox 3y yw cy	J j dj y w
+ 7. K. K C. G.	(29)
J J Pj J j
where
k = E + D
XXX
www
k = E + D
y	v	v
J W ¦ W ' w
The boundary conditions for this equation are those in Equation (23).
Particulate Contaminant Transport Model
The transport model of pollutants (such as Kepone in this study) attached
to sediments is solved separately for those adsorbed by cohesive and non-
cohesive sediments, and organic material (that being transported independently
with the inorganic sediments). This model also includes the effects of:
1.	convection and dispersion of particulate pollutant
2.	adsorption (uptake) of dissolved pollutant by sediments or desorption
from sediments into water
3. chemical and biological decay of pollutant
M-9

-------
4. deposition of particulate pollutant on the river bed or resuspension from
the river bed
5. tributaries. (Pollutant contributions from wastewater discharges, over-
land runoff flow, fallout and ground water to a river system may be
treated as a part of the tributary contributions.)
As in the transport of sediments and dissolved pollutant, the three-dimen-
sional transport equation for contaminants adsorbed by the jch sediment type
(cohesive sediment, noncohesive sediment or organic materials) may be expressed
as:
3C,G,
~3
3C.G.
f-j- + |-(UC.G.) + |-(VC,G.) + f- f(W - W )C.G.} = t-(e -TJ—1
t 3x j j 3y j j 3z (	sj ] j) ox \ xj 3x
3y \ yj 3y
- K. C.G )
dj j w
3C.G.\
J-Li+
3C.G.
	LJ
Zj az
- A.C.G. - K. (X C.G.
J J J ?j j J
(20)
where the Kepone concentration, Gj, is assumed to be independent of z (Onis'ni,
1977a; Onishi, 1977b). All symbols in Equation (30) were previously defined.
Noting Equations (2), (3), and (4), boundary conditions for this case become:
3C. )
3C .G,
J_-L
(W - W ) G.G. - e ,
sj J J zj 3z
G. {(W-W ) C. - £ .
] ) sj J zj3z
0 at z = h (31)
3C.G
(1-Y) W C.G. + e J ¦' = Ga S
sj j j Zj 3Z
j-Dj " GBj \
at z
(32)
3C ,G. 3G. 3C.
—= C —+ G —
3y Lj 3y °j 3y
3G.
C. T—J
J 3y
0 Hence
3G.
3y
at y = 0 and B (33)
where G^.. is a particulate contaminant concentration associated with jth
sediment"in river bed. Equation (34) is derived by i) substituting Equations
(5) through (8) into Equation (30), ii) integrating it over the river depth,
iii) then subtracting Equation (9) multiplied by Gj from the resulting equation,
and iv) substituting the boundary conditions, Equations (31) and (32)
2t
3G.
3t
+ 
-------
|_(£ p)+l-L ^)-P+X + K.K I G.
\ 3x / 3y \ yj 3y / ^ g.h 3 pj/ J
gb.sr.
+ 1kj % G«+iJrL|	(34)
Since the two terms containing c" in the above equation are at least one
order of magnitude smaller than the rest of the terms, these two terms may
be deleted. Hence, the final expression becomes:
30• J. /IT
1? + 
-------
is used for the variation of flow depth and velocity within an element. For
Che present Kepone study, the linear approximation of depth and velocity was
used. The computer program is written in FORTRAN IV language to implement
the model for a CDC 7600 computer. A more detailed description of the FETRA
code programming is discussed in Onishi et al. (1976).
VERIFICATION OF BASIC COMPUTATIONAL SCHEME OF FETRA MODEL
Prior to the application of the FETRA code to the present tidal James
River study, the accuracy and convergence of the numerical solutions calcu-
lated by the finite element sediment and contaminant transport model, FETRA,
had been evaluated to confirm the validity of the basic computational scheme
of the model. This verification involved solving equations by the FETRA code
and comparing the resulting numerical solutions with known analytical solutions
to the problems.
Unfortunately, the general unsteady two-dimensional convection-diffusion
equation with decay and source (or sink) terms [e.g., Equations (29) and (35)]
does not have known analytical solutions. Therefore, some simplified special
cases ware used for the analysis. The following four cases were selected as
test cases.
Case 1
In this case the following one-dimensional steady convection-diffusion
equation with a source term was solved:
(36)
dx x, 2
dx
with the boundary conditions of:
(37)
C = C at x = 0
o
dC
-7- = 0 at x = 1
dx
An analytical solution to this problem is:
Se
C = C +
o
U
t	r U to m1 ... 3x
exp(- —) - exp[- — (£-x) ] + —
x	J
(38)
Figure M.l shows computer results and the analytical solution, assuming:
5.0, s =0.2, 3=2.0, C =1.0 and £=1.0
' x	0
An excellent agreement between these two solutions was obtained in this
case.
M-12

-------
£.
o X
M-13

-------
	 EXACT SOLUTION
• NUMERICAL SOLUTION
0.8 ~
o
o 0.6
H-
<
CC
H"
LU 0.4
o
o
o
0.2
DISTANCE, x
FIGURE M.2. Comparison of Numerical Solution with Analytical
Solution of One-Dimensional Steady Convection-
Diffusion Equation with a Decay Term
with the following conditions:
C = 0 in 0 £ x <_ £	at	t = 0
C = C atx=0	at	t>0	(40)
o
3C
-— =0 at x = I	for all t
at
Assuming £x = 0.2, a = 1.0, C0 = 1.0 and I = 1.0, solutions are plotted in
Figure M.3, together with steady analytical and numerical solutions cf the
following equation:
32C
£ —7 - clC = 0	(^1)
x. 2
3x
M-14

-------
As shown in Figure M.3, there is convergence to the steady exact solu-
tion of Equation (41). For runs with time t greater than 4.0, the numerical
solutions coincide with the analytical solution. The steady-state numerical
solution also agrees well with the exact solution.
0
STEAOY NUMERICAL SOLUTION
3
5
i
0
1. 0
'J
a
0
0.2
FIGURE M.3. Convergence of Unsteady-State One-
Dimensional Diffusion Equation to
Steady-State Solution
Case 4
The following two-dimensional equation was solved numerically and com-
puted results were compared with an analytical solution:
Sx - 3v
M-15

-------
with boundary conditions of:
C = 0
at x = 0
C = 0
at x = i
(43)
C = 0
at y = 0
C = C sinC-j-1-) at v =
o t
I
where ex = Zy = £ = 1.0 and C0 = 10. The analytical solution for this
case is:
C(x,y) = 0.866 sinh(Try) sin(:rx)
(44)
The computer results and analytical solutions are shown in Figure M.4.
Numbers in the figure are values of concentration C. Since the solutions are
symmetric with respect to x = 0.5, computer results are given in the region
of 0.5 <_ x <_ 1.0, and analytical solutions are plotted in the region of
0 <_ x < 0.5. Comparison of these results reveals that there is an excellent
agreement between the computed and analytical solutions.
As illustrated in Figures M.l through M.4 the agreements of the model
solutions and the exact solutions were excellent. These results confirm the
validity of the basic numerical computation scheme of the transport model,
FETRA.
COMPUTER SIMULATION RESULTS
The FETRA code was employed in combination with the EXPLORE code to
calculate Kepone transport in the James River estuary. The model was applied
to an 86-km reach between City Point (River Kilometer 123) and Burwell Bay
(River Kilometer 37), as shown in Figure M.5.
Both one (longitudinal) and two (longitudinal and lateral) dimensional
simulation was attempted. However, due to the time availability, only the
computer results obtained by one-dimensional simulation are presented in this
report. The one-dimensional EXPLORE code was used to obtain depth and velo-
city distributions in the study area. These were in turn fed to the time-
dependent, two-dimensional sediment and pollutant transport code, FETRA to
obtain longitudinal distributions of sediment and Kepone in the tidal James
River. Hence, the results presented here are vertically ana laterally
averaged values changing with tidal flow.
M-16

-------
3.66
10.00 9.66
8.66
2.59
3.65 5.20 6.32
L89
7.04 7.30
7.05
6.32
5.20 3.65
LS8 10
2.66 3.76 4 60
5.13 5 31
5.13
1.37
4.60
3.76 2.65
138
LOO
3.72 3.36 3.73
3 34
3 34
2.73
1.93
0.72
1.39
2 69
2 41
2 78
2.69
0.72
>»
UJ*
'O
z
<
0.52
LOO
1.73
0,32
o
1.21
1.35
1.40
1.35
0 99 0.70
0.36
0.36
0 24
0.S2
0.94 — 0 91
0.32
0.67
0.47
0.15
0 29
0.41
0.50
0 58
0.50
0.07
0.20
0 24
0 20
0.07
0
0 2
0 i
0.S
01 STANCE, x
FIGURE M.4. Comparison of Numerical Solution with Analytical Solution to
Two-Dimensional Diffusion Equation
M-17

-------
CIIY I'l
K
00
tHICKAIIUMINY KIVIK
^^^JUKUAN HI
HOPEWELL IBAIlfY BAY IAK BAY
BAI11Y CR.
WILLIAMSBURG
NtOllfaui]t.
JUKUAN HI
HOG I'l
HOC I
JAMES RIVER
NEWPORT
NEWS
KILOMETERS
Lm>—J
Lm>—J
0 5 10 15
F£CURi; M.5.
Tidal J nines River

-------
The modeling procedure for the FETRA code involved simulating the trans-
port of sediments (organic and inorganic materials) within the water body.
The results were then input to models of dissolved and particulate Kepone in
order to observe the interaction between sediment and Kepone. Finally,
changes in river bed conditions were recorded, including: (1) river bottom
elevation change, (2) ratio of cohesive sediment, noncohesive sediment and
organic material, and (3) distribution of Kepone in the river bed.
Three flow discharge cases were simulated here: (1) a net fresh-water
discharge of 58.3m^/sec (2,060 cfs) measured at City Point, (2) a net fresh-
water discharge of 247 m^/sec (8,700 cfs) measured at City Point, and (3) a
net fresh-water discharge of 681 m^/sec (24,000 cfs) measured at City Point.
The net fresh-water discharge of 58.3 m^/sec at City Point corresponds to that of
approximately the 10 percentile discharge (Virginia Department of Conserva-
tion and Economic Development, 1970) (i.e., 10% of the time of the year the
net fresh-water discharge is 58.3 m^/sec or less). The second discharge of
24 7 m^/sec corresponds to the average annual discharge, and the third dis-
charge of 681 m^/sec corresponds to approximately the 90 percentile dis-
charge. Test conditions for these three cases are shown in Table M.l. The
river sediments consist of cohesive sediment (silt and clay) , organic matter
and sand. Their particle sizes were assumed to be 0.030 mm, 0.100 mm and
0.150 mm, respectively. Distribution coefficients of Kepone associated with
cohesive sediment, organic matter and sand were selected to be 10,000, 20,000
and 1,000 cm3/g, respectively. Since the field data collected by Battelle
in June 1977 are those for 58.3 m^/sec, a major effort on the calibration and
verification of the FETRA code was conducted for this discharge. After the
model was calibrated, the other two discharge cases were tested wichout chang-
ing or readjusting the FETRA code except boundary conditions of sediment con-
centrations. In order to take into account the effect of the tide, the computer
simulation was conducted for 31 days with a 30-min time step by simulating
tidal motion. All sediment and Kepone computer results presented here were
obtained on the 31st day of the simulation.
3
Case 1 - Net Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m /sec
Computer results of the longitudinal velocity and depth variations at
maximum ebb, slack tide and maximum flood are shown in Figures M.6 through
M.9, respectively. The velocity gradient with longitudinal distance is very
evident.
Simulation of sediment and Kepone transport was conducted for each of
the following substances: (1) cohesive sediment (clay and silt), (2) organic
matter moving independent with cohesive sediment, (3) sand, (4) dissolved
Kepone (5) particulate Kepone attached to cohesive sediment, (6) particulate
Kepone associated with organic matter, and (7) particulate Kepone adsorbed by
sand.
M-19

-------
TABLE M.l. TEST CONDITIONS FOR KEPONE SIMULATION
Fresh-water Discharge (a^/sec)
River Sediment Size (mm)
Cohesive sediaent
Organic matter
Saad
Longitudinal Dispersion Coefficients
for all Sediment and Kepone (m2/sec)
Longitudinal Diffusion Coefficients
for all Sediment and Kepone (a^/sec)
Kepone Secay Sate (1/hr)
Kepone Distribution Coefficients (ca^/g)
Associated with cohesive sedimenc
Associated with organic aatter
Associated with sand
Kepone Mass Transfer Rate (1/hr)
Initial Bed Sediment Constituents (")
Cohesive sediment
Organic Matter
Sand
Boundary Conditions During Ebb Tide
Sediment Concentrations at City
Point (mg/1)
Cohesive sediment
Organic natter
Sand
Kepone Concentrations at Cicy Point
Dissolved (ug/1)
Particulate (yg/g) associated with
Cohesive sediment
Organic Matter
Sand
3oundary Conditions During Flood Tide
Sediaent Concentrations at 3urvell
3ay (mg11)
Cohesive sediment
Organic matter
Sand
Kepone Concentrations at 3urvell 3ay
Dissolved (',;g/l)
Particulate (yg/g) associated vlch
Cohesive sediment
Organic aatrar
Sand
Case I	Case 2	Case 3
53.3	247	6ai
0.030	0.030	0.030
0.100	0.100	0.100
0.150	0.150	0.150
14	14	14
0.14	0.14	0.14
0	0	0
10,000	10,000	10,000
20,000	20,000	20,000
1,000	1,000	1,000
1	1	i
30	30	30
15	15	15
5	5	5
24	32	52
4.5	5	9.3
1.5	2	3.2
0.007	0.007	0.007
0.045	0.045	0.045
0.090	0.090	0.090
0.0045	0.0045	0.0045
24	32	52
4.5	6	9.3
1.5	2
0.007	0.007	0.007
0.032	0.032	0.032
0.064	0.064	0.064
0.0032	0.0032	0.0032
M-20

-------

80
60
40
20
.00
MAXIMUM EH1J TIDE
SLACK Tint:
MAXIMUM FLOOD TIDE
/
\
A
/
/
\
/ \
/
/
V- \
/
V/
/
. 20 _
.40_
. 60 _
. 80 _
1. 0Hi 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 n 1111111111111 ii i ii > 111111111111
30.
40.
50.
60.
70.
80.
90.
100.
110.
120.
130
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGIIKE M.6. Longitudinal Velocity Distributions at Maximum Ebb, Slack and the
Maximum Flood Tides for Fresh-water Input Discharge of 58.3 m-Vsee

-------
2.00_
1.00_
0.00111111 u 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
30. 40. 50. 60. 70. 60. 90. 100. 110. 120. 130
RIVER KILOMETERS
l'MJUKlL M.7. Longitudinal Depth Variation at Maximum libb Tide for Lhe Fresh-water
Discharge of 58.3 in-tysec

-------
10. (M
i
to
U)
9.00
6.00
<—s
CO
oc
7.1
LU 6.C
2:
*	t
•CO 5.00
JZ
I—
Q_
LU J*. 00
a
:x
<==> 3.00
Li_
2.00
1.00
0.00
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
30. 10.
50.
60.
70.
60.
90.
100.
110. 120.
130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FLGURIi M.8. Longitudinal Depth Variation at Slack Tide for the Fresh-water
Discharge of 58. 'J m-Vsec

-------
10.00
f
M
4>
to
or
9.00
6.00
7.C
iii 6.00
1	>
to 5.00
Q_
tU 4.00
Q
Q 3.00
U_
2.00
l.C
0.00
u 11111111
111111
1111
11111
111111
lll
1111111
30. 40.
l'ICURIC M.9.
50.
60.
70.
60.
90.
100.
110.
RIVER KILOMETERS
11111111111
120. 130.
Longl.tudinal Depth Variations at: Maximum Flood 'J'ide for the
Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m^/sec

-------
Figures M.10 through M.12 show computed longitudinal variations of total
sediment concentration (sum of cohesive sediment, organic matter and sand
being transported as suspended and bed loads) at maximum ebb, slack tide and
maximum flood, respectively. Comparison of the computer results with the
measured data indicate excellent agreement as discussed in Chapter VII. Field
data shown in this figure are cross-sectionally averaged values obtained by
the measured data. Sediment concentrations vary from approximately 80 mg/£ to
10 mg/I in the study area. Average total sediment concentrations in this area
at maximum ebb, slack and maximum flood tides are predicted to be 36, 29 and
42 mg/SL, respectively. Figures M.13 through M.15 show longitudinal distribu-
tions of each sediment component, i.e., cohesive sediment, organic matter,
sand and total sediment for maximum ebb, slack and maximum flood tides,
respectively. These figures indicate that 70 to 90% of the suspended sediment
is silt and clay. The organic matter comprises 10 to 30%. The suspended
sand has an insignificant concentration. These values are comparable to
measured values obtained by Battelle under this study and by Nichols (1972).
Changes of sediment concentrations with time at River Kilometer 75.7 are
shown in Figure M.16. The maximum ebb occurs at approximately 3 and 15 hr
while the maximum flood occurs at approximately 8 and 21 hr. Sediment concen-
trations oscillate with time due to tidal motion, producing peaks at maximum
ebb ana flood (with a maximum of 70 mg/£) ana minimum values (with the lowest
concentration of 23 mg/i.) at near slack tide. This figure indicates that
approximately 64 to 33% of the sediment remains suspended during slack tide.
Note that after 25 hr, the sediment concentration level returns to its starting
value indicating this periodic pattern reaches its equilibrium condition.
Figure M.17 shows longitudinal distributions of tidal averaged sediment
concentrations for each sediment component and the total sediment. The total
sediment concentration in this 86-km reach varies from approximately 50 mg/£
to 20 mgll with the average value of 33.2 mg/i. Tidal averaged sediment
concentrations of cohesive sediment, organic material and sand averaged over
the study area are 28.9, 4.1 and 0.2 mg/2., respectively. These constitute
approximately 87.0, 12.4 and 0.6% of the total sediment constituents, respec-
tively. The longitudinal variation of sediment concentration is relatively
small due to the lack of a clear null zone (area where fresh and saline water
intermix), (see Figures VII.16 through VII.18), because of the very low net
fresh-water input for this case. The small but still measurable longitudinal
variation may be attributed to the change in the tidal James River topography
ranging from wide bays to narrow channels connecting bays.
Figures M.18 through M.20 present predicted particulate Kepone concentra-
tions associated with each type of sediment and average particulate Kepone
(weighted average of three particulate Kepone values associated with the
three sediment types) per unit weight of sediment, together with cross-
sectionally averaged field data, for maximum ebb, slack and maximum flood
tides, respectively. Comparison of computer results of total particulate
Kepone and the measured data reveals good agreement as discussed in Chapter VII.
M-25

-------
• FIELD DATA (BATTEL1.E)
RIVER KILOMETERS
F1CUKE M.JO. Longitudinal Distributions of Total Sediment Concentration at the Maximum Ebb
Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.J m^/sec, together with Field Data

-------
120.
f
K>
110.
100-
—I
CD 90.
21
v	;
^ 80.
O
~—I
70.
60.
50.
40.
or
CO
CJ
o
~
LU
CO
30.
20. _
10. _
0.
• FIELD DATA (BATTELLE)

_i—i—i—I—i	i	i—i	I	i	i	i	i	I—i	i	i	i	I	i—i	u
30. 40. 50. 60.
70. 80.
90.
100. 110. 120. 130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
F J CUKE M. 1.1.
Longitudinal Distributions of Total Sediment Concentration at the Slack Tide
for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 ni^/sec, together with Field Data

-------
120.
?
ho
00
11(9.
^ 100.
_J
CD 90.
21
LJ
^ 80.
O
H-4
70.
60.
50.
40.
a:
cc
LJ
¦z
o
CJ
51 30.
i—•
CU
LU 20
CO
10.
® FIELD DATA (BATTELLE)
0. 	i	i	i	i	I	i	i	i	i	I	i	i	i	i	I—i—i	i—i	I—1_
30. '10. 50. 60. 70.
_i	i	I	i	i	i—i—I—
60. 90.
_l	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I—I—I—I	L.
100. 110. 120. 130.
FIGURE M.12.
RIVER KILOMETERS
Longitudinal Distributions of Total Sediment Concentration at the Maximum
FJood TLdc for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m^/sec, together with
Field Delta

-------
120
TOTAL SEDTMENT
COHESIVE SEDIMENT
OkCANIC MATTER
SAND
10(9.
_J
CD 90.
51
80.
o
I—I
h- 70.
CH
CO
h-
z
LU
CJ
60.
o
CJ

30.
CD
CO
10.
ut-fr
120.
130
30.
60.
60.
70.
90.
100.
110.
RIVER KILOMETERS
EiOtlKE M.L3. Longitudinal Distribution of Sediment Concentration of Each Sediment Type
at Maximum Ebb Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m^/sec

-------
120
110.
	 TOTAL SEDTMENT
	 COHESIVE SEDIMENT
- 	ORGANIC MATTER
• — SAND
60.
)	I
70.
I—
21
60.
LiJ
(_)
50.
o
<10.
30.
i—i
CD
Lul 20
CO
10.
IT i
80.
110.
130
70.
90.
120.
30.
60.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGURE M.14. Longitudinal Distribution of Sediment Concentration of Each Sediment
Type at Slack Tide for the Eresli-water Discharge of 58.3 in^/sec

-------
120.
i
u>
H*
110.
^ 100.
_l
\
C3 90.
o
GO
CC
LU
(_>
Z
o
(_)
LlJ
80.
70.
60.
50.
40.
30.
Q
LlI 20
CO
10.
	 TOTAL SKIHMENT
	 COHESIVE SEDIMENT
	 ORGANIC MATTER
— • — SAND
_T—4— I
-I	I 1 I
X
.<,v.
I I I 1 I
* « 1—-* •
"I—H-i.
I I I I
¦ L I I	L>
3(2). <10. 50. 60. 70. 80. 90.
RIVER KILOMETERS
100.
110.
120.
130.
FTCURE M. 15. Longitudinal Distributions of Sediment Concentration of Each Sediment
Type at Maximum Flood Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m^/sec

-------
6(9.
70.
619.
50,
40,
30
20
10
0.
I'
	TOTAL SEDIMENT
	COHESIVE SEDIMENT
	ORGANIC MATTER

/
/ \

\
A
\
\

\
/ \
/ \
\
A
/
/
\
\ J
V
/
\v/
V
\
v..
/
/
\
/
J	I	L
j	I	u
J	i	L
-I	I	i_
J	.	L
-i	1	i_
2. 1. 6. 6. 10. 12. 14. 16. 16. 20. 22. 24.
TIME CHOUR)
URE N.16. Changes of Sediment Concentrations w i l 11 Time at River Kilometer 75.7
for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 rn^/aec

-------
2
I
U)
LO
CD
ZEZ
az
az
UJ
o
2:
o
c_)
a
LU
CD
a
LU
CD
ar
az
LU
>
az
az
a
120.
110.
100.
90.
60.
70.
60.
50.
40.
30.
20.
10.
0.
	 TOTAL SEDIMENT
	 COHESIVE SEDIMENT
	 ORGANIC MATTER
— SAND
• FIELD DATA FOR TOTAL
SEDIMENT (BATTELLE)
O FIELD DATA
(HUGGETT, 1978)


11n iTrTrTi1111111111
30. 40. 50.
\
I I I 1 . 1 I I I I I I I I II I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I ll . . I . . . . I I . I ¦ I I I I . I I .1 I I 1	T-. I I I I I I
60. 70. 60. 90. 100. 110. 120. 130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGURE M.17. Tidal Averaged Sediment Concentration of Each Sediment Type for the
Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 mVsec

-------
.20
CO
-p~
CD
CD
ZL
CC
QC
LU
t_)
Z
O
O
CD
o_
LU
v:
cc
_l
Z5
t_)
az
CC
Q_
.18
.16
.14
.12
.10
.06
.06
.04
.02
0.00
/
A
AVERAGE PARTICULATE KEPONE
PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH
COHESIVE SEDIMENT
PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH
ORGANIC MATTER
PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH
SAND
FIELD DATA (BATTELLE)
til I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I » I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I It I I I I I I II I I II II I I I I I III III III I I I I I I I I I I I HI
30.
40.
50.
60.
70.
60.
90.
100.
110.
120.
130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGURE M.18. Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone Concentrations at
Maximum Ebb Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge to 58.3 m^/sec

-------
OJ
U1
CD
CJD
n
o
az
oc
CJ
z
o
o
o
a_
ID
O
QC
a:
o_
.^u>
.18
.16
.11
.12
.10
.08
.06
.04
.02
0.00
/
AVERAGE PARTICULATE KEPONE
PARTICULATE KEPONE WTT1I COHESIVE
SEDIMENT
PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH ORGANIC
MATTER
PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH SAND
FIELD DATA FOR AVERAGE
PARTICULATE KEPONE
(BATTELLE)
		TTH111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ¦ 1111111111111111111111111 ¦ 1111111
30.
40.
50.
60.
70.
60.
90.
100.
110.
120.
130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGURE M. L9. Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone Concentrations at
Slack Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge 58.3 m^/sec

-------
s;
i
u>
On
CD
CD
=L
O
GC
fiC
£_>
o
o
LU
2:
o
Q_
rD
<_>
CO
a=
a.
.20
.18
.16
.14
. 12
.1(9
.08
.06
.04
.02
/v

/ \
	 AVERAGE PARTICULATE KEPONE
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH COHESIVE
SEDIMENT
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH ORGANIC
MATTER
— PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH SAND
• FIELD DATA FOR AVERAGEi
PARTICULATE KEPONE
/ \
eA
/
V \
A
0. 0IP>R I ¦ 1 I I 1 TTTi 1 I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 11 1 1 1 1 11 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 11 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 11 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I I I
30.
4(9.
50.
60.
70.
80.
90.
100.
110.
120.
130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGURE M.20. Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone Concentrations of Maximum
Flood Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m^/sec

-------
The mathematical simulation results indicate that the particulate Kepone
concentration generally increases from 0.05 ug/g to 0.11 ug/g with movement
seaward from City Point (River Kilometer 123) to the confluence of the James
River and the Chickahominy River (River Kilometer 77) with an intermediate
peak around Bailey Bay and Jordan Point (River Kilometer 118). Seaward from
the James-Chickahominy River confluence, the particulate Kepone concentration
decreases gradually and has a value of approximately 0.04 ug/g in Burwell Bay
(River Kilometer 37.6). These figures also reveal that the Kepone concentration
associated with the organic material is approximately twice as high as those
attached to the cohesive sediment which in turn have 10 times higher Kepone
concentration than those adsorbed by sand. Changes of particulate Kepone
concentrations with time at River Kilometer 75.7 are shown in Figure M.21.
There are small peaks associated with maximum ebb and flood tides due to
possible erosion of bed sediment with high Kepone concentrations. Tidal
averaged particulate Kepone concentrations, together with the tidal averaged
field data are shown in Figure M.22. Good agreement was obtained between the
computer results and the measured value. It is shown in this figure that the
total particulate Kepone concentration averaged over the 86-km reach is
0.071 ug/g- This figure also shows that as area wide averages, particulate
Kepone adsorbed by the cohesive sediment, organic matter and sand are 0.063,
0.126, and 0.006 ug/g, respectively.
Figures M.23 through M.25 also present particulate Kepone concentration,
only on a per unit volume of water basis for the three tidal stages, respec-
tively. These values were obtained by multiplying particulate Kepone concen-
tration per unit weight of sediment times the sediment concentration. Fig-
ure M.26 shows the tidal averaged particulate Kepone concentration in ug 1?. .
Although the organic matter contains the highest Kepone concentration (see
Figure M.22), this figure reveals that the suspended cohesive sediments (silt
and clay) carries the greatest amount of Kepone among particulate Kepone
because of its high sediment concentration in the water. For example, as
shown in Figure M.26, in the vicinity of the confluence of the James and
Chickahominy Rivers (River Kilometer 77), total particulate Kepone concentra-
tion is 0.0037 pg/2, , of which 66% is transported in a particulate form asso-
ciated with the cohesive sediment. While approximately 3^% of the particulate
Kepone associates with the organic material. No measurable Kepone was asso-
ciated with suspended sand.
Longitudinal variations of dissolved, particulate and total (sum of dis-
solved and total particulate Kepone) Kepone concentrations are presented in
Figures M.27 through M.31. These figures reveal that total Kepone concentra-
tions vary from approximately 0.006 vig/5L to 0.0132 yg/2, with the peak concen-
tration occurring at River Kilometer 75 (in the vicinity of the Swann Point).
Concentrations of dissolved, particulate and total Kepone averaged over the
86-km reach are 0.0065, 0.0024, and 0.089 ugA . These values indicate that
approximately 27% of total Kepone is carried by sediment, while 73% remains in
the dissolved form, as overall average values. These figures also show that
suspended sediment carries approximately 10 to 50% of the total Kepone, while
50 to 90% of the Kepone is transported in a dissolved form for this discharge
case. For example, at River Kilometer 77, 32% of Kepone is transported in
a particulate form, while 68% is in a dissolved form at maximum ebb tide.
M-37

-------
.20
CD . 18
*	/
•7 . 16
A


\
/
\
<3= .14
DC
I—
g -12
(_)
ZZL
0	10
(_) • 110
LU
§ .08
fl_
LlJ
^ .06
LxJ
	1	
a= . 04
	1
ZD
CJ
*— .02
I—
DC
a=
Q_ 0.00.
0.
-AVERAGE PARTICULATE KEPONE
-PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH COHESIVE SEDIMENT
-PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH ORGANIC MATTER
-PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH SAND
X

_L
2.
4.
6.
10. 12. 14. 16.
TIME CHOURD
16.
20.
22.
24.
FiCUUE M.21. Changes of Particulate Kepone Concent rat Ions with Time at River
KLlometer 75.7 for the Fresh-wnier Discharge of 58.3 mVsec

-------
.20
i
vO
CD
\
(JD
Zl
o
a_
az
ZD
CJ
en
az
o_
a
LU
CD
az
CO
az
az
a
.18
.16
.14
.12
.1(9
.06
.06
.04
.02
0.00
/
/
\
	 AVERAGE PARTICULATE KEPONE
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH COHESIVE
SEDIMENT
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH ORGANIC
MATTER
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH SAND
• FIELD DATA FOR AVERAGE
PARTICULATE KEPONE (BATTELLE)
O FIELD DATA	q
Vj;HUGGET, 1978)

\
\
^ 												111111111111111111111111111111111 ii 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
-ii
i_L
30.
40.
50.
60.
70.
80.
90.
100.
110.
120.
130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGURE M. 22. T id ill. Averaged Particulate Kepone Concentrations for the Fresh-water
Discharge of 58.3 mVsec

-------
.010
"f
*-
o
C3
O
CO
(_)
Z
O
CJ
CD
Q_
UJ
v:
UJ
h-
cn
_j
Z)
(_)
CO
cn
o_
.009
.006
.007
.006
.005
.004
.003
.002
.001
0.000
	 TOTAL PARTICULATE KEPONE
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH COHESIVE SEDIMENT
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH ORCANIC MATTER
— • — PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH SAND
I		 ¦ I					11111111111					1111111111
30.
60. 70. 80. 90. 100.
RIVER KILOMETERS
130.
FIGURE M.23. Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone Concentrations per Unit
Volume of Water at Maximum Ebb TJde for the Fresh-water Discharge of
58.3 mVsec

-------
.010
I
	 TOTAL PARTICULATE KEPONE
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH COHESIVE SEDIMENT
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH ORGANIC MATTER
PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH SAND
. 009
V
0.000
11111
60. 70. 60. 90. 100.
RIVER KILOMETERS
110.
120.
130.
l'lGUUE M.24. Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone Concentrations per Unit
Volume; of Water at SLack Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 rn-Vsec

-------
.010
£-
M
CD
n
az
QC
UJ
CJ
z:
o
CJ
o
a_
a=
:=>
cj
fiC
a:
Q_
TOTAL PARTICULATE KEPONE
PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH
COHESIVE SEDIMENT
PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH
ORGANIC MATTER
PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH
SAND
111111111111111111111111111111
130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGURE M.25. Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone Concentrations per Unit
Volume of Water at Maximum Flood Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of
58.3 m^/sec

-------
. 010
-O
U)
(_D
ZL
O
Q_
LU
LU
I-
CT
.009
.006
.00/
.006
CJ .005
I—
DC
a: . am
Q_
CD
^ .003
CC
CO
Li_l
.002
az
^ .001
a
I—i
0.000
	 TOTAL PARTICULATE KEPONE
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH COHESIVE SEDIMENT
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH ORGANIC MATTER
— PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH SAND
• FIELD DATA (BATTELLE)
O EIELD DATA (HUCCETT, 1978)
i_L
30.
¦	I I I I I I I I I I I I ¦ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HI I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
110. 90. 60. 70. 80. 90.
100. 110. 1213. 130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGURE M.26. Longitudinal Distributions of Tidal Averaged Particulate Kepone Concentrations
per Unit Volume of Water for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m^/sec

-------
.020

.016
.016
CD
=1 .014
° .012
az
F .010
.008
<_)
z
o
C_)
111 .006
-21
a
a_
LU .004
.002
0.000
	 TOTAL KEPONE
	DISSOLVED KEl'ONE
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE
n i > 11
¦ 11111111111111111111111111111111					11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
30. 40. 50. 60. 70. 80. 90.
RIVER KILOMETERS
100.
110. 120.
130.
FIGURE M.27. Longitudinal Distributions of Total, Dissolved and Particulate Kepone
Concentrations at Maximum Ebb Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of
58.3 m^/sec

-------
.020
.018
.016
_D
=L .014
.012
—4
n
11.010
.006
.006
.004
.002
	 TOTAL KEPONE
	 DISSOLVED KEPONE
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE
0.000 Fi 11 111 111 III 111111111111111111111 11111111111
111111111 n ill 1111111111111111111
30.
40.
50.
60.
100.
110.
130
RIVER KILOMETERS
l1'[f!UKE M.28. Longitudinal. Distributions of Total, Dissolved and Particulate Kepone
ConcenLrations at Slack Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 rnVsec

-------
.020
¦O

.018
.016
CD
=1 .Old
° .012
.010
.006
CC
OC
LlJ
CJ
!Z
o
o
LiJ .006
~2L
O
Q_
LU .004
.002
	 TOTAL KEPONE
	 DISSOLVED KEPONE
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE
I \
0.000 Fi. 1.111 ii I ¦ 11111 n 11			 11111 ¦ 111 111111111111111111 1111111 hi i 11 i 11 n 111111111 n 111 n 11 11111111 I
30. 40. 50. 60. 70. 60. 90. 100. 110. 120. 130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGURE M.29. Longitudinal DistrLbutions of Total, Dissolved and Particulate Kepone
Concentrations at Maximum flood Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of
58.3 mVsec

-------
.020
	TOTAL KEPONE
	DISSOLVED KEPONE
	PARTICULATE KEPONE
.018
CD
.014
O
^ .006
O
CJ
. . .006
0
2.
4.
6.
10.
11.
20.
6.
12.
16.
18.
24.
22.
TIME [HOUR]
FLCUKIl M.'H). Changes of Total, Dissolved and Particulate Kepone Concentration with Time
at RLver KLlometer 75.7 for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 mVsec

-------
CD
.020
.018
£H
fiC
.016
.011
O .012
o
<_)
LlJ
-Z.
0
Q_
LlJ
Q
LlJ
LD
01
a=
ai
a:
a
.010
.008
.006
. 004
.002
0.000
	 TOTAL KEPONE
	 DISSOLVED KEPONE
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE
-i 1111111111 < 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 n 11111111111111111111111111111111111
30.
40.
50.
60.
70.
80.
90.
100.
110.
120.
130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGURE M.3I. Longitudinal Distributions of Tidal Averaged Total, Dissolved and Particulate
Kepone Concentrations for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 iii^/sec

-------
Ac slack tide, only 13% of the total Kepone is associated with suspended
sediment and 87% is the dissolved Kepone, due to settling of the suspended
sediment during slack tide. At the maximum flood, bottom sediment is again
resuspended and 54% of the total Kepone is being transported by sediment and
46% is the dissolved Kepone. When these values are tidally averaged, 32% of
the total Kepone is associated with sediment, while 68% remains in water at
this location. Changes of total, dissolved and particulate Kepone concentrations
with time at River Kilometer 75.7 are shown in Figure M.30. As shown in this
figure, dissolved Kepone concentration does not change significantly with
time. However, particulate and thus total Kepone concentration changes with
time due to the time dependency of sediment concentration.
The mathematical simulation results also reveal that at Burwell Bay, the
tidal averaged total Kepone concentration is 0.0076 yg/2, and that approxi-
mately 14.0 kg of Kepone per year is transported from the tidal James River
towards Chesapeake Bay. Dissolved and particulate Kepone concentrations are
0.0064 yg/5, and 0.0012 yg/2. , respectively. Hence, suspended sediment car-
ries approximately 2.2 kg of Kepone per year seaward from the tidal James
River while 11.8 kg of Kepone is transported from Burwell 3av each year in
a dissolved form. Since there is some possible deposition of contaminated
sediment and adsorption of dissolved Kepone by cleaner suspended sediment
between Burwell Bay and the river mouth, 14.0 kg/vr is a conservative
estimate.
Accumulated bed elevation changes after 1-month simulation are shown in
Figure M.32. In this figure positive values along the vertical axis indicate
the amount of sediment deposition in mm, during a 1-month simulation, while
negative values show the amount of river bed scoured during the same period.
This figure reveals a series of scouring and deposition patterns reflecting
the complex geometry of the tidal James River with many bays being connected
by narrow channels. For this flow case, an average annual net bed deposi-
tion rate for the 86-km tidal James River reach is predicted to be approxi-
mately 1.7 mm/yr.
Figure M.33 shows the change in bed surface Kepone concentration which
occurs during a 1-month simulation. The Kepone concentrations shown here are
those which occur on the very surface of the river bed without any mixing
with the Kepone below that level. For example, in Bailey Bay (around River
Kilometer 120) Kepone concentrations is reduced dramatically during a 1-month
simulation. As shown in Figure M.32, Bailey Bay experienced sediment deposi-
tion of approximately 2 mm. Figure M.33 indicates that the Kepone concentra-
tion in this top 2-mm layer is reduced from the level shown in the solid line
to that shown in the dotted line. Another example is around the 70-River
Kilometer area. Figure M.32 reveals that there is a net scour of approximately
1 mm. Hence, the Kepone concentration in the very surface of the river bed
after 1-month simulation shown in Figure M.33 is the one that appeared in the
layer as it existed 1 mm below the original bed surface. Figure M.33 reveals
a definite trend of reducing the Kepone level near the upper part of the
river and of increasing the level near the lower part of the river.
M-49

-------
LU
UJ
<_9
az
CJ
CD
az
LU
LU
-10.
Q
UJ
OQ
15
120.
130
100.
110.
90.
70.
60.
60.
50
30.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGURE M.32. Variation oE River lied Elevation Changes Due to Sediment Deposition and/or
Bed Scouring at Maximum libb Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m3/Sec

-------
.35
i
Ui
I—I
(J)
X.
CD
=».
O
az
co
l-U
CJ
o
o
o
a_
UJ
UJ
c.j
en
Li_
CO
ID
CO
a
UJ
CD
.30
,25
.20
15
10
.05
	INITIAL RIVER BHD SURFACE KEPOIJE CONDITIOfl
	 RIVLR BED SURFACE KEPONE CONDITION AFTER ONE MONTH
A/
\
0.00
I I I I I I I111 I I IIII II 11 1111ai111ti' I I I I 1111 I I I I I I I I
111111111111 < 11111 ¦ 11111111111111111111 i 11111
30.
40.
50.
60.
70.
80.
90.
100.
110.
120.
130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FKiUKK M.33. Change on Bed Surface Kepone Concentration Occurred During 1-Month
Simulation for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m^/sec

-------
3
Case 2 - Met Fresh-water Discharge of 247 m /sec
Computed longitudinal distributions of flow velocities at the three tidal
stages, maximum ebb, slack and maximum flood are shown in Figure M.34. Fig-
ures M.35 through M.37 present computed longitudinal variations of cross-
sectional averaged depth of the tidal James River at the three tidal stages,
respectively.
Longitudinal distributions of sediment concentrations at maximum ebb,
slack and maximum flood tides are shown in Figures M.38 through M.40, respec-
tively. The tidal averaged sediment concentrations are shown in Figure M.41.
These figures include sediment concentrations of each type of sediment (cohesive
sediment, organic material or sand) and total sediment (sum of those sediment
components). Measured total sediment concentrations obtained by Nichols (1972)
in March 1965 and March 1960 are also plotted for the purpose of model verifi-
cation. As discussed in Chapter VII, comparison of these field data with
computer results at slack tide and tidal average cases (Figures M.39 and
M.41) indicate excellent agreement among these values. Computer results
shown in Figures M.38 through M.40 reveal that there are two peaks of the
total sediment distribution wich both having approximately 100 mg/2. concentra-
tions. One occurs between River Kilometer 75 and 95, and the other around
River Kilometer 55. The former peak is produced due co extensive river bed
souring in the vicinity of this reach and the latter is due to the existence
of a clear null zone around the River Kilometer 50 (Nichols, 1972). The tidal
averaged total sediment concentration shown in Figure M.41 indicates that
the-concentration varies from approximately 25 mg/1 .to 100 mg/Jl with an areawide
average of 66.5 mg/ii . This figure also' indicates that cohesive sediment is
the dominant suspended sediment with 55.1 mg/2. of the areawide average concen-
tration. This corresponds to 82.9% of the total sediment concentration.
The second largest amount is organic matter having 11.0 mg/£, , which corresponds
co 16.5% of the total sediment. Suspended sand has the smallest value of
0.4 mg/fc. which is only 0.6% of the total sediment concentration. As compared
to Case 1 (see Figure M.17), all three components of sediment increase their
concentrations. Percentage of cohesive sediment to the total sediment for
Case 2 decreases from 87.0 to 82.9%. On the other hand, organic matter increases
its contribution from 12.4 to 16.5%. Sand contribution remains the same at
0.6%.
Distributions of particulate Kepone at the three tidal stages are shown
in Figures M.42 through M.44 while tidal averaged distributions are presented
in Figure M.45. The tidal averaged particulate Kepone distribution, as shown
in Figure M.45, indicates that the total particulate Kepone concentration
changes from 0.040 ug/g to 0.098 ug/g with the overall average of 0.070 ug/g.
The peak concentrations occurs at approximately River Kilometer 75. Overall
particulate Kepone concentrations associated with suspended cohesive sediment,
organic matter and sand are 0.060, 0.120, and 0.006 ug/g, respectively.
M-52

-------
I
01
UJ
CJ
UJ
CO
\
CO
cc

CJ
Q
_J
UJ
1.00
.80 _
.60 _
.'10 _
.20 _
^ -.00
MAXIMUM EBB TIDE
SLACK. TIDE
MAXIMUM FLOOD TIDE
/X	7
'
/ V
v
/
¦. 20 _
-.10
-.60 _
-.80 _
-1.	111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
30. 40. 50. 60. 70. 60. 90.
RIVER KILOMETERS
100. 110. 120. 130.
FICIIKK M.34. Longitudinal Velocity Distributions at Maximum Ebb, Slack and the
Maximum flood Tides for Fresh-water Input Discharge of 247 m-Vsec

-------
•x
I
Ul
10.0GL
9.00 _
8.00 _
[f) 7.00
cn
LU
LU 6.00_
CO 5.00
~C
h-
Q_
LU U.00
a
o 3.|
2.00 _
1.00 _
0. 0)0)1 I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I H I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I H 1 i I I I I I I I I I
30. 40. 50. 60. 70. 00. 90. 100. 110. 120. 130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FlCUKIi M. 35.
Longitudinal Depth Variation at Maximum Fbb Tide for the Fresh-water
Discharge of 24 7 mV SCiC

-------
I
C/i
Ln
CO
31
I—
Q_
LlJ
~
O
_J
Li_
10.0H
9.00
8.00
7.00
CO
0C
LU
Uj 6.00
5.00
<1.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
I I I I I i I I I I I I I tI I I I I I I 1 I II>1 M I I I I I I I I I I I tI I I I I I I 1 I 1 I M H I I I I I M m tI I I>I IHI I I 1 I» HI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I>
30. 40. 50. 60. 70. 60. 90. 100.
RIVER KILOMETERS
110.
120.
130.
FIGURE M.36.
Longitudinal Depth Variation at Slack Tide Cor the Fresh-water
Discharge of 247 ni^/sec

-------
i
Ul
10. Oil
9.00
8.00
tn 7-00
111 6.0®
CD 5.00
11111111
¦ 111111111111111111111111 ij 111111111111111111111111111
30. W.
50. 60.
70. 60. 90. 100.
RIVER KILOMETERS
110.
120.
130.
l-'IUUKIi M. 37. l,oi)git(i
-------
120.
i
Ui
110.
^ 100.
ti> 90.
21
z 80.
0
	1	!
70.
60.
50.
10.
Z
LU
si 30.
i—i
a
l-i-1 20
CO *
10. _
0.
CO
CO
UJ
(_)
Z
a
CJ
TOTAL SED WENT
	COHESIVE SEDIMENT
	 ORCANIC MATTER
— SAND
_i	u
I. I	I	L
_L
¦ 1. 1	I	L-
-J	L
' « '
I I
. L I J	L-
30. 10. 50. 60. 70. 80. 90.
RIVER KILOMETERS
100.
110.
120.
130.
FIGURE M.38. LongiLudinal Distribution of Sediment Concentration of Each Sediment Type
at Maximum Ebb Tide for the Fresh-wator Discharge of 24 7 m-Vsec

-------
120.
110.
^ 100.
_l
\
CD 90.
	 TOTAL SEDIMENT
	 COHESIVE SEDIMENT
	 ORGANIC MATTER
•	— SAND
•	FIELD DATA FOR TOTAL
SEDIMENTS (Nichols,
1972)
30.
60. 70. 80. 90. 100.
RIVER KILOMETERS
110.
120.
130
FIOURE M.39. Longitudinal Distribution of Sediment Concentration of Each Sediment Type
at Slack Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 247 in^/sec

-------
120.
i
(Jl
VO
1119.
^ 100.
\
C£> 90.
O
CC
CC
LU
CJ
Z
o
CJ
Q
IxJ
CO
80.
70.
60.
50.
40.
30.
20.
10.
0.
		 TOTAL SEDIMENT
	COHESIVE SEDIMENT
	 ORGANIC MATTER
• — SAND
I I—I	u
-J	I	l„, X
1111
I I I I
1 >¦
_1	1	I	I	I	1	I I I	1 I « I I
I I I
» « I « I ¦	I > t
30. 40. 50. 60. 70. 60. 90. 100.
RIVER KILOMETERS
110.
120.
130.
FIGURE M.40. Longitudinal Distributions of; Sediment Concentration of Each Sediment Type
at Maximum Flood Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge oC 247 m^/sec

-------
CD
PC
I
o\
o
<31
QC
CJ
zz.
o
UJ
i—«
Q
UJ
CO
Q
UJ
C9
az
az
UJ
az
a
TOTAL SEDIMENT
COHESIVE SEDIMEN'I
ORGANIC MATTER
SAND
O FIELD DATA FOR
TOTAL SEDIMENTS
(Nichols. 1972)
•FIELD DATA FOR
TOTAL SEDIMENTS
(Nichols, 1966)
30. 10
60. 70. 60. 90. 100. 110. 120. 130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGURE M.41. Tidal Averaged Sediment Concentration of Each Sediment Type for the
Fvesh-water Discharge of 247 m^/sec

-------
.219
i
On
CD
\
CD
=L
az
oc
LU
c_)
z
o
(_)
LU
2:
O
Q_
az
_i
ZD
C_)
az
az
a_
.18
.16
.14
.12
.1(9
.06
.(96
.04
.02
AVERAGE PARTICULATE KEPONE
PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH
COHESIVE SEDIMENT
PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH
ORGANIC MATTER
PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH
SAND
V
\
\
\
0. fflOlFi 111111 1111111111111.1 ¦ 1111 111111 ¦ 1111111111111111111111111111111111111.111 ¦ 11111111111111 ¦ 111 1111 1
30.
40.
50.
60.
70.
80.
90.
100.
110.
120.
130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
t'TCURE M.42. Long It ml i nu I Distributions of Parl.icuLale Kepone Concentrations at Maximum
Ebb Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge to 247 m^/sec

-------
A
I
CT>
l-J
CD
CD
CC
QC
CJ
2:
O
CJ
O
Q_
LU
CC
_J
ZD
CJ
CO
az
o_
.20
.18
.16
.11
. 12
. 1(9
.06
.06
.04
.02
0.00
	AVERACE PARTICULATE KEPONE
	PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH COHESIVE
SEDIMENT
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH ORGANIC
MATTER
• — PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH SAND
n 111111111111111111111111111
11 ¦ ¦ ¦ 111»¦»111»1 ¦ 1'1111111111»111 ¦ 11«111»1' 1»11»11'1 'i«' 1' 11111»' 11»' 11
30. <10. 50. 60. 70. 60. 90. 100.
RIVER KILOMETERS
110.
120.
130.
FIGURE M.43. Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone Concentrations at Slack
Tide for tlie Eresli-water Discharge; of 24 7 ni^/soc

-------
2
I
CTN
OJ
CD
\
CD
=1
a=
oc
LU
CJ
o
CJ
o
a_
UJ
v:
LU
t—
az
_i
ZD
CJ
m
ar
o_
.20
. 10
.16
.14
.12
. 10
.06
.06
.01
.02
0.00
	 AVERAGE PARTICULATE KEPONE
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH COHESIVE
SEDIMENT
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH ORCANIC
MATTER
— • — PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH SAND
1 1 ¦ 1 ¦ 1 » 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 		I i 1 1 1 1 1 | t | I M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 ' 1 1 1 1 * I » 1 » 11 1 1 1 1 I ' 1 1 ' 1 1 I ' I
30.
40.
50.
60.
70.
60.
90.
100.
110.
120.
130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGURE M.44. Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone Concentrations at Maximum
Flood Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge 247 m^/sec

-------
On
-C-
I—l
CD
CD
a.
LU
Z
O
Q_
LU
UJ
I—
GC
_l
ZD
<_)
oc

az
a1
a
.20
.18
.16
. 14
.12
.10
.12)8
.06
.0'i
.02
0.01
AVERAGE PARTICUI.ATE KEPONE
PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH COHESIVE
SEDIMENT
PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH ORGANIC
MATTER
PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH SAND
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
I I I I I ¦ I 1 I I I I I'»I 11 I'« « ' » I I 1 1
1111111 It 111
III
30. <10. 50. 60. 70. 00. 90.
RIVER KILOMETERS
100.
110.
120.
130.
FIGURE M.45. Tidal Averaged Particulate Kepone Concentrations for the Fresh-water
Discharge of 247 111-Vsec

-------
Figures M.46 through M.48 show longitudinal distributions of particulate
Kepone concentrations per unit volume of water, yg/2, . The tidal averaged
distribution is presented in Figure M.49. These figures indicate that particulate
Kepone concentration varies from 0.0015 ygA. to 0.010 ug/2, with two peaks
around River Kilometer 75 and 55. The average particulate Kepone concentration
in the entire study reach is 0.00475 yg/2. . An average particulate Kepone
concentration associated with cohesive sediment is 0.00338 yg/5, which is 71%
of the total particulate Kepone. Organic matter has 0.00137 yg/2, of Kepone
which is 29% of the particulate Kepone. Kepone adsorbed by the sand has its
concentration of 0.000002 yg/5. and is an insignificant amount. As shown
here, the suspended silt and clay carry the greatest amount of particulate
Kepone because of their high sediment concentration. However, Figure M.49
also reveals that organic matter carries as much or more Kepone than cohesive
sediment does in the region between River Kilometer 70 and 75.
Longitudinal variations of dissolved, particulate and total (sum of dis-
solved and particulate Kepone) Kepone concentrations at three tidal stages
are shown in Figures M.50 through M.52, while tidal averaged values of these
concentrations are shown in Figure M.53. As illustrated by these figures,
total Kepone concentration varies from 0.0062 yg/i. to 0.0170 yg/% with two
peaks at River Kilometer 75 (near Swann Point) and River Kilometer 53 (around
the null zone for this net fresh-water discharge case). Figure M.53 reveals
that concentrations of dissolved, particulate and total Kepone averaged over
the study area are 0.006 yg/£, 0.0048 yg/2. and 0.0108 yg/I. This implies
that approximately 44% is carried by the sediment, while 56% of Kepone is in
a dissolved form. As compared to Case 1 (net fresh-water discharge of
58.3 m3/ sec), the percentage of particulate Kepone to the total Kepone increases
from 37 to 44%. This increase is attributed to more scouring of contaminated
bed sediment and higher sediment concentrations in this case, as compared to
Case 1. At River Kilometer 77, both particulate and dissolved Kepone constitute
50% of the total Kepone at maximum ebb. At slack tide 44% of the total
Kepone is transported by sediment, while 56% is in a dissolved form. At
maximum flood tide, 59% of Kepone is associated with sediment and 41% is in a
dissolved mode. When they are tidally averaged, total Kepone concentration
is 0.0140 yg/iof which 50.5% is in a particulate form and 49.5% has a dissolved
form at River Kilometer 77.
The present mathematical study also indicates that at Burwell Bay, the
tidal averaged total Kepone concentration is 0.0080 yg/JL and that approxi-
mately 62.3 kg of Kepone per year is discharged out from the tidal James River
towards Chesapeake Bay. Dissolved and particulate Kepone concentrations are
estimated to be 0.0064 yg/J. and 0.0016 yg/£ . These values imply that out of
62.3 kg of total Kepone, 12.5 kg of Kepone is transported by sediment and
49.8 kg of Kepone is in a dissolved form.
Accumulated bed elevation changes due to sediment deposition and river
bed scouring after 1-month simulation are shown in Figure M.54. As shown
in this figure, bays in general have sediment deposition and narrow connecting
channels between bays experience bed scouring.
M-65

-------
I
&\
ON
CD
n
a:
az
LU
t_>
•21
O
<_>
LU
Z
o
a_
UJ
LU
I—
az
ZD
o
az
az
Q_
.010
.009
.008 1
.007
.006
.005
.004
.003
.002
.001 L
TOTAL PARTICULATE KEPONE
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH COHESIVE SEDIMENT
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH ORGANIC MATTER
. — PARTICULATE KEPONli WITH SAND
11
0.000 riiiiiii>iliiiiiiiiiliiiniiiiliiii>iiLiliiiiititiliiii)iiiiliMiiiiiiliiiuniili>iiiiiiiliiiiiiiii
30. 40. 50. 60. 70. 60. 90. 100. 110. 120. 130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
1'UiURE M.46. Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone Concentrations per Unit
Volume of Water at Maximum Ebb Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge
of 247 »|3/ sec

-------
	 TOTAL PARTICULATE KEPONE
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH COHESIVE SEDIMENT
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH ORGANIC MATTER
• — PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH SAND
\
CD
n
-z.
CD
i—i
I—
a=
DC
»—
.006
LU
LU
LU
/N
LU
I—
az
—I .002
ZD
CJ
f—
CO
a:
Ou
30.
40.
60.
70.
90.
130.
60.
100.
120.
110.
RIVER KILOMETERS
l'ICJURIi M.4 7. Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone Concentrations per Unit Volume
of Water at Slack Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 247 m3/sec

-------
f
ON
Oo
LD
n
&
o
a.
,010
.009
. (9(08
.007
.006
ZD
CJ .009
00
a= .ML
ft.
a
LlI
LD
fC
az
cc
.003
.002
^ • 00 L
a
TOTAL PARTICULATE KEPONE
PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH
COHESIVE SEDIMENT
PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH
ORGANIC MATTER
PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH
SAND
O . 000 l"l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 I
30. 40. 30. 60. 70.
1111111111111111111111111111 it i > 11 n 111111111111 in 11
80. 90. 100. 110. 120. 130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGURE M.48. Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone Concentrations per Unit
Volume of Water at Maximum Flood Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge
of 24 7 m-Vsec

-------
	 TOTAL PARTICULATE KEPONE
—	PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH COHESIVE SEDIMENT
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH ORGANIC MATTER
—	PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH SAND
\ .009
CD
n.
M
I .007
az
CO
Lul
(_)
O
<_)
i—i .004
Q_
LU
^ .003
LU
I—
az
_l .002
ZD
<_>
i—i
DC
ai
Q-
0.000
30.
130.
50.
60.
70.
60.
90.
100.
120.
110.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FICURE M.49. Longitudinal Distributions of Tidal Averaged Particulate Kepone Concentrations
per Unit Volume of Water for the Fresh-water Discharge of 247 m^/sec

-------
020
^-1
O
.016
.016
LQ
Z± .01U
o .012
CE
P= .010
LU
CJ
~ZL
CD
<_)
.008
.006
O
Q_
UJ .00<1
.002
TOTAL KEPONE
DISSOLVED KEPONE
PARTICULATE KEPONE
0. " 		I 1 I I I ¦ III I I I I I . I 1 I I ¦ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 H I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 I t 1 i I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I
30.
40.
50.
60.
70.
80.
90.
100.
110.
120.
130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGURE M.50. Longitudinal Distributions of Total., Dissolved and Particulate Kepone
Concentrations at Maximum Ebb Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge
of 2A7 mVsec

-------
.020
CD
.018
.016
.014
P .012
az
PE .010
i
t_>
zz.
CD
t_>
.006
111 .006
~Z_
o
a_
LU .001
.002
0. 000h111111
30.
	 TOTAL KEPONE
	 DISSOLVED KEPONE
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE

L I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
40. 50. 60. 70. 60. 90.
1111111111111111111111111111111111
100. 110. 120. 130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FECURE M.51. Longitudinal Distributions of Total, Dissolved and l'articulate Kepone
Concentrations at Slack Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 247 m^/sec

-------
.020
i
K>
.018
.016
CD
=L .014
° .012
az
F .010
.006
<_)
2:
o
o
111 .006
~ZL
O
a_
LU .004
.002
TOTAL KEPONE
DISSOLVED KEPONE
PARTICULATE KEPONE
0 . 000 F» i i i i i i i l I i l i i i ¦¦ i i I		 i i I i i l i i l i l l I l I l l l l l l I I li I I I l 1 l l I i l l l I i l l l I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I I I l I I I I II I I I 1 H
30. 40. 50. 60. 70. 80. 90. 100. 110. 120. 130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FtCURE M.52. Longitudinal Distributions of Total, Dissolved and Particulate Kepone
Concentrations at Maximum Flood Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge
of 247 m^/sec

-------
	TOTAL KEPONE
	 DISSOLVED KEPONE
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE
0.0(2)0 P'		 1111 ¦ i ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ 1111 ¦ i ¦ ¦¦ ¦ I ¦ 1111111111111111111					I		 1111 ¦ i.. ¦ 111					1. i. i. i ¦ 11
30.
40.
50.
60.
70.
60.
90.
100.
110.
120.
130
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGURE M.53. Longitudinal Distributions of Tidal Averaged Total, Dissolved and Particulate
Kepone Concentrations for the Fresh-water Discharge of 247 m^/sec

-------
LU
LU
CD
az
cj
o
I—I
az
LU
_i
UJ
-10.
Q
LU
CO
-15.
120.
130
90.
100.
110.
60.
50.
60.
70.
30.
RIVER KILOMETERS
l-'ICURli M.54. Variation of River Bed Elevation Changes Due to Sediment Deposition and/or
Bed Scouring at Maximum Ebb Tide for tlu: Fresh-water Discbarge of 247 m^/sec

-------
For this case an average annual net bed deposition rate for the 86-km
tidal James River reach is predicted to be approximately 3.6 mm/yr. Fig-
ure M.55 indicates the change in bed surface Kepone concentration and reveals
a similar trend to that found in Case 1 (Figure M.17).
3
Case 3 - Net Fresh-water Discharge of 681 m /sec
Mathematical simulation results on velocity and flow depth distributions
at the three tidal stages are shown in Figures M.56 through M.59.
Figures M.60 through M.62 present concentrations of cohesive sediment,
organic matter, sand and total sediment at maximum ebb, slack and maximum
flood tides, respectively. Tidal averaged distributions of these concen-
trations are shown in Figure M.63. These figures show that total sediment
concentration changes its values from approximately 20 mg/JL to 110 mg/£ with
a aeries of peaks at River Kilometer 38, 54, 72 and 105. These figures also
reveal that the majority of the sediment being transported in the river at
this discharge is cohesive sediment ranging from 94 to 68% of the total
sediment concentration. Organic matter constitutes 6 to 32% of the total and
sand constitutes only a fraction of total sediment. As shown in Figure M.63,
tidal averaged total sediment concentration over the entire 86-km reach is
74.2 mg/Jl . Concentrations of cohesive sediment, organic matter and sand
averaged over the study area are 59.7 mg/Sl , 13.7 mg/2, and 0.8 mg/t , respectively.
This means that cohesive sediment, organic matter, and sand constitute 80.4%,
18.5% and 1.1% of the total sediment concentration, respectively. As compared
to Cases 1 and 2, all components of sediment have higher concentrations than
Cases 1 and 2. Moreover, organic matter and sand increase their contributions
to total sediment concentrations but the cohesive sediment decreases its
percentage.
Figures M.64 through M.66 present longitudinal variations of particulate
Kepone concentrations at the three tidal stages, while Figure M.67 shows
the tidal averaged particulate Kepone concentration. These figures indicate
that total particulate Kepone changes its concentrations from 0.035 ug/g to
0.10 ug/g and has three peaks, one each at River Kilometer 43, 75, and 118.
Tidal averaged total particulate Kepone over the 86-km reach, as shown in
Figure M.67 is 0.076 Ug/g. Particulate Kepone adsorbed by cohesive sediment,
organic material and sand averaged over the entire study reach are 0.064 ug/g,
0.129 ug/g and 0.006 ug/g, respectively.
Particulate Kepone concentrations per unit volume of water, expressed by
ug/S. are shown in Figure M.68 through M.71. Figure M.71 show that the tidal
averaged total Kepone concentration for this case varies from 0.0012 ug/&
to 0.0084 ug/& with the average value of 0.0057 ug/£ . Also this distribution
has two major peaks and two minor peaks at River Kilometer 37, 54, 72 and
105, respectively. Concentrations of particulate Kepone attached to cohesive
sediment, organic material and sand are estimated to be 0.0039 ug/S. , 0.0018 ug/J,
and 0.000004 ugA , respectively. These values correspond to 68.4, 31.5, and
0.07%, respectively, to the total Kepone concentration.
M-75

-------
I
-4
CT*
CD
CD
CII
DC
LJ
Z
O
C_)
O
Q_
LlI
(_>
<31
Li-
ar
!Z>
CO
ca
UJ
on
.35
.30
.25
,20
15
119
.05
0.00
INITIAL RIVER BED SURFACE KEPOflE CONDITION
—RIVER BED SURFACE KEPONE CONDITIONS AFTER ONE MONTH
. 1111111111 ¦ 11111.11111111 ¦ 11111111111111 ¦ 																																																				
lL
30.
<10.
50.
60.
70.
80.
90.
100.
110.
120.
130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FICUKli M.55. Change in Bed Surface Kepone Concentration Occurred During 1-Month
Simulation for the Fresh-water Discharge of 247 in^/sec

-------
1.00
CJ
LU
CO
\
CO
CO
LU
t—
LU
.80
.40
.20
-.00
MAXIMUM EBB TIDE
SLACK TIDE
MAXIMUM FLOOD TIDE
/
\
/
\
/
/
\
/
/
i
>-
O
O
_J
LU
.20
-.10
-.60
-.80
-l.OlfL
30.
40. 50. 60. 70. 80. 90.
RIVER KILOMETERS
100.
110.
120.
130.
FIGURE M.56. Longitudina] Velocity Distributions at Maximum Ebb, Slack and the
Maximum Flood Tides for Fresh-water Input Discharge of 681 m^/sec

-------
9.(21(2)
6.00
£ 7.00
oc
UJ
I—
LU
21
t	}
CO 5.00
nz
>—
Q_
UJ a.00
a
2.00
1.00
130.
100.
110.
120.
80.
90.
70.
50.
60.
RIVER KILOMETERS
KICUKL M.57. Longitudinal Depth Variation at Maximum Mhh Title for the Fresh-water
Discharge of 681 in 3/ sue

-------
I
vO
(D
CO
LU
CO
3=
I—
Q_
LU
Q
O
10.0&
9.00 _
3.00
0.fllOll11111111111111111111					1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGURE M.58. Longitudinal Depth Variation at Slack Tide for the
Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m^/sec

-------
8.(2)0
Q_
UJ
~
O 3.00
2.00
1.00
120.
130.
110.
100.
80.
90.
70.
50
60.
30.
RIVER KILOMETERS
l'TOUKIi M.59. J.ongitudinal Depth Variations at Maximum FJood Tide for the
Fresh-water Discharge of 681 m^/sec

-------
TOTAL SEDTMENT
COHESIVE SEDIMENT
ORGANIC MATTER
SAND
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGURE M.60. Longitudinal Distribution of Sediment Concentration of Each Sediment Type
aL Maximum Ebb Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 681 m^/sec

-------
'V
I
CO
N>
120.
11(9.
i—» 100.
_j
CD 90.
O
CO
CO
LU
(_)
Z
O
LU
60.
70.
60.
50.
40.
30.
O
LiJ 20.
CO
10.
0.
TOTAL SEDIMENT
COHESIVE SEDIMENT
ORGANIC MATTER
— SAND
I I
30.
j—i	i i
6(9. 7(8. 80. 90.
RIVER KILOMETERS
130.
FJUUKE M.61. Longitudinal Distribution of Sediment Concentration of Each Sediment Type
ut Slack Tide Lor the l''resh-waier Discharge of 681 mVsec

-------
120.
f
00
CO
110.
^ 100.
—I
CD 90.
O
az
a=
LU
(_>
2
O
CJ
a
LU
CD
80.
70.
60.
50.
40.
30.
20.
10.
	 TOTAL SEDIMENT
	 COHESIVE SEDIMENT
	 ORGANIC MATTER
— • — SAND
i i	i	i
30.
I 1 I	I—L-
60. 70. 80. 90. 100.
RIVER KILOMETERS
130.
FIGURE M.62. Longitudinal Distributions of Sediment Concentration of Each Sediment Type
at Maximum Flood Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 681 m^/sec

-------
CD
•V
I
00
¦P-
cn
oc
LU
C_)
~2L
o
(_)
O
UJ
to
o
UJ
LD
az
oc
az
Q
120.
11(9.
400.
90.
80.
70.
60.
50.
40.
30.
20.
10.
0.
TOTAL SEDIMENT
COHESIVE SEDIMENT
ORGANIC MATTER
— SAND
30.
j_uJ
130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGURE M.63.
Tidal Averaged Sediment ConcentraLion of Each Sediment Type for the
Fresh-water Discharge of 681 111^/sec

-------
K
I
oo
Ln
CD
V.
CD
a
o
az
az
LU
CJ
o
CJ
o
a_
LU
az
_i
ZD
CJ
CO
az
Q_
.22
.20
.18
.16
.11
• 12 £.
.10
.06
.06
.04
.02
AVERAGE PARTICULATE KEPONE
PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH
COHESIVE SEDIMENT
PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH
ORGANIC MATTER
PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH
SAND

!\
I 1
\
/
I
0.00b
¦i 1111111111111111111111111111111»1111111111111 ii
111111111111111111111
1111111111111111111111
30. 40. 50. 60. 70. 60. 90. 100.
RIVER KILOMETERS
110.
120.
130.
I'TGlJRli M. 64. Long Ltudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone Concentrations at
Maximum Ebb Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge to 681 m3/see

-------
.22
•x
i
00
cr\
CD
CD
n
o
ai
cc.
LU
o
2:
o
o
o
a_
cc
ZD
C_>
QC
az
a_
.20
.18
.16
.11
.12
.10
.06
.06
.04
.02
AVERAGE PARTICULATE KEl'ONE
PARTICULATE KEP0NE WITH COHESIVE
SEDIMENT
PARTICULATE KEP0NE WITH ORGANIC
MATTER
PARTICULATE KEP0NE WITH SAND
0. OPlh 111111 TTTi 11111111111111 ¦ < 1111111.11 1111111111111111
30. 40. 50. 60. 70. 60.
11 n 111 > 11 > 11111111 > 1111111 n > 11111111111111111
90. 100. 110. 120. 130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGURE M.65. Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone Concentrations at
Slack Tide for the Fresh-water Discharges of 681 m-Vsec

-------
t£>
CD
=1
en
CO
CJ
~ZL
O
CJ
LU
IZ
O
Q_
LU
LU
I—
en
o
DC

-------
00
CO
LD
CD
ZL
CD
Q_
LU
LU
t—
a:
_i
ZD
(_)
~c
a=
a_
a
LU
CD
a:
CO
UJ
>
ai
a=
a
.20
. 16
. 16
.11
.12
.10
.08
.06
.04
.02
0.00
AVERACE PARTICULATE KEPONE
PARTICUIJVTE KEPONE WITH COHESIVE
SEDIMENT
PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH ORGANIC
MATTER
PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH SAND
\

/
/\
r
\
hi i i i i I i i i I i 					 i I i i i i i i i i i I		 i i I i i i i i i i i i I i i i i i i i i i I 			 i i I i i i i ¦ i i i i
I I I I I I I I I
30. 40. 50. 60. 70. 60. 90. 100.
RIVER KILOMETERS
&10.
120.
130.
FIGURE M.67. Tidal Averaged I'articulaLe Kepone Concentrations for the
Fresh-water Discharge of 68J m^/sec

-------
TOTAL PARTICULATE KEPONE
.010
.009
. 012)6
.007
.006
.005
.004
.003
.002
.001
0.000
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH COHESIVE SEDIMENT
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH ORGANIC MATTER
• — PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH SAND

\
1111111111.. i 		I. ¦i... I	I......... I			I........ 11¦i. 11..1111.. ¦ i. i ¦¦ I ¦ 11111111
30.
40.
50.
60.
70.
60.
90.
100.
110.
120.
130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FICURE M.68. Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone Concentrations per Unit
Volume of Water at Maximum Ebb Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge
of 681 m^/sec

-------
.010
.009
.006
.007 I.
.006
.005
.004
.003
.002
.001 1
	 TOTAL PARTICULATE KEPONE
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH COHESIVE SEDIMENT
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH ORGANIC MATTER
— • — PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH SAND
0.000
30. 40.
60. 70. 80. 90.
RIVER KILOMETERS
100. 110.
130
FIGURE M.69. Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Ketone Concentrations per Unit Volume
of Water at Slack Tide for tlie Fresli-water Discharge of 681 m^/sec

-------
.010
.009
.008
.007
.006
.005
.004
.003
.002
.001
0.000
	 TOTAL PARTICULATE KEPONE
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH
COHESIVE SEDIMENT
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH
ORGANIC HATTER
— PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH
SAND
I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I.I.J 1.1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I H I

I I I I I 11 ui
30.
40.
50.
60.
70.
80.
90.
100.
110.
120.
130
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGURE M.70. Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone Concentrations per Unit
Volume of Water at Maximum Flood Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge
of 681 m^/sec

-------
.010
I—>
_J
\ .009
(_D
=t
*	f
uj -mQ
o
U] -®<®7
f .006
CH
_J
o .005
1—1
l—
ac
err .00a
Q_
a
LlJ .003
.002
.001
0.000
TOTAL PARTICULATE KEPONE
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH COHESIVE SEDIMENT
PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH ORGANIC MATTER
— • — PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH SAND
¦ ¦111iii'I¦¦1¦¦¦1¦1111¦1¦111¦111¦¦¦111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
11111111111
30.
40.
90.
60.
70.
00.
90.
100.
110.
120.
130
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGURE M.71. Longitudinal Distributions of Tidal Averaged Particulate Kepone Concentrations
per Unit Volume of Water for the Fresh-water Discharge of 68] in^/sec

-------
Figures M.72 through M.75 present longitudinal distributions of dis-
solved, particulate and total Kepone concentrations. As shown in Figure M.75,
tidal averaged total Kepone concentration varies from 0.0072 ug/& to 0.0155 ug/2,
with an average value of 0.0124 yg/£. Tidal averaged particulate Kepone
concentration obtained over the entire 86-km reach is 0.00575 ug/& which
corresponds to 46% of the total Kepone concentration. Similarly overall dis-
solved Kepone concentration is 0.00665 ug/Jl which is 54% of the total Kepone
concentration. As compared to Cases 1 and 2, particulate Kepone for this case
has the highest contribution to the total Kepone, due to the higher rate of
bed scouring and subsequent sediment concentration under these flow conditions.
The simulation results also reveal that at Burwell Bay, the tidal aver-
aged concentrations of total particulate and dissolved Kepone are 0.0093 yg/£,
0.0026 pg/£, and 0.0066 ug/£, respectively. Hence, it is estimated that under
this net fresh-water discharge of 681 m^/sec, approximately 200 kg of Kepone
per year is flushed out from the tidal James River toward Chesapeake Bav. Of
that total, 28% or 56.0 kg is being transported by sediment and 72% or 144 kg
is moved out in a dissolved form.
Changes in accumulated river bed elevation and in Kepone concentration
on the river bed surface are shown in Figure M.76 and M.77. Unlike Cases 1
and 2, an overall net erosion of the river bed occurs at a rate of 4.1 mm/yr
under this high flow condition.
Case 4 - Overall Evaluation Through Combination of Results on
Cases 1, .2 and 3
In order to obtain a realistic estimate of Kepone transport, the com-
puter results obtained for Cases 1, 2, and 3 were combined with their fre-
quency of occurrence. As mentioned before, net fresh-water discharges of
58.3 m^/sec (Case 1) and 681 m^/sec (Case 3) correspond to the 10 and 90 per-
centile of discharge. The discharge of 247 m^/sec (Case 2) is the annual
average discharge. To best estimate probable annual Kepone transport, based
on the results of these three cases, Case 1, 2, and 3 were assigned to occur
30, 40, and 30% of the time.
Annual total sediment concentration over the entire 86-km study reach is
estimated to be 59.0 rag/5. . The annual total Kepone concentration over the
area is 0.0108 ugA. . The annual particulate Kepone concentration over the
area is computed to be 0.072 pg/g or 0.0028 yg/S. , while dissolved Kepone
concentration is 0.0064 ug/& • Hence, 26% of the total Kepone is transported
with sediment and 74% is in a dissolved form.
Similarly, the average annual net bed deposition rate for the 86-km
tidal James River reach is estimated to be 0.7 mm/yr which agrees reasonably
well with field data obtained during the last 70 years (Nichols, 1972). This
also confirms the general validity of the present mathematical simulation.
M-93

-------
V©
IS
.020
.018
.016
CD
=»- .014
° .012 L
TOTAL KEPONE
	 DISSOLVED KEPONE
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE
CC
OC
UJ
(_)
Z
O
(_)
,010 L
.000 L
111 .006 [L
2:
o
Q_
LU .004
.002 L
. 000 Fi 1111111111111 ¦ ¦ 1111					11111111111 ii 111 ii n 11111111
30. 40. 50. 60. 70. 60.
"I ""¦¦¦¦¦ I ¦ ¦ i " i" ¦ I ¦ * 11 ii
90. 100. 110.
i > 1111111111,
130. 130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGURE M.72. Longitudinal Distributions of Total, Dissolved and Particulate Kepone
Concentrations at Maximum Ebb Title for the Fresh-water Discharge
of 681 m^/sec

-------
.020
3
I
vo
Cn
.016
^ .016
_l
^ .014
»	;
ZZ.
° .012
.010
.008
cc
oc
CJ
z
o
CJ
it i .006
ZZL
O
Q_
LU .004
.002
0.000
	 TOTAL KEPONE
	 DISSOLVED KEPONE
	PARTICULATE KEPONF
T I I I I I I J 1 1 ll l l l l l l l I I l l l i i i l l I l i i i l i l i l I i l ¦ l l l i i l > l l i i i i i i i I i i l i i i l i i I i 			 l I l 		nil	in
30.
40.
50.
60.
70.
60.
90.
100.
110.
120.
130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGURE M.73. Longitudinal Distributions of Total, Dissolved and Particulate Kepone
Concentrations at Slack Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 681 m^/sec

-------
.020
VO
ON
.818 L
.016 L
CD
=i .011 i
° .012
i—«
I—
en
F .010
^ .008
O
CJ
111 .006
O
Q_
.004
.002
0.000
TOTAL KEPONE
	 DISSOLVED KEPONE
	 PARTICULATE KEPONE
t~i i n > 1111111 n 11111111111 > 111111111111 > I»i»n 11111111111111111111111111111 in 11111 ii 11111111»i n 111
30.
40.
50.
60.
70.
80.
90.
100.
110.
120.
130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FICUKE M. 74.
Longitudinal Distributions of Total, Dissolved and Particulate Kepone
Concentrations at Maximum flood Tide lor the Fresh-water Discharge
of 681 mVsec

-------
,020
?
vo
CD
n.
o
o
o
o
Q_
LlJ
a
LlJ
CD
az
az
az
az
Q
.018
.016
a= .014
O .012 L
TOTAL KEPONE
DISSOLVED KEPONE
PARTICULATE KEPONE
.010 E-
.006
.006
.004 L
.002 L
0.000 El
30.
J-
40.
50.
60.
70.
80.
90.
100.
110.
120.
130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGURE M.75. Longitudinal Distributions of Tidal Averaged Total, Dissolved and
Particulate Kepone Concentrations for the Fresh-water Discharge of
681 in -V sec

-------
15.
i—S
or 1ffl
UJ 10-
or
o
a:
UJ
-10.
-15.
130.
100.
110.
120.
70.
60.
90.
50.
60.
RIVER KILOMETERS
FIGURE M.76. Variation of River Bed Elevation Changes Due to Sediment Deposition and/or
Bed Scouring at Maximum Ebb Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 681 m3/sec

-------
35
30 _
	INITIAL RIVER BED SURFACE KEPONE CONDITION
	 RIVER BED SURFACE KEPONE CONDITION AFTER ONE MONTH
25
20 _
15 _
10 _
05 _
/
'X
V	
,00
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
11) 11111111111111111111111111111111111
30. 40. 50. 60. 70. 60. 90. 100.
RIVER KILOMETERS
110.
120.
130
FIGURE M.77. Change in Bed Surface Kepoue Concentration Occurred During 1-Month
Simulation for the l?resh-water Discharge of 681 i»3/sec

-------
Finally, it is estimated that 89.1 kg of Kepone per year is transported
from the tidal James River towards Chesapeake Bav. Of that, 22.5 kg of
Kepone is a particulate form associated with sediment, and 66.6 kg is in a
dissolved form. Since there are some possibilities that the contaminated
sediment is deposited and/or dissolved Kepone is adsorbed by cleaner sediment
between Burwell Bay and the James River mouth, 89.1 kg/yr is a conservative
estimate. However, since 74% of the Kepone is in the dissolved form, it is
judged that changes in the total Kepone concentration between Burwell Bay and
the river mouth are not very significant. A summary of simulation results
on Kepone migration from Burwell Bay toward Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Ocean
for all four cases is shown in Table M.2.
As mentioned in Chapter V (see Table V.26), approximately 9,600 kg
(20,000 lb) of Kepone is estimated to be present in the James River. Hence
with a flushing rate of 89.1 kg/yr Kepone from the James River toward Chesapeake
3ay and Atlantic Ocean, it may take 108 to 214 vr for natural water-sediment
flushing mechanism alone to cleanse the river.
TABLE M.2. SUMMARY OF SIMULATION RESULTS ON KEPONE MIGRATION FROM
3URWELL BAY SEAWARD FOR ALL FOUR CASES
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4
3
Net Fresh-water Discharge (m /sec)
58.3 247
681
321
Annual Total Kepone Discharge (kg/yr) 14.0 62.3 200
89.1
Dissolved Kepone Percentage (%)
84.3
80.0
72.0
74. 7
Particulate Kepone Percentage (%)
15.7
20.0
28.0
25.3
M-100

-------
REFERENCES
1.	Desai, C. S., and J. F. Abel. 1972. Introduction to the Finite Element
Method, for Engineering Analysis. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company,
New York.
2.	Garnas, R. L., A. W. Baurquin, P. H. Pritchurd. 1977. "Fate and Degrada-
tion of Kepone in Estuarine Microcosms." Chesapeake Bay, Program II,
Easton, MD. September 20-21, 1977.
3.	Huggett, R., D. Haven and M. Nichols. 1978. Kepone-Sediment Relationships
in the James River. Final Report to U.S. EPA Gulf Breeze Laboratory.
4.	Krone, R. B. 1962. Flume Studies of the Transport of Sediment in
Estuarial Shoaling Processes. Hydraulic Engineering Laboratory and
Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory, University of California
at Berkeley.
5.	Nichols, M. M. 1972. "Sediments of the James River Estuary, Virginia."
Geo. Soc. Amer. Mem. 133:169-212.
6.	Norton, W. R. and I. P. King. 1977. "Operating Instructions for the
Computer Program RMA-2: A Two Dimensional Finite Element Program for
Problems in Horizontal Free Surface Hydrodynamics." Resources Management
Associates, Lafayette, California.
7.	Norton, W. R., I. P. King and G. T. Orlob. 1973. A Finite Element
Model for Lower Granite Reservoir. Water Resources Engineers, Inc.,
Walnut Creek, California.
8.	Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 1978. Proceedings of a Workshop on
Evaluation of Models Used for the Environmental Assessment of Radionuclide
Releases, September 6-9, 1977, Gatlinburg, TN.
9.	Onishi, Y. 1977a. Finite Element Models for Sediment and Contaminant
Transport in Surface Waters — Transport of Sediments and Radionuclides
in the Clinch River. BNWL-2227.
10.	Onishi, Y. 1977b. Mathematical Simulation of Sediment and Radionuclide
Transport in the Columbia River. BNWL-2228.
11.	Onishi, Y., and R. M. Ecker. "Mathematical Simulation of Transport of
Kepone and Kepone-Laden Sediments in the James River Estuary." Presented
at the Kepone II Seminar, Easton, MD, September 1977.
12.	Onishi, Y., P. A. Johanson, R. G. Baca and E. L. Hilty. 1976. Studies
of Columbia River Water Quality - Development of Mathematical Models for
Sediment and Radionuclide Transport Analysis. BNWL-B-452.
M-101

-------
13.	Partheniades, E. 1962. A Studv of Erosion and Deposition of Cohesive
Soils in Sale Water. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California at Berkeley.
14.	Shupe, S. J., and G. W. Dawson. 1977. Current Disposition of Kepone
Residuals in the James River Svstem. Presented at Kepone Seminar II
held at Easton, Maryland.
15.	Smith, W. C. 1976. Kepone Discharges from Allied Chemical Company,
Hopewell, Virginia. Internal EPA Memorandum, National Field Investi-
gation Center, U.S. EPA, Denver, CO.
16.	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. Kepone in the Marine
Environment. Publications and Prenublications¦ Gulf Breeze Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, FL.
17.	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. 1976-2, Information
Memorandum. Review of the Chesapeake Bay Program. Seminar on Kepone
held at Virginia Institute of Marine Science, October 12-13.
18.	Virginia Institute of Marine Science. 1977. The Role of Sediments in
the Storage, Movement and Biological Uptake of Kepone in Estuarine
Environments. Annual Report to the U.S. EPA, October 20, 1977.
19.	Virginia Department of Conservation and Economic Development. 1970.
"James River Basin—Comprehensive Water Resources Plan, Volume III -
Hydrologic Analysis." Planning Bulletin 215, Division of Water Resources
the State of Virginia.
M-102

-------
APPENDIX N
MOLTEN SALT INCINERATION OF KEPONE LADEN RATES

-------
APPENDIX N
MOLTEN SALT INCINERATION OF KEPONE LADEN RATES
Kepone-contaminated residues were produced as a result of laboratory
work conducted as a part of this study. An available lab-scale molten salt
furnace was employed to destroy these wastes. Operations were monitored
closely to prevent Kepone release and to evaluate the process as a means for
future disposal of Kepone.
A schematic of the experimental apparatus is shown in Figure N.l. The
reactor consisted of a 14 in. length of 4 in. Sch 40 Inconel 600 pipe. Sodium
carbonate (1700 g-3.7 lb) was added to the reactor to give a 10 cm (4 in.)
depth in the molten state. After melting the Na2C03 and attaining a tempera-
ture of 900°C, the system was leak-checked prior to proceeding with the
experiment.
Activated carbon contaminated with Kepone was added in 5 g (0.01 lb)
batches every 15 minutes through a 1.3 cm (1/2 in.) Inconel tube submerged
in the molten salt. Submerged additions assure contact of the Kepone with
the molten salt. Operations were uninterrupted during carbon addition by
using the valved lock chamber shown in Figure N.l. Contaminated charcoal
was added to the lock chamber with the lower ball valve closed and with air
flow entirely through the line below the lower ball valve. After addition
to the lock chamber, the upper ball valve was closed, the lower ball valve
opened, and air flow diverted through the upper line to sweep the carbon
into the molten salt.
The air flow rate was 2 i,/min (0.5 gal/min) for 3 hr of the 3-1/2 hr
run. A flow rate of 3.8 Z/min (1.0 gal/min) during the remaining time caused
plugging of the off-gas lines with molten salt particulates. The superficial
linear velocities (SLV), defined as the volumetric flow rate at reactor con-
ditions divided by the empty-reactor-cross-sectional area, at 2 Z/min
(0.5 gal/min) and 3.8 Ji/min (1.0 gal/min) were 1.8 cm/sec (0.059 ft/sec) and
3.4 cm/sec (0.11 ft/sec), respectively. Such low velocities should not result
in molten salt carryover. Carryover of molten salt and plugging of the off-
gas lines was probably caused by moisture in the activated carbon feed. The
internal reactor pressure was observed to increase to values ranging from 70
to 350 g/cm^ (1 psig to 5 psig) with each carbon addition. These pressure
surges were undoubtedly the result of moisture flashing to steam at the
reactor temperature of 900°C.
Undecomposed Kepone was removed from the off-gas in two activated carbon
absorbers in series. Kepone in the activated carbon was eluted for analysis
to determine the amount of Kepone undecomposed by exposure to the molten salt.
Molten salt samples were also taken from Kepone analysis. Total Kepone-
contaminated carbon added during the run was 80 g (0.18 lb) containing 0.135 yg
Kepone/g (ppm) or a total of 10.8 yg Kepone. Analyses of samples are given in
Table N.l.
N-l

-------
Feed Hopper
1/4" Toggle Valves
1/4" Copper Tubing
4" Inconel Reactor	
>1/2" Ball
in. / Valves
I =>
Compressed Air
1/2" Pipe
r*~—Thermowel 1
1
Furnace
~
Hood Exhaust
Activated Carbon Column
Relief Valve
Condenser
1/4" SS Tubing
Catch POT
FIGURE N.l. Experimental Apparatus for Molten Salt Incinceration Tests

-------
TABLE N.l. ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES FROM KEPONE DESTRUCTION
IN MOLTEN Na2C03
Sample
Kepone
Concentration ug/g
Total Weight
of Kepone ug
Molten Salt at end
of run
0.0033
5.6
Molten Salt after
farther air purge**
0.007
1.2
Activated Carbon
Trap #1
Trap ir2
<0.002
<0.001
<0.037
<0.019
* Sample of molten salt at uhe end of the run.
**Sample of molten salt after further air purging for 2 hr
at 3 i/min air and 900°C.
At the end of the run, considerable unburned carbon remained in the
molten salt as did 52% of the Kepone added. Further purging of the molten
salt at 3 Jl/min (0.8 gal/min) air for 2 hr at 900°C reduced the Kepone level
to 0.0007 Ug/g, (ppm) or 11% of the input Kepone. Of the total Kepone added
to the molten salt, less than 0.5% was detected in the activated carbon
traps, indicating over 99.5% destruction ana retention in the molten salt.
Surprisingly, a large fraction of the Kepone, 11% after complete burning
of the carbon, remained in the molten salt. The Kepone shows a remarkable
resistance to destruction in the molten salt and apparently does not volati-
lize significantly since less than the detectable amount was found in the
activated carbon traps. Of the Kepone added to salt and not retained by the
molten salt (10.8 ug - 1.2 pg = 9.6 yg), less than 0.6% was found in the
charcoal traps. No plating on effluent lines walls was detected.
The same apparatus and procedure as used with Na2C03 were used to test
the destruction of Kepone in molten K2S207*K2SO4*V2O5 at 500°C. For the
experiment, 1350 g of K2S2O7, 225 g of K2SO4, and 225 g of V2O5 were added
to the reactor. Air flow was maintained at 1.5 2,/min (0.5 gal/min) corre-
sponding to an SLV of 0.9 cm/sec. Unlike the run with Na2C03, no pressure
surge in the reactor was noted when the 5 g additions of Kepone contaminated
carbon were added to the molten salt, which indicated a low moisture content
in the carbon. A total of 60 g (0.132 lb) of Kepone-contaminated carbon
(8.1 yg Kepone) was added during the 4-hr run. Results of sample analysis
are shown in Table N.2.
N-3

-------
TABLE N.2. ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES FROM KEPONE DESTRUCTION
IN MOLTEN K2S207-K2S04*V205
Samnle
Kepone
Concentration ug/g
Total
Kepone ug
Moleen Salt
<0.007
<1.3
Activated Carbon
Trap #1
Trap It2
<0.0007
<0.005
<0.013
<0.093
Less than detectable concentrations of Kepone were found in ail samples.
Less than 16% of the Kepone added to the molten salt was found in the molten
salt at the end of the run. Complete destruction of the Kepone was probably
effected. The Kepone in the first and second carbon traps was <0.2% and
<1.1% of the Kepone added, respectively. For some unknown reason, the
detection limit was 0.005 ug/g (ppm) for the //2 carbon sample. Actually
since the it! trap follows #1, the Kepone in the /'2 carbon should be less
than in the #1 carbon. The Kepone is probably completely destroyed in the
system, but certainly over 99.6% is destroyed under conditions used in this
experiment.
N-4

-------