TC-3042
FINAL REPORT
EPA-910/9-85-134d
POTENTIAL REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
FOR THE
COMMENCEMENT BAY
NEARSHORE / TIDEFLATS
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
AUGUST, 1985
PREPARED FOR:
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
AND U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. james D. Krull, Project Manager
Washington State Department of Ecology
Olympia, Washington
-------
TC 3042-02
Final Report
COMMENCEMENT BAY NEARSHORE/
TIDEFLATS REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
Task 6 Report
POTENTIAL REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
by
Tetra Tech, Inc.
for
Washington State Department of Ecology
and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. James D. Krull, Project Manager
Washington State Department of Ecology
Olympia, Washington
August, 1985
Tetra Tech, Inc.
11820 Northup Way, Suite 100
Bellevue, Washington 98005
-------
CONTENTS
im
LIST OF FIGURES v
LIST OF TABLES vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS viii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 BACKGROUND 1
1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION 1
1.3 NATURE AND EXTENT OF PROBLEM 5
1.4 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT 6
1.5 REPORT OVERVIEW 7
2.0 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES 9
2.1 INTRODUCTION 9
2.2 DIRECT WASTE DISCHARGE CONTROLS 9
2.3 SURFACE WATER CONTROLS 10
2.3.1 Surface Sealing/Capping 10
2.3.2 Grading 12
2.3.3 Revegetation 12
2.3.4 Diversion and Collection Systems 13
2.3.5 Stormwater Controls 15
2.4 GROUNDWATER CONTROLS 16
2.4.1 Surface Sealing/Capping 17
2.4.2 Impermeable Barriers 17
2.4.3 Subsurface Drains 18
2.4.4 Groundwater Pumping 19
2.5 SEDIMENT RWOVAL METHODS 19
2.5.1 Mechanical Dredging 19
11
-------
2.5.2 Hydraulic Dredging 23
2.6 IN SITU SEDIMENT TREATMENT METHODS 30
2.6.1 Cover/Capping 30
2.6.2 Sealants and Grouts 33
2.6.3 Sorbents and Gels 35
2.6.4 Ground Freezing 36
2.6.5 Chemical and Biological Treatment 37
3.0 PROBLEM AREAS AND POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES 41
3.1 INTRODUCTION 41
3.2 RUSTON-PT. DEFIANCE SHORELINE SEGMENT 2 47
3.3 ST. PAUL WATERWAY 55
3.4 CITY WATERWAY SEGMENT 1 61
3.5 HYLEBOS WATERWAY SEGMENT 5 72
3.6 SITCUM WATERWAY 83
3.7 HYLEBOS WATERWAY SEGMENT 91
3.8 HYLEBOS WATERWAY SEGMENT 2 100
3.9 CITY WATERWAY SEGMENT 2 (WHEELER-OSGOOD) 110
3.10 MIDDLE WATERWAY 116
3.11 RUSTON-PT. DEFIANCE SHORELINE SEGMENT 3 122
3.12 CITY WATERWAY SEGMENT 3 124
3.13 SUMMARY 128
4.0 REFERENCES 129
APPENDIX A: LAND AND STORM DRAIN OWNERSHIP IN THE COMMENCEMENT BAY
NEARSHORE/TIDEFLATS STUDY AREA A-l
111
-------
la
lb
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
FIGURES
General location of study area in Puget Sound
South and southcentral Puget Sound showing locations of
Commencement Bay and Carr Inlet
Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats study area
Page
2
3
4
Area segments defined for Commencement Bay Superfund data
analysis 42
Definition and prioritization of Commencement Bay problem areas 45
Major industries along and discharges to the Ruston-Pt.
Defiance Shoreline 48
Surficial sediment and sediment core sampling station
locations from all studies along the Ruston-Pt. Defiance
Shoreline 50
Major industries along and discharges to St. Paul Waterway 56
Surficial sediment and sediment core sampling station
locations from all studies in St. Paul Waterway 57
Industries surrounding City Waterway Segment 1 62
NPDES-permitted and non-permitted discharges to
City Waterway Segment 1 63
Surficial sediment and sediment core sampling station
locations from all studies in City Waterway 64
Major industries surrounding Hylebos Waterway 73
NPOES-permitted and non-permitted discharges to
Hylebos Waterway 74
Surficial sediment and sediment core sampling station
locations from all Hylebos Waterway Segment 5 studies in
the Commencement Bay Remedial Investigation database 75
Concentration of chlorinated compounds in groundwater
beneath Occidental Chemical Corporation 80
Discharges to and industries surrounding Sitcum Waterway 84
1v
-------
17 Surficial sediment and sediment core sampling station
locations from all studies in Sitcum Waterway 85
18 Surficial sediment and sediment core sampling station locations
from all Hylebos Waterway Segments 1 and 2 studies in the
Commencement Bay Remedial Investigation database 93
19 Industries surrounding City Waterway Segment 2 (Wheeler-
Osgood Waterway) 111
20 Surficial sediment and sediment core sampling station
locations from all studies in City Waterway 112
21 Major industries along and discharges to Middle Waterway
(boundaries approximate, based on drive-by inspection) 117
22 Surficial sediment and sediment core sampling station
locations from all studies in Middle Waterway 119
23 Industries surrounding City Waterway Segment 3 125
24 Surficial sediment and sediment core sampling station
locations from all studies in City Waterway 126
V
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Summary of in situ chemical and biological treatment methods 38
2 Final ranking of problem areas 44
3 Contaminant loadings and relative percentages from ASARCO,
Ruston-Pt. Defiance Shoreline Segment 2 52
4 Contaminant loadings and relative percentages for City
Waterway and the Wheeler-Osgood branch of City Waterway 66
5 Contaminant loadings and relative percentages for Hylebos
Waterway Segment 5 77
6 Contaminant loadings and relative percentages for Sitcum
Waterway 87
7 Contaminant loadings and relative percentages for Hylebos
Waterway Segment 1 95
8 Contaminant loadings and relative percentages for Hylebos
Waterway Segment 2 103
vl
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document was compiled by Tetra Tech, Inc., tinder the direction
of Dr. Thomas C. Ginn, for the State of Washington Department of Ecology
(WDOE) in partial fulfillment of Contract No. C-84031 for the Commencement
Bay Nearshore/Tideflats Area Superfund Project. Mr. James D. Krull of
the WDOE was the Project Manager. Mr. Larry Marx provided project coordination
for Tetra tech, as did Ms. Mary Ruckelshaus for WDOE. Mr. Charles Kleeburg
and Mr. Robert Kievit were the U.S. EPA Region X project monitors. "Hie
work was conducted under an EPA/State Cooperative Agreement (No. CX810926-D1-0).
The primary author of this report was Ms. Glynda Steiner. Individuals
contributing to the research, evaluation, and report writing efforts are
listed below.
Tetra Tech, Inc. Technical Staff
Mr. Robert C. Barrick
Ms. Marcy B. Brooks-McAuliffe
Dr. Thomas C. Ginn
Mr. Thomas L. Johnson
Dr. Marc W. Lorenzen
Mr. Larry Marx
Ms. Glynda Steiner
Ms. Theresa Wood
Sediment Chemistry, Waterway Ranking
Technical Editor
Management, Review
Remedial Technologies, Review
Management, Quality Control, Review
Regulatory Policies, Feasibility
Study Work, Plan, Project Coordination
Remedial Technologies, Waterway
Descriptions, Applicable Methods
Case Study
Technical Editor
Production Staff
Mr. A. Brian Carr
Ms. Betty Dowd
Ms. Lisa M. Fosse
Ms. Gretchen Hargrave
Ms. Sharon L. Hinton
Ms. Karen L. Keeley
Ms. Dana Schai
Ms. Gail Singer
Ms. Gestin K. Suttle
Ms. Stephanie Turco
Graphics
Graphics
Word Processing
Word Processing
Word Processing
Graphics
Word Processing
Word Processing
Word Processing
Reproduction
V 11
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
In 1981, U.S. EPA announced an "interim priority list" of 115 top-priority
hazardous waste sites targeted for action under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as "Superfund."
Commencement Bay, located in the southern Puget Sound region, was listed
as the highest priority site in the state of Washington and one of the
10 highest national priority sites for federal funding of remedial action
under CERCLA. The Commencement Bay site was divided into four areas:
the Deepwater, the Nearshore, the Tideflats Industrial, and the South Tacoma
Channel.
On December 30, 1982, U.S. EPA proposed additions to the national
priority list. The list increased to 418 hazardous waste sites ranked
by their potential threat to public health and the environment. On this
subsequent Superfund list, the Nearshore and the Tideflats Industrial areas
were designated as a separate project, as was the South Tacoma Channel.
The Deepwater area was eliminated as a priority site because water quality
studies indicated less contamination in that area than was initially suspected.
On September 6, 1983, U.S. EPA published and promulgated the first official
National Priority List (NPL) of 406 hazardous waste sites, including the
Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats area.
On April 13, 1983, U.S. EPA announced that an agreement was reached
with the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) to conduct a remedial
investigation of the hazardous substance contamination in the Nearshore/
Tideflats Industrial areas of Commencement Bay. Under the Cooperative
Agreement, the WDOE was delegated the lead role in the investigation.
1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION
Commencement Bay is an embayment of approximately 9 mi2 in southern
Puget Sound. Washington (Figures 1 and 2). The bay opens to Puget Sound
in the northwest, with Tacoma situated on the south and southeast shores.
The mean tidal range in Commencement Bay is 8.1 ft, with a diurnal range
of 11.8 ft and an extreme range of 19 ft (COE 1983). Residential portions
of the northeast Tacoma and the Browns Point section of Pierce County occupy
the north shore of the bay. Ownership of the shoreline is vested in the
Port of Tacoma, the city of Tacoma, Pierce County, the state of Washington,
the Puyallup Indian Tribe, and numerous private parties. Mich of the publicly
owned land is leased to private industrial and cormiercial enterprises.
The Nearshore area 1s defined as the area along the Ruston Way shoreline
from the head of City Waterway to Point Defiance, including all waters
with depths less than 60 ft. The Tideflats area includes Hylebos Waterway,
Blair Waterway, Sltcum Waterway, Milwaukee Waterway, St. Paul Waterway,
Middle Waterway, City Waterway, and the Puyallup River upstream to the
1-5 highway bridge (Figure 2). The boundaries for this project include
1
-------
\
:r- .
i'3
WASHINGTON
<
z
<
UJ
u
o
O
u.
O
<
a
I MILES
I I I KILOMETERS
0 10 20
Figure la. General location of study area in Puget Sound.
2
-------
u
J, ...III J ,,...1.111.1 u
VASHON
ISLAND
/\
^ 3> s
illx
ism**; id>
.. /
:Pt.Defiance ::
pi ictom%^ Commencement
B&y
***
sSSSS
mtmmm
llll
.v.v
TACOMA
2 3
I I NAUTICAL MILES
Figure lb
South and southcentral Puget Sound showing locations of Commencement Bay
and Carr Inlet.
-------
POINT
DEFIANCE
BROWN'S POINT
RUSTON
COMMENCEMENT
BAY
TACOMA
o
L
J NAUTICAL MILES
"J KILOMETERS
ST. PAUL
Figure 2. Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats study area.
-------
the Nearshore and Tideflats areas and the associated terrestrial area with
facilities that are possible sources of contaminants (also shown in Figures 1
and 2).
1.3 NATURE AND EXTENT OF PROBLEM
Urbanization and industrial development of the Commencement Bay area
began in the late 1800s. At that time, the south end of the bay was primarily
tideflats formed by the Puyallup River delta. Since their inception in
the 1920s, dredge and fill activities have significantly altered the estuarine
nature of the bay. Intertidal areas were covered and meandering streams
and rivers were channelized. Numerous industrial and commercial operations
located in the newly filled areas of the bay. These included pulp and
limber mills, shipbuilding, shipping, marinas, chlorine and chemical production,
concrete production, aluminum smelting, oil refining, food processing,
automotive repair services, railroad operations, and a number of other
storage, transportation, and chemical manufacturing companies. The documented
waste management practices of these operations included landfills, open
dumps, chemical recycling and reclamation, and on-site storage and treatment
facilities.
A smelter (ASARCO) has been located in the nearshore area by Ruston
since the late 1800s. The plant, operational until March, 1985, generated
substantial amounts of slag containing various metals. The slag was deposited
along the shoreline near the plant and used as fill, rip rap, and ballast
material in the Tideflats area. The slag material was also utilized to
produce conmercial sandblasting material used throughout the study area.
While the hazards of the slag remain undetermined, it contains high concen-
trations of toxic metals, primarily arsenic.
Since initial industrialization of the Commencement Bay area, hazardous
substances and waste materials have been released into the terrestrial,
freshwater, groundwater, and marine environments. Discharges and dumping
of solid and liquid, organic and inorganic waste materials, and contamination
from airborne wastes entering via surface and groundwaters have modified
the chemical quality of the waters and sediments in many portions of the
area. These pollutants include metals (e.g., arsenic, lead, zinc, copper,
mercury) and organic compounds [e.g., polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
dibenzofurans, chlorinated pesticides, pesticides (phthalates), and polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)J.
Pollutant loadings in the Commencement Bay site originate from both
point and nonpoint sources. Industrial surveys conducted by the Tacoma-Pierce
County Health Department and the Port of Tacoma indicate that there are
over 281 industrial activities in the Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats
area. Approximately 27 of these are NPDES-permitted discharges, including
two sewage treatment plants. Nonpoint sources include two creeks; the
Puyallup River; numerous storm drains, seeps, and open channels; groundwater
seepage; atmospheric fallout; and spills. The Tacoma-Pierce County Health
Department summarized point and nonpoint sources in 1983, identifying 334
drains (pipes), seeps, and open channels that empty into the Nearshore/Tideflats
area (Rogers et al. 1983). Recent investigations by regulatory agencies
5
-------
have identified 429 additional point and nonpoint discharges in the study
area. All known discharges were assigned an identifier, with location
and description, and compiled in the project database (Tetra Tech 1985).
Previous investigations of the nearshore waters of Commencement Bay
demonstrated the existence of sediment contamination by toxic pollutants,
accumulation of some of these substances by biota, and possible pollution-
associated abnormalities in indigenous biota (Crecelius et al. 1975; Riley
et al. 1980, 1981; Mai ins et al. 1980, 1982; Gahler et al. 1982). These
studies indicate that the highest concentrations of certain metals (arsenic,
copper, lead, mercury) were found in sediments in the waterways, along
the southwest shore, and near the ASARCO smelter. Sediment contamination
by persistent organic compounds (e.g., PCBs) was detected in the heavily
industrialized waterways and along the Ruston-Pt. Defiance Shoreline.
The toxicity of Commencement Bay sediments to infaunal amphipods was
studied using acute bioassays (Swartz et al. 1982a). The waterways contain
highly toxic and nontoxic sediments with heterogenous spatial distributions.
Sediments with the highest toxicity were detected near docks, drains, and
ditches, which are associated with pollutant sources. In the waterways,
high toxicities were observed in intertidal sediments compared with those
from midchannel and subtidal sites.
Commencement Bay, as part of the Puget Sound system, supports important
fishery resources, especially anadromous salmonid populations. Although
occupying Commencement Bay for only part of their life cycle, these species
have critical estuarine migratory and rearing habitat requirements. The
Commencement Bay area also supports recreational fisheries, including pollock,
hake, rockfish, and cod. In addition, many of the other important fishes
and invertebrates (e.g., English sole and crab) live in contact with the
bottom sediments, resulting in a high potential for uptake of sediment-
associated contaminants. Studies indicate that the incidence of liver
lesions is greatest in fish from areas with high levels of sediment-associated
contaminants (Mai ins et al. 1980). Higher prevalences of abnormalities
have also been found in organs of shrimp and crabs from Commencement Bay
waterways (Mai ins et al. 1980). Concern exists over the potential human
health impacts from consumption of local seafood organisms that contain
chemical contaminants. The Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department issued
an advisory on fish consumption in 1982.
1.4 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
The general objective of the planned work under the U.S. EPA/W00E
Cooperative Agreement is to identify the worst problems and to provide
a database and framework for future activities. The ultimate goal of the
Superfund project is to remedy public health or environmental threats in
a prioritized manner. The Remedial Investigation focuses on sediment contamina-
tion, effects on biota, and sources of contamination. The overall scope
of the Remedial Investigation includes the following tasks:
Task 1. Investigative support
Task 2. Development of preliminary remedial objectives
Task 3. Determine type and extent of contamination and exposure
pathways
6
-------
Task 4. Determine sources of contamination and characterize as current
or historical
Task 5. Endangerment assessment support
Task 6. Identify potential remedial technologies
Task 7. Safety plan, quality assurance/quality control plan.
The key questions to be answered during the Remedial Investigation include:
Is the area contaminated?
Does the contamination result in adverse effects?
t Is there a potential threat to public health?
Can the contaminant sources be identified?
What are the potential remedial action alternatives?
Would remedial action reduce the threat to the environment
or to public health?
In order to answer these questions, the following goals and objectives
were set for the Remedial Investigation:
Define a problem sediment
Apply definition of problem sediment to delineate problem
areas
t Determine problem chemicals for problem areas
Determine problem sources for problem chemicals
Prioritize problem areas, problem chemicals, and problem
sources
t Assess impacts of fish and crab consumption on human health
Document alternative methods of dredging, handling, and
disposing of contaminated sediments
Initiate a decision-making framework for managing the disposal
of contaminated sediments
Identify potential remedial alternatives
1.5 REPORT OVERVIEW
This report represents work completed under the U.S. EPA/WDOE Cooperative
Agreement for Task 6: Identify Potential Remedial Technologies. It draws
on the entire Commencement Bay Superfund Investigation, including assessments
of chemical contamination, biological effects, toxicity, public health
concerns, and source identification. Potential remedial technologies and
actions for contaminated sediments and source control are presented in
7
-------
Section 2. A description of the waterway segments considered to be problem
areas, a discussion of contaminants of concern and their potential sources,
and remedial actions that should be screened and evaluated during the
Feasibility Study are included in Section 3.
8
-------
2.0 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Remedial technologies that are potentially applicable to Commencement
Bay are identified and discussed in this section. Available technologies
are separated into six groups:
Direct waste discharge control methods
Surface water controls
t Groundwater controls
Sediment removal methods
In situ sediment treatment methods.
Remedial technologies in the first three categories address source
control for the contaminants of concern, while the last three categories
focus on the contaminated sediments. In general, only those technologies
that are applicable to the problem areas in Commencement Bay will be discussed
except emerging and new technologies (particularly in situ sediment treatment
methods) for which there are many unknowns, and whose effectiveness and
applicability have not been demonstrated. The following information is
provided for each method:
Brief description
Advantages/disadvantages
t General availability
t Examples where the method has been considered or implemented.
Where possible, new and emerging technologies are Included. In some instances,
general cost information has been provided. Further information on these
and other remedial technologies can be found in Handbook for Evaluating
Remedial Action Technology Plans (U.S. EPA 1983) and Removal and Mitigation
of Sedlmients Contaminated with Hazardous Substances (JRB Associates 1984).
2.2 DIRECT WASTE DISCHARGE CONTROLS
The most common mechanism by which contaminants enter Commencement
Bay is through the direct discharge of wastewater effluents and solid wastes
(e.g., metal ores, ore concentrates, slag, and sand blasting materials).
There are approximately 27 facilities that are permitted to discharge process
wastewaters and/or non-contact cooling water to the waterways of Commencement
Bay. Typically, these dischargers are permitted for the more conventional
parameters [I.e., biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand
9
-------
(COD), total suspended solids (TSS), pH, and residual chlorine]. However,
industrial surveys often reveal the presence of additional contaminants
that have more serious environmental impacts than the conventional con-
taminants. The Conriencement Bay area has a very diverse industrial and
commercial community, including metal platers, chemical manufacturers,
petroleum refining and storage facilities, sand and gravel companies, food
processing facilities, metals smelting industries, and port facilities.
Technologies to reduce discharge of contaminants from a facility are specific
to the particular industry and to the contaminant of concern. Source control
technologies may vary among plants within an industry, depending on factors
such as plant age, process lines, raw products, operation controls, reuse/
recycle processes, and level of waste treatment or pretreatment at the
plant. Control of contaminants from industrial and commercial sources
involve detailed engineering studies evaluating process control and structural
modifications and improvements. A different or higher grade raw product
may be necessary to reduce the amounts of contaminants discharged through
the outfall and/or stack. Implementation of one or more of these control
measures may be necessary to achieve the desired contaminant levels in
plant discharges. Typically, a particular discharge route was identified
(e.g., process wastewaters, stack emissions), and where applicable, direct
waste discharge control measures were recommended for a potential source.
However, the specific in-plant source controls necessary for contaminant
reduction were not designed. This type of detailed source control evaluation
and design was not within the scope of this report. Instead, when source
investigations implicate a particular commercial or industrial facility,
control of the problem contaminants becomes the responsibility of that
facility.
2.3 SURFACE WATER CONTROLS
Surface water controls are remedial actions to reduce water infiltration
and to reduce or control runoff. These control measures also stabilize
the surface of contaminated areas and reduce erosion. Surface control
measures that may have application within the Commencement Bay Nearshore/
Tideflats area include surface sealing/capping, grading, revegetation,
and runoff diversion/col lection. These are well-established techniques
that will be considered as source control remedies for areas within the
imnediate Commencement Bay drainage area.
Costs to implement surface water controls will vary significantly
with each site, depending on the specific technology and several site-specific
factors (e.g., availability of materials and equipment, haul distances,
volume of fill material, labor requirementst sampling and testing needs).
A general methodology for estimating costs of surface water control remedies
and the unit costs associated with those remedies is provided in Handbook
for Remedial Action at Waste Disposal Sites (U.S. EPA 1982).
2.3.1 Surface Sealing/Capping
Surface sealing or capping is the process by which contaminated areas
are covered to prevent surface water infiltration, to control erosion,
or to isolate and contain contaminated materials (U.S. EPA 1982). Several
impermeable cover materials and sealing techniques are available for these
applications. Specific-site conditions and desired function will dictate
10
-------
the most suitable cover material and application method. Cover materials
include clay and soil-clay mixtures, asphalt, synthetic liners, fly ash
and soil-fly ash mixtures, concrete and soil-concrete mixtures, chemical
sealantfstabilizers, and multilayered systems.
Although advantages and disadvantages of each technology varies with
site-specific conditions, a few general characteristics are identified
below.
Clay and soil-clay mixtures
Well suited for cover materials in humid climates, but tend
to shrink and crack in dry climates
t Not suitable for direct contact with organic or inorganic
acids and bases
Costs depend on availability.
Asphalt
0 Not effective for containing some vapors
Not suitable for exposure to excessive heat, may crack
Not suitable for capping wastes with high concentrations
of organic chemicals
Relatively expensive.
Fly ash and soil-fly ash mixtures
Relatively inexpensive or free
May leach soluble trace pollutants that add to environmental
contamination.
Concrete and soil-concrete mixtures
Relatively expensive
May require special mixing or spreading methods
Not favorable in climates with significant freeze-thaw cycles
or in areas with shrlnk-swell soils
Not suitable when in contact with corrosive organic compounds
and sulfurous waste products
May have a design life up to 50 yr.
11
-------
Chemical sealants/stabilizers
Not favorable in climates with significant freeze-thaw cycles
or in areas with shrink-swell soils
Relatively expensive
May require special mixing and spreading methods
Not suitable when in contact with corrosive organic compounds
and sulfurous waste products.
Multilayered systems
Relatively expensive
Combines general layers that serve an integrated function
Individual applicability and constraints of each layer must
be considered in the design.
2.3.2 Grading
Grading 1s generally used to describe reshaping the ground surface
in order to manage surface water runoff, infiltration, and erosion (U.S. EPA
1982). In general, grading involves four steps: excavation, hauling,
spreading, and compaction. The selection of a specific grading technique
for a given site will depend on the desired function of that graded site.
A graded surface may reduce or enhance infiltration, or detain or promote
runoff. Equipment and cover (or fill) material needs will vary with the
intended topographic modification to be made. Dozers and loaders are conrnon
grading equipment. Specialized equipment is also available. Grading is
often performed in conjuction with surface sealing and revegetation of
a contaminated area. This surface water control measure probably has little
application in the highly caimercialized/industrialized area in the imnediate
vicinity of Commencement Bay, because most of this area is paved. However,
grading of landfills and waste sites within the drainage area of Commencement
Bay may be appropriate.
2.3.3 Revegetation
Revegetation stabilizes a contaminated area by decreasing erosion
and reducing runoff. Revegetation is usually a cost-effective method of
site stabilization, especially when preceded by surface sealing and grading
(U.S. EPA 1982). This remedy probably has little application in the highly
commercialized/1ndustrialized area in the immediate vicinity of Commencement
Bay, since most of this land is paved. Revegetation may be an effective
method for waste sites and landfills in the upland drainage areas. In
addition to the soil stabilizing effect, the vegetation will also contribute
to development of fertile soils and better site appearance. Selection
of vegetation will depend on soil, climate, and waste characteristics.
Grasses, legumes, trees, and shrubs are commonly used for revegetation.
12
-------
2.3.4 Diversion and Collection Systems
The purpose of constructing diversion and collection systems is to
provide hydrologic isolation of runoff and run-on. Surface runoff can
be controlled to minimize additional leachate generation or erosion of
cover materials (U.S. EPA 1982). Well-established construction techniques
for diverting and collecting surface water include dikes and berms; ditches,
trenches and diversions; terraces and benches; down pipes, chutes, and
culverts; seepage basins; and sedimentation basins. Functional use and
site-specific conditions will dictate the most appropriate technique.
Factors affecting the design of each diversion and collection system
include flow, function (diversion or collection), site topography, design
life (short-term or permanent), construction details, operation and maintenance
requirements, availability of materials and equipment, site preparation
requirements, and site configuration. Although advantages and disadvantages
of each technology will vary between sites, some general characteristics
are mentioned below.
Dikes and Berms: we 11-compacted earthen or pavement ridges or ledges
irmiediately upslope from or around the perimeter of a facility or contaminated
area.
Not applicable for large amounts of runoff/run-on
Provides short-term protection (i.e., _< 1 yr) against erosion
and infiltration
May require substantial amounts of fill material
Not suitable for large areas (>5 ac) (U.S. EPA 1982)
May require periodic inspection and maintenance
Usually require some form of stabilization.
Ditches, Diversions, and Waterways: excavated drainageways used above
and below contaminated areas to intercept and direct runoff.
t May be temporary or permanent
Not suitable for slopes >15 percent
ง May require paving or other form of stabilization.
Terraces and Benches: Relatively flat areas constructed along the
contour of very long or very steep slopes to reduce runoff velocity and
divert flow around contaminated areas. This control method has little
applicability for the problem sources in Conmencement Bay.
13
-------
Downpipes, Chutes, and Culverts: usually temporary structures to
convey surface waters within an enclosed conduit.
Mitigates erosive damage since flow is not in contact with
ground surface
Prevents surface water from being in contact with contaminated
soils
Not suitable for large areas (>5 acres) (U.S. EPA 1982)
May be constructed quickly during emergencies or severe
storms
Relatively inexpensive
0 May overflow and cause excessive localized erosion if improperly
designed
Suitable for very steep slopes.
Levees: earthen embankments that function as flood protection structures
for sites subject to riverine flooding or tidal flow.
Not suitable for sites located directly within open floodways
(U.S. EPA 1982)
Usually constructed of compacted impervious fill material
May be temporary or permanent
May require periodic inspection and maintenance
May require drains or periodic pumping
Failure of structure may require emergency measures
Cost effective if materials are available at the site.
Seepage Basins: impoundments to intercept runoff. This control method
has little applicability for the problem sources in Coimiencement Bay.
Sedimentation Basins: impoundments to control suspended solids entrained
in surface waters prior to discharging to receiving water.
Usually implemented with some form of surface water diversion
or flow channeling
Detention time must be sufficient to allow particulate matter
to settle
Water treatment may be required if runoff is contaminated
14
-------
Solids accumulate in basin; periodic inspection and maintenance
may be required
Not suitable for removal of soluble organic and inorganic
chemicals
Performs poorly during periods of heavy rains (U.S. EPA 1982)
May require inlet structure to prevent scouring and to dissipate
energy
Requires an erosion-free spillway to discharge surface water
Special solids handling may be required if dredged materials
are contaminated.
2.3.5 Stormwater Controls
Many contaminants enter Commencement Bay via stormwater runoff. Storm
drains discharge to all the waterways and along the Ruston-Pt. Defiance
Shoreline. The significance of storm drains as a source of contaminants
varies from waterway to waterway. City Waterway has the greatest number
of storm drains within the study area, including the two 96-in storm drains
that serve south Tacoma (CS-237) and Nalley Valley (CN-237). These storm
drains were determined to be the major source of several contaminants of
concern in City Waterway. Sitcum Waterway also receives significant loadings
of its contaminants of concern via storm drains. Conversely, Middle Waterway
has few storm drains and little source data are available on them. Since
elimination of stormwater runoff is not possible, remedial measures focus
on the control of individual sources within the storm sewers' drainage
areas. Possible sources include industrial and commercial connections,
groundwater infiltration, and sanitary source cross connections. Typically,
the relative portions of the total stormwater flow from runoff, unauthorized
connections, groundwater infiltration, and sanitary sewer cross connections
are unknown. Investigations of the storm sewer system are necessary to
delineate the relative significance of these sources within the drainage
areas. Identification of sources within stormwater drainage areas is
recommended prior to development and evaluation of potential remedial
alternatives.
If end-of-pipe remedial measures are considered (e.g., treatment)
without implementation of source control within the drainage areas, then
source Investigations are not necessary. This remedial alternative is
not prudent, and will not discourage additional discharges to the storm
sewer system. General remedial technologies that may be applicable to
reduce contamination reaching Commencement Bay stormwater collection systems
include:
An in-depth study of potential sources within the drainage
areas (i.e., surveys, inspections, smoke testing) to determine
unauthorized connections and locations of frequent discharges
to the storm sewers
15
-------
t Inspection of storm sewer lines for breaks, cracks, or poor
pipe connections where contaminated groundwater may enter
the collection system and to repair where necessary
Sanitary sewer survey to locate and eliminate cross connections
within the storm sewer systems
Improvements in materials handling within the drainage area
(focusing on commercial and industrial activities) to reduce
contaminants reaching the storm drains through spillage
of product and waste products
ง Diversion or channelization of storm water out of Commencement
Bay (to be used in conjunction with other treatment/disposal
options)
Construction of sedimentation ponds to settle particulate
matter from storm water prior to discharge
Treatment of storm water by physical or chemical means (i.e.,
filtration, carbon adsorption, floccuTation/coagulation)
Discharge to POTW (may not be permitted).
Typically, a surface water control plan will involve the implementation
of two or more of the technologies listed above. Limitations and disadvantages
of one technology may be redeemed with the integration of another. Combining
technologies requires a specific plan to ensure that individual technologies
complement one another and meet the remedial action goals.
2.4 GROUNDWATER CONTROLS
Groundwater controls applicable to Commencement Bay are those technologies
that prevent the migration of contaminants Into groundwater or remove
contaminants already present in surface or groundwater reaching Commencement
Bay. There are several applicable groundwater control technologies that
may achieve this objective. Some technologies confine or contain the existing
area of contaminated soils or buried suldges to prevent further migration.
Other technologies operate by constructing barriers to contain the contaminated
plume or to divert uncontaminated surface and groundwater from contaminated
areas. Physical removal of groundwater is also a control technology.
These are well-established technologies that will be considered as potential
remedial groundwater controls for Commencement Bay.
Several incidences of groundwater contamination were confirmed and
several others identified within the Commencement Bay vicinity. Groundwater
contamination was confirmed 1n Hylebos and City Waterways. Groundwater
may be contaminated in Sitcum Waterway and along the Ruston-Pt. Defiance
Shoreline. Typically, contamination is associated with historical and
ongoing industrial and commercial activities adjacent to the waterways
and the Ruston-Pt. Defiance Shoreline. Groundwater contamination occurred
from several waste disposal practices, including use of unlined waste lagoons;
burial of wastes and sludges from industrial processes; spillage of raw
product and waste materials; use of ASARCO slag as ballast, fill, and rip
16
-------
rap throughout the Commencement Bay area; leakage from old underground
storage and distribution facilities; and leaching from landfills. Groundwater
monitoring is recommended at sites where contamination is suspected. If
contamination is confirmed, additional source investigations are necessary
to characterize the aquifer prior to development of potential remedial
alternatives. Four groups of groundwater control technologies are discussed,
including surface sealing/capping, impermeable barriers, subsurface drains,
and groundwater pumping. Costs to implement groundwater control technologies
vary significantly with each source, depending on the specific technology
and extent of the groundwater contamination. A general methodology for
estimating costs of groundwater control remedies is provided in the Handbook
for Remedial Action at Waste Disposal Sites (U.S. EPA 1982).
2.4.1 Surface Sealing/Cappinq
Surface sealing or capping of areas that contain contaminated materials
reduces the potential for migration of contaminants into the groundwater
by preventing the infiltration of surface water. Infiltrating surface
water may transport contaminants by mobilizing them from soil, buried
sludges, slag, and landfills into groundwater. Several surface sealing/capping
materials were discussed in Section 2.3.1 of Surface Water Controls. These
technologies are also effective in minimizing infiltration of surface water
in contaminated areas. Paving is the most common surface sealing/capping
method used in the Commencement Bay area.
Bottom sealing or the use of synthetic liners is often necessary to
prevent leaching of contaminants from waste lagoons or ponds into underlying
groundwater. Typically, industrial waste lagoons in the Commencement Bay
Tideflats area were constructed without consideration of groundwater
protection. Some of these waste lagoons were discontinued and contamination
associated with them removed (e.g., Occidental Chemical Corporation).
However, others continue to receive industrial waste without adequate liners
or impermeable bottom surfaces (e.g., Kaiser Aluminum and Pennwalt Chemical
Corporation).
2.4.2 Impermeable Barriers
Impermeable barriers are used to divert groundwater flow away from
a contaminated area, or to contain groundwater emanating from a contaminated
area. Placement of any type of impermeable barriers should be preceded
by thorough hydrogeologic and geotechnical investigations to determine
design factors (e.g., groundwater flow direction, depth to groundwater,
depth to bedrock or impervious layer, hydraulic head, chemical characteristics
of soil and groundwater). Impermeable barriers are an effective groundwater
control for upper aquifers. Extreme efforts are required to place barriers
at depths greater than 80 ft (JRB Associates 1984). Additionally, installation
of impermeable barriers may increase the upgradient hydraulic head resulting
in localized heightening of the water table. Therefore, consideration
must be given to activities upgradient of impermeable barriers that are
within the area influenced by higher groundwater table. Heightening of
groundwater may increase leaching of contaminants if landfills or buried
waste sites are located upgradient of the impermeable barrier.
17
-------
Selection of a construction material for impermeable barriers depends
on local groundwater and soil characteristics, type of contaminants, and
overall cost-effectiveness. Impermeable barriers include slurry walls,
grout curtains, and sheet piling cut-off walls.
2.4.3 Subsurface Drains
Subsurface drains may be constructed downgradient of a contaminated
area to collect shallow groundwater and prevent further migration of
contaminants. Typically these drains are not feasible for collecting
groundwater at depths greater than 40 ft (JRB Associates 1984) because
of construction difficulties. These drains have their greatest applicability
at log sorting yards (if shallow groundwater is determined to be contaminated)
and waste burial locations (if underlying groundwater is protected by an
impermeable layer). Subsurface drains are generally more cost effective
than other groundwater removal methods (e.g., pumping) if contamination
is confined to the upper aquifer. Subsurface drains are often used in
conjunction with flow diversion and/or water treatment technology. Impermeable
barriers may be constructed upgradient of the contaminated area to reduce
the amount of groundwater flow to the subsurface drains. Subsurface drains
may be constructed with or without drain pipe. Design types of subsurface
drains include French drains, conventional pipe drains, and dual media
pipe drains.
2.4.4 Groundwater Pumping
Groundwater pumping is used to remove contaminated groundwater, to
control the migration of contaminated groundwater, or to lower the water
table. Evaluation of hydrogeologic characteristics is necessary prior
to design and implementation of a control measure that utilizes groundwater
pumping. Definition of the contaminant plume is necessary for placement
of groundwater wells. Chemical characterization of the contamination is
also necessary if removed groundwater requires treatment and/or disposal.
Groundwater contamination was confirmed in deep aquifers adjacent to Commence-
ment Bay. For these situations, groundwater pumping in conjunction with
source control remedies to reduce future contaminant releases is probably
the most feasible alternative for control of groundwater contamination.
There are several groundwater pumping strategies, depending on the ultimate
goal (e.g., removal for treatment or for control of contaminant plume).
Groundwater pumping options include extraction wells, injection/extraction
wells, and injection wells. Caution must be exercised to avoid saltwater
intrusion into the groundwater when designing a groundwater pumping strategy
in the Commencement Bay vicinity. The presence of brackish water may limit
water treatment and/or disposal options for the contaminated groundwater.
2.5 SEDIMENT REMOVAL METHODS
Removal of problem sediments generally should be conducted only when
the source of contamination is historical or the current source is controlled.
The technology for sediment removal is centered around dredging. As part
of the Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats Remedial Investigation, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prepared a report entitled Evaluation of
Alternative Dredging Methods and Equipment, Disposa 1 Methods and Sites,
and Site Control and" Treatment Practices for Contaminated Sediments (COE 1984).
18
-------
In general, specific dredging methods are divided into two categories:
mechanical dredging or hydraulic dredging. The remaining sections are
devoted to briefly summarizing the findings of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
report and integrating other pertinent literature.
2.5.1 Mechanical Dredging
Mechanical dredges remove materials through the direct application
of mechanical force to dislodge and excavate bottom sediments. Types of
mechanical dredges include clamshell, dragline, bucket ladder, dipper,
bucket wheel, and other excavating equipment such as backhoes and loaders.
Typically, these are vessel-mounted. However, they may be track-mounted
or land-based if the appropriate site conditions exist. Mechanical dredges
do not transport the material to the disposal site. Instead, materials
are released into a nearby barge that transports it to the disposal site.
Occasionally, dredged materials are released to a temporary, nearby, land-based
storage area. The primary advantage of mechanical dredges is their ability
to remove sediments at nearly in-situ densities. This maximizes the solids
content and subsequently minimizes the scale of facilities required for
transport, treatment, and disposal of dredged material. However, mechanical
dredges have relatively low production rates compared to hydraulic dredges,
ranging widely from 50 to 600 yd3/h. These production rates vary significantly
with the type of dredges, bucket size, mobility of the equipment, dredging
technique and other site-specific conditions (e.g., available work area
and distance to disposal point). The major disadvantage of mechanical
dredges (as compared to hydraulic dredges) is the excessive amounts of
sediments that are resuspended during operation of these units. Suspended
solids are generated when bottom sediments are agitated during mechanical
dredging operations. Generally, the two main turbidity control techniques
are cofferdams and silt curtains.
Cofferdams are installed when hydraulic isolation of an area of contami-
nated sediment is desired. Typically, the use of cofferdams is limited
to applications with shallow water depths (typically under 10 ft). For
this reason, Wheeler-Osgood Waterway may be the only problem area where
use of a cofferdam is feasible. This waterway is relatively inactive and
much of it is intertidal. Conversely, most waterways in Commencement Bay
are deep (greater than 25 ft), with active shipping traffic, and therefore
use of cofferdams would not be feasible.
Mechanical dredging operations will require control of resuspended
solids since the sediments are contaminated with hazardous materials.
Silt curtains installed around the dredging site will trap suspended solids
and debris generated by the dredging operation. Silt curtains are usually
constructed of nylon-reinforced polyvinylchloride in 90-ft sections and
joined together at the site to provide the desired length. Silt curtains
are installed in several configurations depending on site-specific needs.
Circular configurations would most likely be necessary in Commencement
Bay because of the tidal influence that reverses the flow in the waterways.
19
-------
2.5.1.1 Clamshell Dredges--
Clamshell dredges are crane-operated devices with a bucket attached
to a cable and pulley mechanism at the end of a boom. Anchors and spuds
are secured, then the open bucket is dropped from the dredge into the
sediments. Material is dislodged and held in the bucket by closing the
jaws. The bucket is then raised from the water and swung over the temporary
storage area and released. As the bottom of the waterway is dredged to
the desired depth to remove contaminated sediments, the anchors and spuds
are released, the dredge is moved forward, and the process is repeated.
Clamshell dredges are barge-mounted or track-mounted (land-based), depending
on the accessibility of the site.
Clamshell buckets range in capacity from 1 to 18 yd3 and have an effective
working depth of approximately 100 ft. Clamshell dredges have limited
production rates, typically 30 to 60 buckets/h (COE 1984), but have an
inherently high degree of position and depth control. For these reasons,
clamshell dredges are particularly effective for removal of contaminated
sediments in confined areas (e.g., around docks and piers). They can
effectively remove all but the most cohesive materials at in-situ densities.
The greatest disadvantage of the clamshell dredge is the excessive
suspended solids generated from agitation of the sediments. Watertight
clamshell buckets were developed by the Japanese and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers to minimize the resuspension of solids in the water column.
This type of bucket is sealed (tongue-in-groove) when the jaws close and
the top of the bucket is covered to minimize the loss of dredged material
as the bucket is pulled up through the water column. Studies performed
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers comparing watertight and conventional
clamshell buckets showed a 30-70 percent decrease in suspended solids generation
throughout the water column with the watertight bucket (COE 1984). The
studies also suggest that watertight buckets produce a higher level of
resuspension near the waterway bottom. This may be attributed to the shock
waves of water that precede the watertight bucket. Conventional clamshell
buckets can be converted to watertight buckets with minor structural modifi-
cations (COE 1984).
In general, it is recommended that clamshell dredges, if used to remove
contaminated sediments, have large buckets to minimize the resuspension
of solids during dredging operations. Large clamshell dredges are a well-
established technology and are readily available in Puget Sound and the
Pacific Northwest.
2.5.1.2 Dragline Dredges-
Dragline dredges are crane-operated devices with a drag bucket connected
by a cable to the boom. The boom is extended and the bucket is thrust
into the sediments. The bucket is then filled by pulling it towards the
crane through the material to be removed. Dragline dredges are barge-mounted
or land-based, depending on the location of the dredging site. Generally,
a dragline dredge offers a longer reach than a clamshell dredge operated
by the same crane. However, control of the dragline is inferior to that
of the clamshell. A variety of bucket sizes and boom lengths are available,
depending on the type of material to be removed and the depth of sediment
20
-------
to be excavated. The maximum digging depth of a dragline is approximately
equal to half the length of the boom, while the reach is slightly greater
than the length of the boom (U.S. EPA 1982). Production rates are somewhat
limited with dragline dredges, and resuspension of solids due to agitation
of the sediments and bucket leakage tends to be considerable. In general,
the medium and larger buckets tend to be more efficient and generate less
suspended solids. Availability of dragline dredges is good in the Pacific
Northwest.
2.5.1.3 Bucket Ladder Dredges
A bucket ladder dredge consists of a submersible ladder supporting
a continuous chain of buckets that rotates around two structurally held
tumblers. As the buckets rotate around the bottom of the ladder, they
scoop up the material to be removed and transport it to the top of the
ladder, where it is discharged into a storage area on the dredge. Bucket
ladder excavation has its most common application in mining, quarry, and
sand and gravel operations. Although production rates for these types
of dredges are generally higher than for other mechanical dredges, they
tend to have higher capital costs and produce excessive suspended solids
during operation. Resuspension of solids results from mechanical agitation
of the sediments and leakage of dredged materials from the buckets. For
these reasons, bucket ladder dredges are not recommended for dredging of
contaminated sediments unless the dredging area is within a dewatered portion
of a waterway (e.g., Wheeler-Osgood). Development of watertight buckets
is being considered by dredging manufacturers to reduce the suspended solids
generated by this type of dredge during transport through the water column.
However, this improvement would not mitigate suspended solids generated
by agitation of the sediments.
2.5.1.4 Dipper Dredges-
Dipper dredges are similar to backhoes and have their most effective
application when excavating materials of soft rock and dense sedimentary
deposits (e.g., clay or glacial till). A bucket attached to a long boom
is forcibly thrust into the sediments to be removed. Sediments are dislodged
by the violent mechanical action, generating considerable turbidity due
to agitation of sediments. Production rates for dipper dredges are comparable
to those of other types of mechanical dredges. Dipper dredges tend to
produce higher levels of suspended solids in the water column and are more
expensive to use than other mechanical dredges (COE 1984). Dipper dredges
are not considered a very effective method of removing contaminated sediments
due to the additional suspended solids control measures necessary and the
potential for dissolved contaminants to migrate from the site. Dipper
dredges probably have little applicability for the Commencement Bay problem
areas.
2.5.1.5 Bucketwheel Dredges--
The underwater bucketwheel was developed for application in marine
mining and dredging based on decades of experience with "dry" bucket wheel
excavators. Thorough testing of prototypes have proven that they can be
used successfully for these applications (Hahlbrock 1983). Bucketwheels
are used worldwide for deep-sea mining projects. The bucketwheel has
21
-------
characteristics of both mechanical and hydraulic dredges. A bucketwheel
dredge head mechanically dislodges the sediments and a submerged pump conveys
the dredged material from the bucketwheel to the discharge point via a
suction line. Dredged material is discharged to hoppers on the dredge
vessel, discharged to barges tethered to the dredge vessel, or transported
through floating or submerged pipelines to the disposal area. Material
is dislodged when buckets are pushed into the sediments and then lifted,
filled with sediments, as the bucket wheel rotates through the excavation.
Bucketwheel dredges are large vessels with very high production rates,
averaging approximately 2,100 yd3/h (range 845-3,965 yd3/h). Production
is dependent primarily on sediment type, which will dictate the type of
bucketwheel, cutting method (i.e., vertical or horizontal cut), and anchoring
arrangement. Dredging depths up to 330 ft are possible with floating carrier
bucketwheel systems. In general, bucketwheels can effectively dredge sediment
types ranging from moderately hard rock to adhesive soils (Hahlbrock 1983).
However, different sediment types will demand specifically designed wheels.
Bucketwheels are classified as suction or transport, depending on
the location of the hydraulic transport system. The suction chamber on
a suction bucketwheel is located just behind the cutting buckets in the
lower wheel area. This design allows immediate transport of loosened material
and probably minimizes the resuspension of sediments. The transport bucketwheel
is similar to the bucketwheels used on land in that the suction chamber
is located at the highest point of the wheel. Transport systems were determined
to achieve higher production rates than suction systems under all simulated
operating cases. This is explained by the fact that entry into the suction
chamber is aided by the force of gravity, despite the buoyancy of the soil
underwater (Hahlbrock 1983). Although turbidity production was not discussed
for these simulations, resuspension of sediments is probably significant
due to mechanical agitation of the sediments. Additional data concerning
the levels of turbidity generated by bucketwheels must be obtained before
their applicability to removal of contaminated sediments can be determined.
Feasibility of this technology for Commencement Bay also depends on the
availability of the equipment and production costs (cost/yd-*). Based on
a review of literature and related case studies, it appears that bucketwheels
have not been used in the Pacific Northwest.
2.5.1.6 Backhoes and Loaders--
Backhoes (power shovels) and front-end loaders (bucket loaders and
tractor shovels) have limited application in the removal of sediments
contaminated with hazardous materials. Backhoes are barge-mounted or operated
from land. However, their lateral reach is quite limited and their vertical
reach restricted to the boom length. Backhoes normally used for subsurface
excavation are capable of reaching 40 ft or more below the level of the
machine. Additionally, backhoes can operate 1n shallow water up to several
feet to provide access for larger or barge-mounted dredging equipment.
Loaders are used to excavate loose or soft materials in a limited
vertical range of a few feet above and below grade. Since loaders must
be operated within close proximity to the material being removed, barge-mounted
and land-based equipment are not usually practical. Loaders may be practical
22
-------
in shallow water, if material to be removed is sufficiently loose or soft.
Loaders may also be useful for removing sediments from dewatered portions
of a waterway (e.g., potentially, Wheeler-Osgood).
In general, the production rates of backhoes and loaders are comparable
to those of other mechanical dredges. However, suspended solids in the
water column generated from the mechanical agitation of sediments is consider-
able with these types of dredges. Backhoes and loaders are more practical
to excavate and load dredged materials from a temporary storage area or
dewatered site, and therefore have little applicability for the problem
areas of Commencement Bay.
2.5.2 Hydraulic Dredging
Hydraulic dredges are usually barge-mounted systems that employ diesel-
or electric-powered centrifugal pumps to remove and transport sediments
in a liquid slurry form. Pumps are barge-mounted or submersible, depending
on the hydraulic dredge. Sediment slurries are pumped into bins or hoppers
on the dredges, into barges tethered along the side of the dredge, or pumped
long distances (up to 2 mi) through floating or pontoon-supported discharge
lines (pipelines) to a disposal/treatment site (COE 1984). For transport
distances exceeding 2 mi, booster pumps may be required. Other conditions
may also necessitate the use of booster pumps (e.g., coarse sediments,
small dredges, and transport to disposal areas). Sediments are removed
by suction. In all but the most unconsolidated materials, suction must
be preceded by some mechanical device to dislodge the sediments. A suction
head is mounted on an adjustable ladder to facilitate depth control during
the dredging operation. Classification of hydraulic dredges is generally
by size according to the diameter of the discharge line: small dredges
have 4-in to 14-in diameter discharge lines, medium dredges have 16-in
to 22-in diameter discharge lines, and large dredges have 24-in to 36-in
diameter discharge lines. Hydraulic dredges include plain suction, cutterhead,
dustpan, hopper, and several portable and specialized models. Hydraulic
dredges may either be self-propelled or require towing between dredging
sites.
Overall, hydraulic dredging methods generate less turbidity than mechanical
methods, due to the minimal mechanical agitation of the bottom sediments
and the transport of dredged material through the water column within an
enclosed pipeline. The level of turbidity produced varies significantly
with the type of hydraulic dredge, operational controls, and sediment
characteristics. Specialized head adaptations are available to reduce
resuspension of solids. Improved operational controls can be implemented
to further reduce the resuspension. Unlike mechanical dredges, hydraulic
dredges cannot remove large objects and debris (e.g., drums and scrap metal)
from waterways.
The major disadvantage of conventional hydraulic dredges is the relatively
large discharge flow rates resulting from the dilution of sediments. Slurries
from hydraulic dredging operations are typically 10 to 20 percent solids
by wet weight. These low solids concentrations are necessary for transport
via the centrifugal pumps. Large storage and treatment facilities are
required for the excess volume of material resulting from the low solids
concentrations. Lined surface impoundments and/or dewatering areas may
23
-------
be desirable to reduce the water content prior to treatment and disposal
of dredged materials. Water removed from the dredged sediments may require
treatment, depending on physical and chemical characteristics of the sediment
contaminants (e.g., their solubility in water). To mitigate this disadvantage,
technology design has emphasized hydraulic systems to remove sediments
at high solids concentrations. There are many specialized dredges on the
market, in various stages of development, that pump high solids and/or
produce low turbidity. Specialized dredges include portable dredges (i.e., Mud
Cat, Mini Dredge, Dragon) and specialized head adaptations (i.e., DREX,
Cleanup, Refresher, and Waterless).
2.5.2.1 Suction Dredges--
The plain suction dredge is the simplest type of hydraulic dredge,
relying entirely on the suction created by the centrifugal pump to dislodge
and transport the sediments. Sediments and dilution water are vacuumed
off the waterway bottom through the suction head and the slurry is discharged
to a stern-mounted pipeline leading to the disposal point. By adding devices
to dislodge sediments, the suction dredge can be converted to other types
of hydraulic dredges (e.g., cutterhead, dustpan, Cleanup). The suction
head is mounted at the end of an adjustable ladder. Depth and position
of the suction head are controlled by cables attached to the ladder. Plain
suction dredges are most effective in the removal of free-flowing materials
such as sands, gravels, and unconsolidated sediments. Since no mechanical
device is attached to the suction head, hard cohesive materials such as
clay and firm native bottom sediments are not readily removed by this method.
Plain suction also minimizes turbidity generated by mechanical agitation
of the sediments. Slurries of 10 to 15 percent solids by weight can be
achieved in appropriate applications (Hand et al. 1978).
2.5.2.2 Cutterhead Dredges--
The cutterhead dredge is a modification of the plain suction dredge.
The cutterhead has spiral blades shaped in the form of a basket. The cutterhead
is attached to the end of the suction pipeline, which is mounted on an
adjustable ladder to facilitate depth control of the dredge head. As the
cutterhead rotates, sediments are dislodged allowing transport through
the suction line. A secondary purpose of the cutterhead is to screen out
debris that may enter and plug the suction line. There are many types
of cutterheads and modifications to cutters to allow dredging in different
types of materials. Cutter diameters range from 2 to 10 ft. Production
rates for cutterhead dredges are governed principally by the pipeline diameter
and the dredge pump capacity. Production rates range from approximately
71 yd3/h for a small dredge (6 in) up to 3,600 yd3/h for a large dredge
(30 in) (C0E 1984). In general, dredging depth and cut depth increase
with dredge size. The maximum dredging depth for a conventional large
cutterhead 1s 50 ft below water level. For dredging depths in excess of
50 ft, modification of the dredge ladder is required (C0E 1984). The maximim
cut depth for a large cutterhead is 36 in. Large set and very thick cuts
should be avoided since they will bury the cutterhead. This may create
excessive suspended solids if the suction cannot remove all of the material
that was dislodged (C0E 1984).
24
-------
and guide than towardsฎ the
s. % sjsrsa .%ta.va,r A &Ei
quantity of material dislodged but not removed by the suction heart e-i.m
studies indicate that levels of resu$pended sol fds Mohl^vaVlaJle
depending primarily on operational controls. Technology develo^ent
emphasized cutterhead designs that reduce resusoension of inline Thff
JSJSP"!k"y 1po,:'a?t 1n hedging contaminated sediments Thi cutterhead
Slowest fCM 1984? * %%rdnye 1" U"1ted 5tates a"d 1" the Pacf??S
Northwest (CUE 1984). Their widespread use and availability make them
among the least expensive dredging methods. Initial mobilization and set-uo
costs are considerable because conventional cutterheads are mtself-Z-oilleS
and must therefore be transported between dredging location bVtoffits
These units are economically feasible only Wn quantities to be d red oed
costSper cubic Jard^" "" 1n1t,a' "5ts to ฐbta?" a cซpetU.ป av^gl
2,5.2.3 Dustpan Dredges--
Thc dustpan drcdQc? is q fnodifirflt"inn nt x*
has a widely flared dredging head upon whirh A S I0? d9e< ^dustpan
jets are minted. The''waterjets"ter
aTea'dXTTh? eb/cavation.th,*LUe % ^ "7'
unit is not self-propelled and must S"-5Sy,S7ซJ5Tbrฃ5^!^da?rr,?SfioS:'
The dustpan is most effective in removal * *n .
sediments. This dredge was developed bv th*> n c / free~flowing granular
to maintain navigation channels in uncontrolled I'i y urpS of En91,neers
River (COE 1984). Typically, slurried of 10 to ?T$ $UCh 5s ซป Mississippi
weight are achieved with this type of dredae so1ids wet
recormiended for use in waterways with f ine-nr* *15? dredge is not
from the water jets creates excessive turhinft sed^ents because pressure
be operated with low or no water pressure to minimi ?o^Wedred9e may
of the suction line may result If the dustnan 7 26 Clogging
with a high clay content (COE 1984). Most dustDan Hrortnfc J dred9e sediments
pressures and are not well suited or desianprt tn ed^es have low discharge
over 1,000 ft without the assistance of a hnn*+ "Sp0 ,sJurr1es dl5tances
major advantage with dustpan dredges is fhafpump ^ 1984)- The
very deep cuts, up to 6 ft in V a c IS ab?t 1ฐ excaW
to expedite projects. All dustpan dredges are clasiiffl' Jm ra3y. p
discharge line diameters of 30 1n or areater nifJ t II large, with
purpose of the dustpan dredge, thฃ
2.5.2.4 Hopper Dredges
containers" cj^|^^ฐPPฎ^s^r^hesV ma^ฐte*des ig^ed^ith^a^rge-typ^huns
uI Is similar to ocean vp<
-------
into the excavation, as is typically the procedure. Suction created by
centrifugal pumps located on the dredge removes sediments from the channel
bottom and raises them through the draglines. Dredged materials are then
discharged into the hoppers.
Since hopper dredge heads are capable of removing only a few inches
of sediment, successive passes over the same area may be necessary to achieve
the desired dredging depth. Normally, as the hopper is filled, overflow
water is discharged at the dredge site allowing solids to settle and
concentrate. This is usually not acceptable when removing contaminated
sediments. When the economical load is achieved, the hopper is considered
to be full. The economical load is specified as the maximum overflow pimping
time that allows the greatest amount of solids accumulation in the hopper
considering pumping and non-pumping times (travel to and from the disposal
site) of the dredging cycle and the volume of solids that are hauled to
the disposal site (no overflow loss) (COE 1984). When dredging contaminated
sediments, hoppers are considered full at the point of overflow (assuming
no overflow is permitted). Therefore, it is unlikely that an economic
load will be achieved for these conditions. Typical slurries of 20 percent
solids are produced with no overflow as compared with an average of 70 percent
solids in an economic load. This drastically impacts the economical feasibility
of this method due to the additional trips to the disposal site and increased
volume of material to be treated and or disposed. Hopper dredges have
often proven to be the most economical type of dredge when the disposal
sites are not within economical transport distances using pump and pipeline
systems. These two methods may become more comparable when handling contami-
nated sediments, which necessitates less productive operation of hopper
dredges.
Hopper dredges are generally classified into sizes according to hopper
capacities: large class hoppers have capacities of 6,000 yd3 or greater,
medium class hoppers have capacities of 2,000 to 6,000 yd3, and small hoppers
have capacities of 500 to <2,000 yd3 (COE 1984). The pumping rates range
from 15 to 150 yd3 per minute (3,030 to 30,300 gal/min). Hopper dredges
have a maximum dredging depth of approximately 60 ft, and a minimum dredging
depth of approximately 10 ft depending on the fully loaded draft depth.
Hopper dredges are most effective for dredging deep, rough-water shipping
channels and they are one of the few dredges capable of dredging waterways
that are sloped or vary in elevation. Hopper dredges have good maneuverability,
but cannot dredge sediments from around piers, docks, and other structures.
Availability of small and medium hopper dredges is good in the Pacific
Northwest. They can be mobilized and initiate dredging in relatively short
periods of time (COE 1984).
Suspended solids generated from a hopper dredge are largely the result
of overflow from the hopper bins. For operations involving contaminated
sediments, suspended solids are expected to be minimal since overflow is
usually not permitted.
2.5.2.5 Specialized Design Dredges
Variations of conventional hydraulic dredges have developed during
the last few years in Japan, Europe, and the United States. Several needs
have led to these variations, including special applications, improved
26
-------
performance, mitigation of negative environmental impacts, and economic
advantages. Among these specialized designs are portable dredges and special
head adaptations. Some models, such as the Mud Cat, have the characteristics
of being portable and utilizing a special head adaption.
The availability of a specialized design dredge varies primarily on
whether it is a foreign or domestic technology. If a specialized design
is not marketed domestically, its use may require a specific international,
government, or private agreement (COE 1984). Production may be restricted
to a small number of units due to the limited application of some designs.
Availability of these specialized designs is likely to be unfavorable if
the demand exceeds the current supply. Additionally, new and emerging
designs may be limited to a few test models. These factors influence the
availability of a special design and dictate the initial and mobilization
costs. Technologies with limited availability should not be rejected on
the basis of initial costs alone, since the overall economic feasibility
is determined by analysis of all costs, including operation and maintenance
of all equipment; transportation, treatment and disposal of dredged material;
labor; and other project-related expenses. Specialized design dredges
may prove to be economically competitive with conventional methods once
the initial costs are amortized.
2.5.2.5.1 Portable Dredges--The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers defines
"portable" dredges as those that can be transported intact over existing
roads or that are constructed in a modular fashion for easy dismantling
and transportation (Clark 1983). Weight and capacity are excluded from
the definition because these factors are said to be too arbitrary. Dredges
are not considered portable if they must be transported via water, either
by barges or under their own power.
Characteristics of portable dredges vary significantly, and have a
wide range of capacities and design features. Dredging depths vary from
3 ft for smaller, one-piece units to over 60 ft for larger, modular-built
dredges (Clark 1983). Production rates vary from 20 to 1,800 yd3/h. Portable
dredges are available with a variety of cutters: bucketwheel, ladder with
chain cutter, twin vertical cutters, dustpan, and cutterhead with jet pump
(Clark 1983). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station
performed a comprehensive survey of portable dredges available in the United
States, as presented in Survey of Portable Hydraulic Dredges (Clark 1983).
This document provides design information on 48 individua1 models (12 separate
manufacturers), including main dredge pump data, cutter assembly, working
capacity (digging depth, production rates, and pumping distances), and
general physical characteristics of the model. Also provided in the survey
is a rating of "portability" and equipment requirements for transport and
launching of each dredge.
Portable dredges have their greatest application in shallow or isolated
waterways. Their characteristically low draft depths (under 2 to 6 ft)
enable them to dredge sediments 1n shallow waters. Maneuverability is
excellent with their relatively small size, which enables them to operate
efficiently in isolated or congested waterways. Individual models will
not be discussed in this report. A brief description of the Mud Cat line
of dredges is presented herein. The reader is referred to Clark (1983)
for specific design details of other models.
27
-------
Mud Cat Dredges - A line of portable hydraulic dredges
manufactured by a separate division of National Car Rental
Systems Inc. (Clark 1983). The Mud Cat is the most widely
known and used portable dredge and is available in several
models. Dredging depths range from 10 to 25 ft and production
rates range from 60 to 200 cubic yards per hour. The Mud
Cat (SP-810) is equipped with a centrifugal pump mounted
directly behind the 8-ft horizontal auger. The pump and
entire cutterhead can be buried in the sediments to facilitate
high sol ids/low dilution pumping (U.S. EPA 1982) . The Mud
Cat has a retractable mud shield surrounding the cutter
equipment for greater suction efficiency and minimal sediment
resuspension. Low turbidity production of the Mud Cat makes
this technology particularly applicable for removal of
contaminated sediments. Mud Cat dredges are available in
the Pacific Northwest and their portability allows for easy
transport via truck or air (COE 1984). Due to limited dredging
depths, use of Mud Cats in Commencement Bay is restricted
to intertidal areas or during low tides.
2.5.2.5.2 Special Head AdaptationsThe primary focus on development
of special head adaptations is the design of systems that remove sediments
at high solids concentrations and/or minimize the resuspension of sediments.
These systems typically have low production rates, although when dredging
contaminated sediments, this feature is usually of secondary importance
to reducing turbidity and/or achieving high solids concentration. Since
many of these special head adaptions are relatively new, there may be many
unknowns concerning their applications and limitations. Additional research,
development, and experience may be necessary to fully define their usage.
Among the most noteworthy special head adaptations discussed herein are
the DREX, the Cleanup, the Refresher System, and the Waterless.
DREX Head - The DREX head was developed by the Japanese
company Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Unlike most hydraulic
dredges with a fixed head on an adjustable ladder, the DREX
head allows the suction mouth to move laterally with respect
to the dredge head and ladder. Once the ladder swings through
an arc removing sediments, the suction mouth can be moved
prior to returning to the ladder. This allows dredging
in parallel arcs rather than intersecting arcs as is the
procedure for conventional cutterheads. Parallel arcs are
a more efficient tracking pattern since there is essentially
no deadheading in the dredging operation. For this reason,
use of the DREX head increases sol Ids content of sediment
slurries because pumping of excess water as the dredge head
Basses over previously dredged areas has been eliminated,
se of the DREX head will reduce the total volume of slurry
to be treated and/or disposed, but it does not appear to
have any significant advantage over other conventional hydraulic
methods 1n minimizing the resuspension of sediments.
28
-------
Cleanup System - The Cleanup system, developed by the Japanese
company Toa Harbor Works, is a unique method for dredging
highly contaminated sediments. Design emphasis for the
Cleanup system was maximum control of turbidity, with secondary
importance on maximizing the solids content of the slurry.
The Cleanup head consists of a shielded auger mounted on
a ladder at the front end of a pipeline dredge. As the
ladder moves through the excavation, the shield guides the
sediments towards the suction of a submerged centrifugal
pump (COE 1984). Resuspension of solids is minimized by
shielding the auger with a wing that adjusts vertically,
enabling the head to maintain contact with the surface sediments
and preventing the sediments outside the head from being
influenced by the turbulence within the head. The dredging
operation is monitored by sonar devices that indicate elevation
and by underwater televisions that observe effectiveness
of the turbidity controls. The Cleanup system has proven
effective at removing contaminated sediments with minimal
resuspension of solids and with high solids concentrations.
Suspended solids concentrations around the Cleanup system
ranged from 1.7 to 3.3 mg/L at the sediment surface to 1.1 to
7.0 mg/L at 10 ft above the suction equipment, relative
to background near-surface levels of less than 40 mg/L (COE
1984). These levels of suspended solids are approximately
one-fiftieth of those associated with conventional hydraulic
dredging methods. Since the Cleanup system is a Japanese-
manufactured system, its availability in the United States
may be limited. Domestic marketing is likely in the near
future due to the system's compatability with existing
American-made equipment (COE 1984). Limited availability
of the Cleanup system is likely to result in higher mobilization
and initial costs for this method.
Refresher System - The Refresher system is a modification
of the cutterhead recently developed by the Japanese. The
Refresher uses a helical-shaped gather head to feed the
sediments into the suction. It is equipped with a curve
to reduce resuspension of sediments. The dredge ladder,
articulated to keep the head level with the waterway bottom,
facilitates dredging over a wide range of depths. Results
of comparison tests in similar material show the Refresher
system generates one-fifteenth of the total resuspended
solids generated by the operation of a conventional cutterhead
(COE 1984). Since the refresher is a Japanese-manufactured
system, Its availability in the United States may be limited.
Domestic marketing is likely in the near future due to the
system's compatabil1ty with existing American-made equipment
(COE 1984). Limited availability of the Refresher system
is likely to result 1n higher mobilization and initial costs
for this method.
Waterless Dredge - The Waterless dredge was developed by
the American firm, Waterless Dredge Company, for the removal
of sludges from lagoons with minimal water content. The
29
-------
dredge head is equipped with a shrouded "roll-over" cutter
and a submerged centrifugal pump. As the cutterhead is
moved through the excavation, sediments displace the water
in the cutterhead and block entry of water into the dredge
pump inlet. At the limit of the cut in one direction, the
cutterhead rolls over 180 degrees so that the face of the
cutterhead is open to receive sediments in the return direction.
The Waterless dredge continues to be field-tested and its
application in removal of contaminated sediments has been
limited. It is reported that the Waterless dredge can pump
slurries containing less than 10 percent water by volume
with little resuspension of sediments.
2.6 IN SITU SEDIMENT TREATMENT METHODS
In situ treatment methods eliminate the need to remove contaminated
sediments, thereby reducing the impacts associated with dredging. These
methods include:
Cover/capping
t Sealants and grouts
Sorbents and gels
Ground freezing
Chemical and biological treatment.
However, other than cover/capping sediments, few of these methods have
been utilized to control contaminated sediments. Sealants and grouts have
been used to stabilize sediments for offshore structures, but the remaining
technologies are relatively new in terms of applicability to seafloor
sediments. Specific methods are largely untested, and often depend on
foreign-made equipment, which is 1n limited supply. The primary sources
for the following discussion of these 1n situ treatment methods are A
Feasibility Study of Response Techni ques for Discharges of Harzardous Chemicals
that SIrit" (Hancfet al. 1978) and Removal and Mitigation of Sediments Con-
taminated with Hazardous Substances (JRB Associates 1984).
2.6.1 Cover/Capping
Covering or capping contaminated sediments has been used to minimize
water column and biota exposure to the contaminants. This technique is
useful as 1) a temporary measure to minimize the spread of contaminants
until a long-term remedial measure is Implemented; 2) a primary remedial
measure to reduce impacts from contaminated sediments; and 3) a post-removal
measure to cover any residual contamination. Many of the systems for applying
cover materials were developed for dredging or open water dredged material
disposal.
There are three overall groups of cover materials: Inert materials,
active materials, and synthetic liner materials. Inert materials include
sand, silt, and clay and may be fine-grained, coarse-grained, or uncontaminated
30
-------
dredged spoils. Active cover materials include limestone, greensand, oyster
shells, alum, alumina, ferric sulfate, and gypsum. The function of an
active cover material as opposed to an inert material is to react with
the contaminant to neutralize or detoxify it. Specific active cover materials
should be selected on the basis of the contamination present. Neutralizing
acids can be accomplished with limestone, oyster shells, or greensand.
Bases can be neutralized with ferric sulfate or alum. Gypsum or ferric
sulfate can be used for metal precipitation, while alumina is useful for
fluoride removal. Active cover materials can be applied alone or with
inert materials. However, care must be taken during placement of active
cover materials because they can harm biota outside the contaminated area.
Synthetic liners are available in a variety of materials. Liners
must be selected on the basis of their compatibility with the contaminated
sediments and their ability to withstand temperature and seawater effects.
Synthetic liners such as butyl rubber and chlorinated polyethylene are
not compatible with oils and hydrocarbon solvents.
The effectiveness of different cover/capping materials depends on
a number of factors. The principle determinants for inert and active covering
materials are 1) turbidity and dispersion generated during application
of the material; 2) impacts on benthic organisms; 3) scouring and resuspension
of cover material once in place; and 4) resistance to leaching of contaminants.
Turbidity and dispersion are a function of the delivery system used to
place the cover material on the bottom. Impacts on biota are also directly
related to the method of material delivery, the areal extent covered, and
the toxicity of the material (particularly for active cover materials).
The ability of the cover material to be recolonized without contaminant
bioaccumulation depends on the type of cover material, its resemblance
to natural sediments, the thickness of the cap (it must be thick enough
to keep burrowing organisms from reaching the contaminated sediments),
and the potential for contamination leaching through the cover.
The susceptibility to scouring and resuspension of cover materials
is related to the particle size and shape, slope of the bottom, angle of
repose of the cover material, degree of material cohesiveness, and the
flow dynamics. The leaching of contaminated sediments through the cover
material is governed by the permeability of the cover, which is directly
related to grain size. The larger the grain size, the greater the potential
for contaminant leaching. The amount of time before the contaminant would
actually begin leaching from the area depends on the degree of sorption
of contaminants by the cover material and the thickness of the cap.
Besides these controlling influences on the effectiveness of cover,
active cover materials must also remain in place long enough to react with
and treat the contaminated sediments. Gypsum and limestone tend to form
a cement-like cover that resists erosion. Ferric sulfate, alumina, and
alum are fine-grained and susceptible to erosion, while oyster shells and
greensand are the most susceptible to scour. Inert cover materials can
be mixed with the active materials to add erosion resistance, although
effective interaction with sediments may decrease due to the reduced contact
between the active cover material and sediments.
31
-------
The effectiveness of synthetic liners is based on proper placement,
adequate bonding of adjacent strips of liner, durability of the synthetic
material, and provisons for venting gases that build up under the cover.
The material must be placed on relatively flat areas that are free of jagged
outcroppings and obstructions to prevent tearing. The liners need to be
weighted (preferably with natural sediments) to prevent displacement and
minimize tearing. This will also aid recolonization of the area. Adjacent
strips of liner must be bonded well to provide a continuous cover for the
contaminated sediments.
Several methods are available for delivering cover materials to the
sea bottom. A barge-mounted roller apparatus has been proposed for laying
synthetic liners at depths of 25-30 ft, but has not been tested. For inert
and active cover materials, delivery can be accomplished by point-dumping,
pump-down, submerged diffuser, or spray/spreader systems. Point-dumping
involves barges or other vessels that release the cover materials from
the water surface, allowing them to settle over the contaminated sediments.
Such vessels have been extensively used for ocean disposal of dredged spoils
deposited in protected coastal waters. The major drawback of this system
is the high turbidity and possible dispersion as the material moves down
through the water column. Also, silts and clays with low moisture content
tend to fall in a clump, causing resuspension of contaminated sediments
when they impact the bottom. Although sand is less cohesive and has a
higher moisture content, a significant amount of turbidity and resuspension
occurs.
Pump-down systems involve a barge loaded with the cover material and
a telescoping tremie tube or similar means of conveying the material directly
to the sea bottom. Since the material does not pass through the entire
water column, turbidity and dispersion are not as significant a problem
as with point dumping. Resuspension of contaminated sediments is also
lessened as long as the discharge pipe is maintained close to the bottom.
Pump-down systems are slower at covering a given area than are point-dumping
systems and may require monitoring to ensure complete coverage of the
contaminated sediments.
A submerged diffuser system can also be used to convey the cover material
directly to the bottom and is very effective at controlling the material
placement. The diffuser head reduces the velocity and turbulence during
the material discharge, thereby reducing scour and turbidity. Thickness
of the cover and impact velocity of the material can be controlled by varying
the discharge velocity and height above the bottom. Sediments at depths
of 100 ft can be covered with a submerged diffuser head.
Another system being tested is a spray or spreader system, which is
similar to the pump-down system. A slurry with 15-20 percent solids of
the desired cover material is pumped through a spreader pipe. The spreader
pipe is not necessarily kept near the sediment surface, but the use of
a slurry helps reduce turbidity.
Covering contaminated sediments has been considered or implemented
at a number of sites. At the Kepone contamination site in the James River,
covering some contaminated areas with an impervious blanket was considered
but later rejected in favor of several dredging options. For the Mill River
32
-------
site with high lead concentrations in sediments, isolating the contamination
with a clay or synthetic cap was evaluated as a remedial alternative.
It was concluded that both short- and long-term environmental impacts would
be moderate from the resuspension of sediment during the capping operation
and later from erosion of the cap, with possible release of the contaminated
sediments. Because of the river flow, there was also concern about anchoring
a synthetic cap. Dredging was identified as the preferred alternative,
despite estimated costs doubling those of the capping alternative. An
impermeable liner was considered for PCB-contaminated sediments in the
upper Hudson River, but was eliminated during initial screening because
capping had not been demonstrated as feasible for rivers. Capping and
covering were considered for the PCB contamination in Waukegan Harbor.
An impermeable membrane seal was rejected because it was still in the conceptual
stage and would have had a limited lifetime. Use of a clay cap was evaluated
in combination with dredged material containment. A cofferdam would be
constructed to contain contaminated sediments dredged from the upper harbor.
After dewatering, the containment area would be capped with 3 ft of clay
and 5 ft of fill. While not an in situ cap, this option was among those
recommended for the site.
Capping was selected and implemented to control Stamford Harbor sediments
contaminated with metals that were dredged from the harbor and disposed
of in the Central Long Island Sound Disposal Area. Capping the material
reduced impacts on the water column and benthic fauna. Two materials comparing
the effectiveness and durability of sand versus silt caps were used to
cap two disposal areas. Point dumping was used to deliver both cover
materials. The silt material did not spread too extensively beyond the
contaminated dredge spoils because of its cohesiveness. The sand material
was less cohesive and tended to flow upon impact with the bottom. Both
capping operations were judged successful, and subsequent efforts focused
on evaluating the stability of the caps. Recolonization proceeded faster
on the silt cap. A survey 5 mo after completing the covering operation
indicated that over 2 m of the silt cap was lost, although no contaminated
sediments were exposed. Hurricane storm waves and the roughness of the
silt cap may have been responsible for the eroded cap. The nearby sand
cap showed no evidence of material loss. It was concluded that capping
operations with silt should include smoothing the final cap surface to
improve erosion resistance. While more long-term monitoring is required,
the operation involving the Stamford Harbor sediments demonstrates that
capping is a viable alternative. Covering 34,000 yd3 of contaminated sediments
with 39,200 yd3 of sand cost about $140,000.
2.6.2 Sealants and Grouts
Sealants and grouts are used extensively in offshore construction
to stabilize sediments. These same techniques can be used to stabilize
or cover contaminated sediments. The mechanism involved requires injecting
or covering the sediments with a grout or sealant and allowing it to harden
in place.
Sealants and grouts are divided into two types: chemical or particulate.
Chemical grouts, such as urethane and acrylamide, have not been fully researched
and data on their potential toxicity to benthic organisms are conflicting.
Particulate grouts are more cotimon, including cement, quicklime, silicates,
33
-------
and bentonite. The effectiveness of sealants and grouts depends on their
particle size, viscosity, durability, and chemical compatibility. For
chemical grouts, the lower the viscosity, the finer the grain size penetrated.
For particulate grouts, the grain size of the grout regulates its penetration
of the sediments. The permeability of the grout will determine its effective-
ness to stabilize the sediments and keep water out. Chemical compatibility
varies between different grouts and sealants. Quicklime is best suited
for stabilizing sediments with inorganic contaminants. Clay and cement
are not effective with acidic or basic sediments. The compatibility of
bentonite must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, while little is known
for silicate grouts. Additives are available to enhance the hardening
time, strength, and durability of grouts and sealants.
Several methods have been developed for grouting and sealing sediment,
including hydraulic isolation followed by grouting, in situ covering and
sealing, and in situ injection. In shal low waters (e.g., Wheel er-Osgood
Waterway), cofferdams can be used to divert water and allow direct access
to contaminated sediments. This simplifies the application of grouts and
sealants, minimizes dispersion of the sediments, and the migration of
contaminants. Grouts and sealants can be used directly on the sediments
or after some contaminated sediments have been removed by dredging. Two
approaches can be taken once the water has been diverted: a surface seal
can be created or the grout can be mixed in with the sediments to stabilize
them. For a surface seal, the material is pumped pneumatically to form
a layer over the sediments of any desired thickness. Various types of
vehicles have been designed to travel over the sediment surface and mix
grouts into the sediments using rotor or trenching equipment. The depth
of mixing is adjustable. The Japanese have utilized this approach and
mixed lime or cement-based grouts to depths of over 6 ft. The mixing machines
are also used to compact the sediments. With the cofferdam still in place,
the sediment bottom 1s restored with clean sediment to achieve natural
grades and enhance biological recovery.
Covering and sealing the sediments without diverting the water is
more difficult, but several approaches have been developed. A telescoping
tremie tube can be used to convey concrete from a hopper on a barge or
platform directly to the sediment surface. The lower end of the tube is
kept buried 1n the fresh sealant to force it to flow into position. If
the sealant is simply allowed to rush out, 1t may segregate (losing its
sealant properties) or disperse in the water column. Multiple tremie tubes
are used to cover large areas, since trying to move a single tremie tube
progressively over a large area greatly Increases the chance of breaking
the seal and dispersing material through the water column.
A concrete pump can also be used to place sealants on the sediment
surface. Mobile units with variable-length arms are used economically
to cover small or large areas. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has proposed
using a modified dlffuser head to lay the grout down on the sediment surface.
Ideally this would be done in even-sized bands to provide an unbroken cover.
To further enhance the success of the sealant cover, coarse aggregate can
be placed on the sediment surface and the grout can be forced into the
voids in the aggregate.
34
-------
Another method involves injecting grouts or sealants into the sediments
to stabilize them. This was used widely prior to construction of port
and harbor structures. Some approaches use a number of injection pipes
combined with mixing pipes to place the cement or lime-based slurry at
the required depth and mix it into the sediments. The Japanese have developed
systems allowing in situ stabilization of sediments down to depths of 25 to
40 m below the sediment surface. Continuous injection/mixing devices are
also available to eliminate the need to raise, relocate, and lower the
individual injection and mixing pipes. A cement slurry is continuously
fed down to a mixing device that moves up and down within the sediments
as it slowly moves through the area. The major disadvantage is the potential
for causing resuspension of contaminated sediments before the grout can
act. The need for stirring can be eliminated with a pressure injection
system. As the pipe is slowly withdrawn from deep in the sediments, the
grout is forced out by a high-speed jet. This has been used for landfills
and was recently tested at a Superfund site in California.
Much of the information and equipment for grouting sediments is proprietary
and not readily available. However, as previously indicated, this technology
was successfully applied to sediments in a number of cases, although generally
not for stabilizing contaminated sediments. Sealants and grouts were considered
during the initial screening of remedial alternatives for the Upper Hudson River
in conjunction with dredging and containment measures. It was determined
that such a combination of technologies offerred no advantage over dredging
alone. Sealants were used during the cleanup of mercury contamination
in the North Fork of the Holston River. The river flow was diverted, the
sediments were excavated down to bedrock, and the bedrock was sealed with
concrete. Over 7,000 yd^ of sediment was removed from the 1,000-ft stretch
of the river. The exposed river bed was then covered with a 3-in layer
of pneumatically applied concrete to prevent further contact between any
residual contaminants and the river water.
2.6.3 Sorbents and Gels
The technology associated with sorbents and gels has been applied
largely to spills of materials on land and surface waters. There has been
little implementation of this technology to contaminated sediments. The
mechanism involves placing the sorbent or gel in contact with the contaminant,
allowing it to adsorb or bond with the contaminant, and then recovering
the sorbent or coagulated sediment.
There are many types of sorbents, Including activated carbon, polymer
foams and fibers, and resins. Adsorption efficiency varies with characteristics
of the sorbent material (e.g., porosity, surface characteristics-acidic,
basic, hydrophilic, hydrophobic), properties of the contaminant (e.g., molecular
size, solubility, polarity, solution pH), and contact time. Sorbents are
more effective at removing contaminants from the water column over the
sediments rather than from the sediments themselves. Activated carbon
adsorbs a wide range of organic and inorganic materials, but is most effective
with nonsoluble compounds. Polymer foams and fibers are generally made
of polyurethane, polypropylene, or polyethylene. These materials have
a much greater porosity than that of activated carbon. Resins made with
a spongy, reticulated surface have a molecular porosity larger than that
of activated carbon, but smaller than that of polyurethane foam. Resins
35
-------
are more versatile than polyurethane foam, but less versatile than activated
carbon. If sulfonated, resins absorb metals and ionic organic compounds
better than activated carbon. However, resins have a high cost and are
limited in availability.
Gelling agents have been developed primarily for application to oil
spills. They irmiobilize the oil in a mousse that is easily removed. The
Japanese developed the Silica Bonding method for gelling contaminated sediments
in order to minimize dispersion during dredging. The gel is a silicic
coagulant composed primarily of sodium-silicate. The "hydrogel" formed
when the gel is mixed with sediments decreases mobility and cohesiveness
of highly hydrous sediments and becomes plastic with a weak bearing power.
The "hydrogel" also obtains compressibility which prevents diffusion of
sediments and minimizes oozing and leakage during dredging. Such gelling
agents can be costly and have limited availability.
The use and effectiveness of sorbents and gels in actual situations
are unknown. Activated carbon as a sorbent was identified as a potential
remedial alternative during the feasibility study of PCB contaminated sediments
in the upper Hudson River, but was dropped from further consideration during
initial screening because it was an unproven in situ technology. Greater
consideration was given to sorbents during the feasibility study of Kepone-
contaminated sediments in the James River. Retrievable sorbents, polymer
fibers, and activated carbon were investigated as "promising nonconventional
treatment alternatives." Laboratory studies were initiated and activated
carbon was found to be effective in retarding the availability of Kepone,
but did not remove it from the sediments. The effectiveness of polymer
films was questioned and they were considered for application only in
embayments. Specific sorbents capable of removing Kepone were tested,
but are not coimiercially available. In addition, for all of these sorbents,
concern was raised over serious environmental impacts. Due to the complex
assortment of contaminants found in each problem area, more than one type
of sorbent or gel may be necessary to maximize contaminant removal. Even
if the appropriate sorbents and gels were available, it is unlikely that
this would be a cost-effective technology. In general, sorbents and gels
are probably not feasible for the problem areas in Commencement Bay.
2.6.4 Ground Freezing
Ground freezing has been used in dam and tunnel construction to increase
the structural supportiveness of soil and to eliminate water movement.
The technique could be used to contain contaminated sediments or stabilize
them for easier removal. Refrigeration probes are placed in a closely
laid pattern in the sediment until the water in the sediment freezes.
The ice crystals coalesce to form a block of frozen sediment. The frozen
sediment is then lifted out with little disruption or dispersion of sediments.
The sediment may also be kept frozen until a different technology, such
as dredging or capping, is applied.
Although ground freezing methods are undergoing research, it is a
costly procedure due to large energy requirements. Also, the method is
best suited to small areas, since each probe affects an area only 1.5 ft
in diameter. Ground freezing might be used to collect representative sediment
36
-------
samples. At this time, it appears to have little practicality for treatment
or stabilization of contaminated sediments in the problem areas of Commencement
Bay.
2.6.5 Chemical and Biological Treatment
Chemical and biological treatment have been used extensively for hazardous
wastes in soil and groundwater, and the principles are potentially applicable
to contaminated sediments. The advantage of these methods is that sediments
may remain in place once they have been successfully treated. Chemical
and biological treatment methods are summarized in Table 1, including most
appropriate waste types, reagents, potential problems, and general comments.
Precipitation (chemical binding), chemical dechlorination, and biological
treatment are in situ treatment methods that may have some feasibility
for the problem areas of Commencement Bay. A specific method for each
problem area should be selected on the basis of contaminants present in
the sediments. The major drawback of chemical treatment methods is that
the reagents or their by-products may be toxic. Biological treatment requires
that the sediments are aerated sufficiently to allow aerobic degradation.
The effectiveness of each method depends on the extent of contact between
the treatment reagents or microorganisms and the sediment. These methods
are most effective when hydraulic isolation is achieved and the treatment
can be applied directly to the sediments. Hydraulic isolation also makes
it easier to mix treatment reagents or microorganisms into the sediments
and thereby helps to ensure maximum contact with the contaminants. Various
vehicles have been designed to deliver and mix materials for sediments
protected by a cofferdam. Without hydraulic isolation, biological and
chemical treatment would have limited success unless there is a way to
keep the reagents or microorganisms in contact with the sediments. Otherwise
the reagents may disperse, causing additional sediment contamination.
Injection or subsurface mixing devices are required for mixing when hydraulic
isolation is not possible. This can easily cause dispersion of sediments
or reagents.
Chemical and biological treatment methods have been considered for
several areas around the country. During initial screening of remedial
technologies for the PCB contamination in the upper Hudson River, ultraviolet
ozonation and chemical treatment were considered but rejected because they
are unproven technologies. However, dechlorination was fully evaluated
for remanent sediments exposed when the river level dropped and for dredged
material. Dechlorination involving reaction of potassium hydroxide and
polyethylene glycols with the PCB contamination has not been attempted
in the field, teagents would need to be rototilled into the exposed sediments
and several applications might be necessary. This procedure would be limited
in situ even with hydraulic Isolation because of the possible length of
time required before PCB levels were adequately reduced. Dosage rates,
application methods, contact times, and the effects of sediment water content
still need to be researched.
For the PCB contamination in Waukegan Harbor, 70 technologies were
considered during the initial screening of potential remedies. None passed
initial screening. Chemical oxidation and radiation were considered to
be too early in the conceptual stage. Ultraviolet/ozonolysis was determined
to be in a pilot stage suited for a closed system only and unable to penetrate
37
-------
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF IN SITU CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT METHODS
Vial* Typae TrtMant htmtial Profela
NtlM <ซmU( KeigMti
ฆMlialiiatiM
gcide fc baeea
Waak acid* m' kaaaa
To neutralice aciJa; calciaa
carbonate, ปo41m carta* or
atlliai kicarkaul*; liaeetoaa
or greeaetone Mr W 1^1 M
active rent Material
hKlfliilia
W
00
laarmk cat la
aad anion*
SallMt precipltat iaa la
ฆoat praaieiaig eiaca set a I
alfidce ara the laaat eat-
able aaatal canpaaala likely
to fana aปar a broad pM
range. Calciaa aalfete,
iron aalfata, or ijfaai mปy
be need
HiMttlaa
UMa raaaa af
argaalce; highly
chlorlaeted cear-
poaaaia aM altra
eroMtice ara
aot wall aซUtl
a 0ซ|)|a* aarf/ar otoae. and
hydrogen faros i4a
Toxicity to pit-** n* itiva a
benthoe if not,properiy
placed oa tha apill
U*a ot ferric aalfata wader a
aarobic coaditioae may reaalt
ia the formal ion of hgrfrona a
iron oii4*a which can acevenge
heavy aetata fraa water aarf My
coat tfce gille af bottea a
feedere
of 1,1
la
a Patent ial far raalaaa
gaa; Iikalibaod ia
tha reactivity af mI(Mซ mJ
Mtale decrecee
Bffectlve only aader red weed
coaditioae, oaldat ion to aore
aoluble ewlfide afacUa coo Id
occur aadar aerohic coaditioae
O* idatiaa can raaalt ia aora
aohile degredatioa prodact*
ioth aaaaa and hydrogen
peroxide My react with
organic* ia the water
coIhm or eediaenta xhich
are ปt target coapouade,
thereby reduciag effectivvaeai
Co*fo
-------
TABLE 1. (Continued)
TmtMt Waata Tyyaa Trcatoaac Potaatlal Trikli
Nt(M IwmHi ฆฆ(ฆฆla
OaUatioa (caatimtl)
Ocoaa will >ปปฆ>ป> back ta
MTIM rapidly iซi Ih* rrtinci
of organica; ilabllil; of
hftrafrm y#ro*iri* la not wall
Chaaical
4frklariMtlw
(I0M1C yraeaeซ>
(logical
t raMatut
ปiซfcly Hilwtat-
t*4 triMiei
(a.g. ret, 44 to ka
nat NirKtarjp M
Mnlic ImafDti-
|Im laclatfa chlor-
ImM mmt ultra
W|ซici, mn* fU'i
with thraa or Mora
rlaga; Iwawr,
rawoval of aiti* aaJ
chlnriaa ironyi aay
oetar ariar rHwti
CMfltlaaa
Nt)tk)lซaa glycol a
potaaaiwa kj^rull*
MtfMC|HlM| airfm
Ifa* mokic 4ซgrป4atloa)
M(l*ali
fttitMM ayataw caa tolarata
ฆaaa water hit liaita Mit
aot bซซa lilaMlaliai
Qecratfatioa (I taaparacara
4cp*ad*at and mmy proctfj
ฆ lowly at aabiaat taf rraturaa
Oritaalca iaiWi ta (tJiatati
ay fee rafractary
DctralMiMi rata* prซtw< vary
ฆ lowly at low tmparatarca
Partial aora lolaM t or aare
taiic
Hicroorgaalawe aMI (or
trtatant way ta patNpeaie
tw ta a I fait *4 talaraaca of watar,
atraao 4ivซraloa ami/or devatariaa mM
ba r**ttltc4 pilar to ttwtatat
Coat a I aatat la lafiittJ to coaflaa olero-
ta eoataalaatซ4 araaa ซtiaa
treating fcrita
Accltซtซ4, owtaat ami gaaetleally aacl-
carad alcraorgaatawa fcaaa or ara tain*
far 4agraซfpIf; raaaarch uMi ta coacea-
tfata h osygaa Salivary ayatawa aa writ
aa oa ttia ซa* af acaac aH hydrogea ftr-
oMda ah oaygan aomca
Source: JRB 1984
-------
deeply into contaminated sediments. Biodegradation had progressed only
to the laboratory stage and was unavailable for field use. These same
limitations and disadvantages may apply when in situ biological and chemical
sediment treatment methods are evaluated for the problem areas in Commencement
Bay. A lack of laboratory and case study data confirming their feasibility
as contaminated sediment management techniques may limit the consideration
of in situ biological and chemical treatment methods.
40
-------
3.0 PROBLEM AREAS AND POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tidefl ats Superfund site encompasses
a relatively large area composed of several individual waterways and is
contaminated with a wide variety of substances. Due to the complex nature
of this site, a method was developed to delineate the problem areas and
to identify specific contaminants associated with the observed biological
effects. The waterways of Commencement Bay and the Ruston-Pt. Defiance
Shoreline were divided into segments based on apparent trends in sediment
contamination (Figure 3). Problem areas within each segment were defined
on the basis of sediment chemistry, toxicity, and biological data. Problem
chemicals within each problem area were prioritized on the basis of their
correlation with observed biological effects. Priority 1 chemicals were
present at concentrations greater than an Apparent Effect Threshold (AET)
and their distributions corresponded with gradients of observed toxicity
or benthic effects. Priority 2 chemicals were also present at concentrations
greater than an AET at more than one stations in a problem area, but either
showed no particular relationship with gradients of observed toxicity or
benthic effects, or insufficient data were available to evaluate their
correspondence with gradients. Priority 3 chemicals were present at concen-
trations greater than an AET value at only a single station in a problem
area. Problem areas were ranked using three criteria: environmental signif-
icance, spatial extent, and confidence in source identification. Each
problem area was scored according to these criteria, as shown in Table 2.
The final ranking was based on the total score. The problem areas with
the highest scores were assigned highest priority for evaluation of remedial
action. Locations of problem areas and their priorities for remedial action
are shown in Figure 4.
Subsections of this chapter are arranged in descending order of priority
for remedial action. Discussion of each problem area includes a general
physical description of the appropriate waterway; definition of the problem
area, including the extent of contamination and the types of contaminants;
summary of contaminant sources; potential remedial technologies; and identi-
fication of specific data needs.
In general, remedial technologies evaluated in this report are classified
as source control measures or contaminated sediment management. Potential
source control measures were recommended based on the mechanisms by which
contaminants reach the waterway. In all cases, where a source was identified,
technologies for control of the direct waste discharge were warranted.
In all problem areas, surface water controls were appropriate for storm-
water runoff discharging either directly or indirectly into Commencement
Bay. Many source control technologies take the form of improved operation
recommended to prevent or minimize release of contaminants into the environ-
ment. These recommendations are specific to each source, but not to each
individual plant process. Evaluation of in-plant process control technologies
was not within the scope of this report.
41
-------
COMMENCEMENT
BAY
HYS6
TLCTOt
wMTEmwr. HYS5
HYS4
HYS3
HYS2
VMTEmWr
MDS1
CIS3
Figure 3. Area segments defined for Commencement Bay
Superfund data analysis.
Wkttwtmt
-------
RSS3
RSS2
RUSTON
COMMENCEMENT
BAY
RSS1
4000
FEET
TACOMA
| METERS
1000
Figure 3. (Continued).
-------
TABLE 2 . FINAL RANKING OF PROBLEM AREAS
Segment
Confidence
Containing
Environmental
Spatial
of Source
Total
Problem Areaฎ
Significance
Extent
Identification
Score
RSS2
4
4
4
12
SPS1
4
3
4
11
CIS1
4
3
4
11
HYS5
4
3
4
11
SIS1
4
4
3
11
HYS1
4
4
3
11
HYS2
4
2
4
10
CIS2
4
1
3
8
MDS1
3
3
2
8
RSS3
1
3
4
8
CIS3
3
2
2
7
HYS4
3
2
1
6
RSSla (RS-13)
3
1
1
5
BLS2
2
1
1
4
MIS1
2
1
1
4
RSSlb (RS-15)
1
1
1
3
HYS3
1
1
1
3
BLS1
1
1
1
3
HYS6
1
1
1
3
BLS3
1
1
1
3
BLS4
1
1
1
3
Problem areas did not always encompass an entire segment. Problem areas
1n the segments Indicated are listed 1n order of their total score for
environmental significance, spatial extent, and confidence of source Identi-
fication.
^ Identification of potential remedial technologies was conducted for prob-
lem areas with a total score greater than or equal to 7.
44
-------
COMMENCEMENT
BAY
HIGHEST PRIORITY PROBLEM AREAS
SECOND PRIORITY PROBLEM AREAS
POTENTIAL PROBLEM AREAS
(NO CONFIRMING BIOLOGICAL
mW DATA AVAILABLE)
POTENTIAL PROBLEM AREA BY
Si:*ฎ HISTORICAL DATA ONLY
CHEMICALS EXCEED APPARENT
EFFECTS THRESHOLD
CHEMICALS BELOW APPARENT
EFFECTS THRESHOLD
4000
I FEET
| METERS
1000
Figure 4.
Definition and prioritization of Commencement
Bay problem areas.
-------
HIGHEST PRIORITY PROBLEM AREAS
SECOND PRIORITY PROBLEM AREAS
POTENTIAL PROBLEM AREAS
(NO CONFIRMING BIOLOGICAL
DATA AVAILABLE)
POTENTIAL PROBLEM AREA BY
HISTORICAL DATA ONLY
::::
CHEMICALS EXCEED APPARENT
EFFECTS THRESHOLD
CHEMICALS BELOW APPARENT
EFFECTS THRESHOLD
COMMENCEMENT
BAY
RUSTON
4000
TACOMA
FEET
METERS
1000
Figure 4. (Continued).
-------
Remedial technologies for the contaminated sediments are classified
into three groups: dredging, in situ treatment/stabilization, and capping.
These technoloies are discussed in Sections 2.5 and 2.6. The applicability
of remedial technologies will be dependent on the specific characteristics
and constraints of each problem area. According to an evaluation of alternative
dredging methods and equipment (COE 1984), hydraulic dredging is the most
effective method for removing sediments with particle-bound (e.g., PCBs,
metals) or soluble contaminants (4-methylphenol). The COE (1984) evaluation
suggests mechanical dredging methods for removal of sediments contaminated
with volatile compounds. These are general recommendations only. Specific
site conditions should be evaluated prior to selecting the most effective
dredging method for individual problem areas. A Commencement Bay dredging
plan that integrates dredging activities (including maintenance dredging,
both private and governmental) in the waterways, in addition to other
remedial dredging Commencement Bay, should increase the overall cost-effective-
ness of all dredging projects.
Most in situ treatment/stabilization methods are emerging or new
technologies and their effectiveness may be unproven. The National Contingency
Plan (NCP) criteria encourage the evaluation of these innovative or advanced
technologies. However, these technologies must have a certain degree of
effectiveness or they will likely be eliminated based on criteria established
for the initial screening process. Therefore, many of the in-situ treatment/
stabilization technologies may be eliminated during the initial screening.
The applicability of specific in situ technologies should be evaluated
during the feasibility study. For most problem areas in the Commencement
Bay study area, capping may not be a feasible alternative because of frequent
maintenance dredging to provide deep draft depths for the shipping traffic.
Sain, the specific water depth requirements must be considered when determining
e applicability of capping in each problem area.
3.2 RUSTON-PT. DEFIANCE SHORELINE SEGMENT 2
3.2.1 Physical Description
Segment 2 of the Ruston-Pt. Defiance Shoreline extends from the Tacoma
Yacht Club to a point approximately 5,900 ft southwest along the shore
of Commencement Bay (Figure 5). Facilities located along the Ruston-Pt.
Defiance Shoreline Segment 2 include Tacoma Yacht Club and American Smelting
and Refining Company (ASARCO). ASARCO discontinued the copper smelting
operations in March, 1985, and currently is only operating the arsenic
trioxide plant, which may close 1n the summer of 1985. ASARCO is the only
NPDES-permitted facility in Segment 2 (WA0000649). Three outfalls are
regulated under this NPDES permit: RS-003 (north outfall), RS-004 (central
outfall), and RS-005 (south outfall). Nine non-permitted discharges along
Segment 2 release surface water to Commencement Bay. These outfalls are
RS-001, RS-002, RS-008, RS-009, RS-010, RS-011, RS-012, RS-013, and RS-014.
Recent subbottom profiling of the Ruston-Pt. Defiance Shoreline (Raven
Systems and Research 1984) indicated a bottom slope of approximately 9
percent, and a bottom depth of 120 ft below mean lower low water (MLLVJ)
800 ft offshore at a point immediately north of ASARCO. Offshore of the
ASARCO plant, the bottom slope is uniform at 3 percent to a point approxi-
47
-------
Point Defiance
Part
Point Oeflance
ferry Tenalnal
Taeht
Club
taertcan Sซ*lt1nfl
Refining Co
&
TtcEXH north Seva^e
Treatment Plant
Tacoaa Fire
Station K P1er
&
K
Continental Grain Co. i
* TacoM tlevator Wharf
Figure 5. Major industries along and discharges to the Ruston-Pt. Defiance Shoreline.
-------
mately 400 ft offshore, where the slope increases to nearly 8 percent.
No accumulation of soft muds was observed along the Ruston-Pt. Defiance
Shoreline. Sediments there are typically sands, averaging less than 20
percent fine-grained material, and having a clay content of 5 percent.
Currently there are no dredging projects planned along the Ruston-Pt. Defiance
Shoreline Segment 2. Past dredging projects along the Ruston-Pt. Defiance
Shoreline include ASARCO in 1977 and 1983, Industrial Mineral Products
in 1980, Crown Pacific Corporation in 1982, and Tacoma Metro Park District
(date unknown).
3.2.2. Extent of Contamination
Results of the Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats Remedial Investigation
indicate that mercury, arsenic, and low molecular weight hydrocarbons (LPAH)
are priority 1 contaminants along the Ruston-Pt. Defiance Shoreline Segment 2.
Priority 2 contaminants are high molecular weight hydrocarbons (HPAH),
PCBs, cadmium, nickel, copper, zinc, lead, antimony, and dibenzofuran.
Priority 3 contaminants are dichlorobenzenes, N-nitrosodiphenylamine, 2-methyl-
phenol, 4-methylphenol, phthalate esters, 1-methyl (2-methylethyl)benzene,
biphenyl, dibenzothiophene, methylphenanthrenes, retene, and methylpyrenes.
The problem area extends approximately 4,000 ft along the Ruston-Pt. Defiance
Shoreline in front of ASARC0. Definition of this problem area is based
on biological and chemical analyses of sediment samples collected during
this project at Stations RS-16, RS-17, RS-18, RS-19, RS-20, RS-21, and
RS-03 (Figure 6); and on evaluation of historical sediment data. Sediment
analyses indicated contaminant concentrations above AETs and abnormal biological
conditions. Sediment bioassays indicated significant oyster larvae and
amphipod toxicity. Low numbers of polychaetes, molluscs, and total benthos
were observed. Significant copper accumulations were also found in the
muscle tissues of fishes collected along the Ruston-Pt. Defiance Shoreline.
The most extreme metals contamination in Commencement Bay was found
in the high-priority area defined in Segment 2. Within this problem area,
metals contamination was highest at stations directly off the three outfalls
of the ASARC0 smelter. It is not clear whether one large or three smaller
nearshore hot spots were present, because samples were not collected between
the outfalls. Concentrations of metals decreased rapidly both alongshore
(toward Stations RS-16 and RS-24) and offshore (toward Stations RS-19 and
RS-20). If the high metals concentrations found in the problem area within
Segment 2 are associated with the smelter slag or ores, then the spatial
extent of the contaminated area could be defined by the physical presence
of slag or ores. The high EAR values were likely associated with an effluent
component, and the area of extreme EAR may be limited to near the main
outfalls. The defined problem area was also highly contaminated with a
number of organic compounds, including PAH, PCBs, and 1,4-dichlorobenzene.
The spatial distributions of these compounds were not as uniform as were
those observed for the metals. The maximum concentrations of individual
organic contaminants occurred at different outfall stations. The contaminated
area extended east from Segment 2 a considerable distance along the shore,
but not to Station RS-15.
49
-------
Sedlw*
Core R9-61.
Sedlirr*
Core RS\60'
~ ซS-14/*S-02
RS-22 (HOAA)
X XซS*ป l"0**'
~ X RS-21 ItlOAA)
ป RS-I3
(Sepwnt 1
Station of Concern)
0 Tctra Tech
A CPA
1 Other Agencies
~ MOOC. 1984
Figure 6. Surficial sediment and sediment core sampling staion locations from all
studies along the Ruston-Pt. Defiance Shoreline.
-------
3.2.3 Contaminant Sources
Evaluation of available source information indicates that ASARCO is
the confirmed source of arsenic, cadmium, copper, zinc, lead and antimony;
and a likely source of the other priority metals (mercury and nickel).
Spatial trends indicate ASARCO may also be a source of HPAH, dibenzofuran,
dichlorobenzene, and PCBs. Confirmed and potential mechanisms by which
contaminants have been entering Commencement Bay from ASARCO include direct
waste discharge, surface water runoff, groundwater, and atmospheric release.
Although copper smelting ceased at ASARCO in March, 1985, production of
arsenic trioxide may continue into the summer. Additional investigation
of contaminant transport mechanisms is necessary prior to implementation
of source control or sediment remedial action. Further source investigations
are also necessary for LPAH, HPAH, PCB, and most of the priority 3 contaminants.
3.2.3.1 ASARC0--
Metals loading from the three ASARCO plant outfalls (RS-003, RS-004,
and RS-005) have been summarized in Table 3. Metals loadings from discharge
RS-005 (south outfall) are consistently greater than those from the other
two ASARCO outfalls. The total metals loadings from all ASARCO outfalls
have been estimated to be 478.31 lb/day of arsenic, 154.2 lb/day of copper,
122.2 lb/day zinc, and 13.88 lb/day of lead. These loadings were calculated
using average effluent concentrations from one to eight sampling events
that occurred prior to plant closure in March, 1985.
Wastes containing metals have probably been discharged from this facility
since plant start-up in 1889, and sediment cores collected immediately
off the ASARCO outfalls confirm this supposition. Contaminants have been
released to Commencement Bay via the discharge of plant process water through
outfalls RS-003, RS-004, and RS-005; surface water runoff contaminated
with metals; spills of metal ore and Bunker C fuel oil; stack emissions;
leaching of metals from slag; and, possibly, contaminated groundwater.
Although the relative importance of these mechanisms is not known, it is
believed that contaminant loadings from ASARCO will decrease with time.
Nevertheless, remedial action may be necessary if the discharges are determined
to be major ongoing sources after plant shutdown.
In 1982, the WDOE conducted a RCRA inspection of ASARCO, but determined
the company was exempt from these federal regulations. However, WDOE concluded
that many ASARCO activities were regulated under the State's Dangerous
Waste regulations. Several violations of these regulations were observed
at ASARCO during a Dangerous Waste inspection of the facility conducted
in March, 1985. Dangerous Waste violations included release of contaminated
storm and process waters, contaminated soils, incineration/smelting of
wastes, uncontrolled releases of dangerous materials, and overall poor
housekeeping. An inspection report detailing the above Dangerous Waste
violations and establishing a compliance schedule for the plant closure
was signed by WDOE on March 29, 1985, and mailed to ASARCO. It is WDOE's
concern that plant closure, including demolition activities, may not consider
environmental impacts resulting from additional release of contaminants
into the environment. Therefore, WDOE is requiring ASARCO to provide a
plan for the plant closure.
51
-------
TABLE 3. CONTAMINANT LOADINGS AND RELATIVE
PERCENTAGE FROM ASARCO, RUSTON-PT. DEFIANCE SHORELINE SEGMENT 2
Arsenic
lb/day
% of total to segment
Cadmium
lb/day
% of total to segment
Copper
lb/day
% of total to segment
Zinc
lb/day
% of total to segment
Lead
lb/day
% of total to segment
RS-003 RS-004 RS-005
0.31 78 400
0.06 16.31 83.63
<0.012 0.92 10
0.11 8.42 91.47
1.2 33 120
0.78 21.40 77.82
0.20 26 96
0.16 21.28 78.56
0.28 3.6 10
2.02 25.94 72.05
52
-------
ASARCO installed four groundwater monitoring wells on their site in
November, 1984. WOOE sampled groundwater from the ASARCO property and
analyzed for organic chemicals and metals. Concentrations of organic chemicals
were at acceptable levels. Two metals (cadmium and mercury) were detected
at concentrations above criteria established for protection of aquatic
life as defined by U.S. EPA (1976).
Depending on relative importance of the contaminant transport mechanisms,
source control at ASARCO may take many years to achieve, particularly if
it is determined that groundwater and leaching of metals from slag are
major routes of contamination. If removal of ASARCO slag from the Ruston-
Pt. Defiance Shoreline is necessary to meet source control goals, maior
dredge/fill and excavation operations may be required. Alternatively,
if historical and recent contaminant loadings are a result of plant operation
(i.e., discharge of plant effluent, fuel and ore spills, stack emissions,
and fugitive dust) and contaminated surface water runoff, then source control
technologies may be more easily implemented. Source control technologies
that may be applicable at the ASARCO facility include
Surface water controls, Section 2.3
Mitigation of contaminated soils, including slag deposited
along the shoreline (e.g., stabilization of slag with cement)
Groundwater controls, Section 2.4
Control of atmospheric releases, including fugitive dust
from stock piles of slag and ore concentrations (slag and
metal ores at the site should either be covered, containerized,
or removed from the site)
Control of plant demolition to prevent additional release
of contaminants into the environment.
3.2.3.2 Unknown Sources--
ASARCO has been identified as the source for most of the priority
1 and 2 contaminants in Ruston-Pt. Defiance Shoreline Segment 2 based on
historical practices, spatial gradients of contamination and benthic effects,
and effluent sampling data. Priority 3 contaminants for which source identi-
fication was not possible with existing data are dibenzofuran, dichlorobenzenes,
N-nitrosodiphenyl amine, 2-methyl phenol, 4-methylphenol, phthalate esters,
dibenzofuran, 1-methyl (2-methylethyl)benzene, biphenyl, dibenzothiophene,
methylphenanthrenes, retene, and methylpyrenes. ASARCO is a potential
source of LPAH, HPAH, and PCB, but additional investigation is necessary
to confirm this.
3.2.4 Sediment Remedial Actions
Sediments along the Ruston-Pt. Defiance Shoreline off ASARCO have
been assigned an environmental significance ranking of 4 based on observed
contamination levels, toxicity, and biological effects. It is therefore
recommended that this problem area be evaluated for sediment remedial action
to reduce the environmental and public health threat associated with the
S3
-------
priority contaminants. Remediation of the existing contaminated sediments
should be implemented only after the present sources have been effectively
controlled. Options for management of contaminated sediments along the
Ruston-Pt. Defiance Shoreline Segment 2 include capping, in situ treatment/
stabilization, and dredging. Capping may be a viable option in this segment,
since closure of the ASARCO facilities may reduce large vessel shipping
traffic that often requires deep water depths. In general, priority contami-
nants along the Ruston-Pt. Defiance Shoreline are sediment-bound. Although
hydraulic dredging appears to be the most effective sediment removal method,
mechanical dredging methods should be evaluated if sediment removal is
considered an appropriate remedial action. Levels of organic chemicals
decreased significantly in the deepest horizon (0.41-0.44 m) of sediment
core RS-61, but concentrations of metals were all significantly above AET
values. Therefore, the vertical extent of contamination along the Ruston-
Pt. Defiance Shoreline cannot be determined with existing core data and
the volume of contaminated sediment in this problem area cannot be estimated
at this time.
3.2.5 Data Needs
Several data gaps for the Ruston-Pt. Defiance Shoreline Segment 2
hinder the development and evaluation of specific source control and sediment
remedial action alternatives. Data needs specific to this problem area
include
Additional source investigation for priority contaminants
listed in Section 3.3.3.2:
Priority 1 - LPAH
Priority 2 - HPAH, PCBs, dibenzofuran
Priority 3 - dichlorobenzenes, N-nitrosodiphenylamine,
2-methylphenol, 4-methylphenol, phthalate esters, l-methyl(2-
methylethyl)benzene, biphenyl, dibenzothiophene, methyl-
phenanthrenes, retene, and methylpyrenes
Definition and quantification of contaminant transport mechanisms
from ASARCO, including stormwater runoff, groundwater, and
leaching from slag used to stabilize the shoreline
Spatial extent of the problem area, as determined by surface
sediment samples from beyond nearshore Station RS-17 (both
parallel and perpendicular to shore)
Vertical extent of contaminated sediments, as determined
by deep core sampling
Determination of sedimentation rate and the potential for
the problem area to be capped by natural sedimentation of
clean materials.
54
-------
3.3 ST. PAUL WATERWAY SEGMENT 1
3.3.1 Physical Description
St. Paul Waterway is located between the Puyallup River to the north
and Middle Waterway to the south (Figure 7). Champion International occupies
most of the land surrounding St. Paul Waterway, including the area north
to the Puyallup River and the area to the east bounded by East 11th Street.
Available information indicates that only forest products industries have
historically occupied the land surrounding St. Paul Waterway. Champion
International is the only permitted discharge to St. Paul Waterway (SP-189,
NPDES WA0000850). Non-permitted discharges include the St. Paul storm
drain outfalls SP-268-01 and SP-268-02, located at the head of the waterway;
a 10-in corrugated steel pipe outfall located on the north bank immediately
west of the Champion International clarifiers (SP-269); and groundwater
seeps located about halfway along the north shore below the main Champion
International manufacturing plant (SP-706).
St. Paul Waterway is approximately 2,000 ft in length. Its width
ranges from 400 ft at the head to 600 ft at the mouth. The depth of St. Paul
Waterway increases from the head toward the mouth. Recent subbottam profiling
of St. Paul Waterway indicated mid-channel depths typically ranging from
less than 10 ft below MLLW at the head of the waterway to greater than
30 ft below MLLW at the mouth, with fairly steep channel sides (Raven Systems
and Research 1984). Sediment accumulation was between l and 4 ft, with
most occurring along the north side and at the mouth (Raven Systems and
Research 1984). Sediments within St. Paul Waterway are typically 50 percent
fine-grained material, with a clay content of nearly 10 percent (Tetra
Tech 1985). The present configuration of St. Paul Waterway is the result
of a dredge and fill project by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; the head
of the waterway was filled to East 11th Street in 1960. There have been
no dredging projects in St. Paul Waterway within the last 10 yr and there
are no proposed projects at this time (Kucinski, 6., 6 August 1985, personal
communication)
3.3.2 Extent of Contamination
Results of the Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats Remedial Investigation
indicate that 4-methylphenol is the only priority 1 contaminant in St. Paul
Waterway. Priority 2 contaminants include benzyl alcohol, 1-methyl (2-methyl-
ethyl)benzene, and 2-methoxyphenol. Priority 3 contaminants are nickel,
LPAH, 2-methylphenol, phenol, biphenyl, diterpenoid hydrocarbons, retene,
total volatile solids, and total organic carbon. The area of concern is
located at the mouth of the waterway, based on biological and chemical
analyses of sediments collected during this project at Stations SP-13,
SP-14, SP-15, and SP-16 (Figure 8), and on evaluation of historical sediment
data. Analyses indicate contaminant concentrations at all stations and
several abnormal biological conditions. Sediment bioassays indicated signif-
icant oyster larvae and amphipod toxicity. Benthic analyses indicated
low mollusc counts. Fish caught in St. Paul Waterway had significant copper
accumulation in muscle tissues.
Sediment contamination at the mouth of St. Paul Waterway differed
considerably from that in all other Commencement Bay areas. None of the
55
-------
*
SP-189 N.
Chanplon ^
International
NPDES UA0000850
PU-190
SP-706 SP-269
Champion
International
SP-268-01
SP-268-02
*00
tso
300
Figure 7. Major industries along and discharges to St. Paul Waterway.
-------
SP-15D
SP-16D
Sediment Core
SP-60
A-2A
~ Tctra Tech
OwDOC, Historical
A CPA
X Other Agencies
SP-30
SP-14D
PU-190
SP-706 SP-269
SUM 18*
SP-13 O
SP-268-01
SP-268-02
300 600
FEET
METERS
Figure 8. Surficial sediment and sediment core sampling station locations from all
studies in St. Paul Waterway.
-------
HPAH, PCBs, metals, or chlorinated benzenes were present in particularly
high concentration at this site, except for limited copper enrichment (below
its AET) at Station SP-14, located off the outfall of the Champion International
pulp mill. Methylated phenols (especially 4-methylphenol) and LPAH were
the characteristic contaminants of the problem area. These compounds all
exceeded toxicity and benthic AET near the outfall. Concentrations of
these compounds decreased abruptly away from the outfall. Many additional
hydrocarbons and substituted phenols were probably present in these sediments,
but were not directly measured. It was apparent in data from St. Paul
Waterway and also from adjacent waterways that at least 2-methoxyphenol
had been transported to other areas of Commencement Bay. Typically, transport
of contaminants is not observed between waterways. But since the Champion
International outfall is located in Commencement Bay, and not within isolated
waters of a specific waterway, transport of contaminants from that outfall
is likely.
3.3.3 Contaminant Sources
Source identification in St. Paul Waterway concluded that Champion
International is the confirmed source of several contaminants and the probable
source of many other contaminants identified in the problem area. Champion
is also the largest confirmed source of organic materials and suspended
solids to St. Paul Waterway. Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical
oxygen demand (COD), and total suspended solids (TSS) loadings are very
large (7,000-130,000 lb/day of each). Because discharges to St. Paul Waterway
have not been analyzed for most of the priority contaminants, source identifi-
cation was by inference. Most contaminants were linked to pulp and paper
manufacturing and were presumed to be in the effluent from Champion Inter-
national or derived from precursors in the effluent. The Puyallup River
is the largest source of copper, solids, and organic matter to Commencement
Bay, but loading to St. Paul Waterway from the river following dilution
with Commencement Bay waters is uncertain. Loadings of naphthalene and
copper from Champion are the largest to St. Paul Waterway. Although these
contaminants were not defined as "priorities" in St. Paul Waterway, copper
and naphthalene compounds exhibited high EAR in surficial sediments, feceiving
water sampling performed by WD0E in 1981 showed that copper concentrations
near the plant outfall of Champion International (then St. Regis Paper
Company) exceeded the U.S. EPA maximum allowable concentration for saltwater.
Chloroform was also detected above background levels, but there are no
applicable water quality criteria for this contaminant. Storm drains SP-268-01
and SP-268-02 are confirmed sources of naphthalene, copper and suspended
solids. Loadings are estimated to be 0.00043 lb/day of naphthalene, 0.036
lb/day of copper, and 303 lb/day of suspended solids.
In general, control of contaminants from Champion International should
receive top priority, since this is the major source of most, if not all,
contaminants to St. Paul Waterway. Less emphasis should be placed on control
of discharges SP-268-01 and SP-268-02 since they are relatively minor sources,
and although no contaminant loading data exist for these discharges, the
priority contaminants 1 n St. Paul Waterway are not ones typically found
in storm water.
58
-------
3.3.3.1 Champion International-
Champion International is most likely the largest source of suspended
solids and organic matter, depending on the actual loading from the Puyallup
River. Champion is also the major indicated source of the other priority
contaminants, including 4-methylphenol , 1-methyl(2-methylethyl)benzene ,
2-methoxyphenol, and 2-methylphenol because of their association with pulp
and paper manufacturing or their potential derivation from precursors (e.g.,
lignin from pulp discharges). Non-priority contaminants associated with
Champion International are copper, naphthalene, and chloroform. These
contaminants have been detected in the plant effluent and the receiving
water off Champion International. Naphthalene loading from Champion Inter-
national was estimated to be 1.2 lb/day, and copper loading was estimated
to be 27 lb/day. Characterization of Champion International effluent is
recommended, focusing specifically on the priority contaminants and their
possible precursors. Once Champion International is confirmed as the source
of these priority pollutants, reduction of contaminant loading to St. Paul
Waterway will be recommended at Champion International through in-plant
operation, process controls, and/or additional waste treatment. In-plant
source controls are specific to each manufacturing process, and were not
within the scope of this report. It is recommended that Champion International
monitor plant effluent for 4-methylphenol and its precursors, and investigate
alternatives to reduce the discharge of these wastes through modification
of in-plant controls and/or additional waste treatment.
3.3.3.2 Unknown Sources--
For several of the priority contaminants identified in St. Paul Waterway,
no confirmed sources have been identified. Champion International is the
presumed source of these contaminants, based on their spatial distributions,
and their association with pulp and paper manufacturing. However, their
presence in Champion International effluent has not been confirmed. Contami-
nants for which source confirmation is necessary are 4-methylphenol , benzyl
alcohol, 1-methyl(2-methylethyl)benzene, 2-methoxyphenol, nickel, LPAH,
2-methylphenol, phenol, biphenyl, and diterpenoid hydrocarbons, and retene.
Given their ubiquitous distribution, there are probably sources of LPAH
to St. Paul Waterway other than Champion International. Diterpenoid hydro-
carbons (including retene) may also be derived from the transport of coal
particles in the Puyallup River.
3.3.4 Sediment Remedial Actions
Sediments at the mouth of St. Paul Waterway have been assigned an
environmental significance ranking of 4, based on observed contamination
levels, toxicity, and biological effects. This problem area may be able
to recover through natural degradation processes, since the priority contami-
nants are organic enrichment and soluble compounds that typically do not
persist in the environment. This "natural cleansing" process occurred
near sewage outfalls and pulp mill outfalls within Everett Harbor when
discharges from these sources were discontinued. Additional information
is necessary to determine if this process occurs within a time frame that
is consistent with WDOE's remedial action goals. Champion International
is planning to extend their outfall into deeper water within Commencement
Bay. Champion International is required to submit the plans, specifications,
59
-------
and construction schedule for this improvement to WDOE by October 1, 1985.
Once the discharge has been diverted to deeper water, benthic monitoring
is recommended at the old outfall site to determine the rate of recovery.
If sediment chemical analyses and benthic monitoring indicate recovery
at an acceptable rate with no additional adverse effects, sediment remedial
actions may not be necessary. If this option proves unacceptable, evaluation
of sediment remedial actions may be necessary to reduce the environmental
threat associated with the priority contaminants in the sediments. Remediation
of the existing contaminated sediments should be implemented only after
the present sources of the contaminantion have been effectively controlled.
Options for management of contaminated sediments at the mouth of St. Paul
Waterway include dredging, in situ treatment/stabilization, and capping.
Sediment management technologies are discussed in Chapter 2 of this report.
In general, the priority contaminants are classified as primarily
soluble. The volume of contaminated sediments at the mouth of St. Paul
Waterway is estimated at 129,067 yd3, using a surface area of 32 ac, computed
with a planimeter, and an average sediment depth of 2.5 ft, estimated from
recent subbottom profiles (Raven Systems and Research 1984). For the purpose
of this preliminary volume calculation, contamination was assumed to extend
through the soft sediment layer. However, it may extend into the harder
underlying sediment layers. Additional deep core sampling is necessary
to determine the actual vertical extent of contamination.
3.3.5 Data Needs
Several data gaps exist for St. Paul Waterway that hinder the development
and evaluation of specific source control and sediment remedial action
alternatives. Data gaps for St. Paul Waterway are associated with non-
definitive boundaries of problem areas, or with the inconclusive identifi-
cation of potential sources. Data needs specific to the St. Paul Waterway
include
Characterization of the effluent from Champion International
for the priority contaminants listed in Section 3.4.3.2:
Priority 1 - 4-methylphenol
Priority 2 - benzyl alcohol, 1-methyl(2-methylethyl)benzene,
2-methoxyphenol
Priority 3 - nickel, LPAH, 2-methylphenol, phenol,
biphenyl, diterpenoid hydrocarbons
More precise definition of the spatial and vertical extent
of contamination as determined by surface sediment and deep
core sampling
Potential recovery rate of the problem area once the source
has been discontinued
Determination of sedimentation rate and the potential for
capping by natural sedimentation of clean materials.
60
-------
3.4 CITY WATERWAY SEGMENT 1
3.4.1 Physical Description
Segment 1 of City Waterway extends from the head of the waterway to
the 11th Street Bridge (approximately 3,500 ft from the mouth), excluding
the Wheeler-Osgood branch. Several businesses are located along the banks
of this segment. Woodworth and Company, Martinac Shipbuilding, Pickering
Industries, American Plating, and City Marina facilities are located along
the east shore. Harmon Furniture, J.H. Galbraith Co., George Scofield
Co., Tru-mix, Johnny's Seafoods, Colonial Fruit and Produce, Western Fish
and Oyster Co., and MSA Saltwater Boats are located along the west shore
(Figure 9). Permitted discharges to City Waterway Segment 1 are George
Scofield Co. (CI-232, NPDES WA0003298) and Western Fish and Oyster Co.
(CI-227, NPDES WA0022853). Atlas Foundry, located at the head of City
Waterway, is permitted to discharge noncontact process water to CN-237
(NPDES WA0022918). There are 24 non-permitted stormwater discharges to
City Waterway Segment 1 (Figure 10), including CN-237 (Nalley Valley),
CS-237 (south Tacoma), and CI-230 (15th Street).
City Waterway Segment 1 is approximately 4,500 ft in length and varies
in width between 400 ft and 600 ft, with very irregular shorelines. This
segment is congested with docking areas, pleasure craft, and small shipping
vessels. The depth of City Waterway increases from the head toward the
mouth. Recent subbottom profiling of City Waterway indicated mid-channel
depths typically ranging from less than 10 ft below MLLW at the head of
the waterway to approximately 30 ft below MLLW at the 11th Street bridge
(Raven Systems and Research 1984). Significant sediment accumulation occurs
in City Waterway primarily as a result of storm sewer discharges. Sediment
accumulation is estimated to be greater than 10 ft deep at the head of
the waterway and decreases to approximately 3 ft underneath the 11th Street
bridge. Sediments within City Waterway are typically 64 percent fine-grained
material with an average clay content of 18 percent. These sediments are
described as anoxic with a very high organic content (nearly 9 percent).
Between 1905 and 1948, the waterway was dredged every 3 to 12 yr. City
Waterway has not been dredged by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers since
1948. Past dredging projects in City Waterway Segment 1 include the city
of Tacoma in 1975, Johnny's Dock Restaurant and Pickering Industries in
1977, Morris and Sons in 1978, M.W. Perrow in 1979, S. Jones in 1981, and
J.E. Meaker in 1982. The only dredging activity proposed in City Waterway
is at City Marina.
3.4.2 Extent of Contamination
Results of the Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats Remedial Investigation
indicate that priority 1 contaminants in City Waterway Segment 1 are mercury,
zinc, lead, and total organic carbon. Priority 2 contaminants are HPAH,
cadmium, nickel, copper, LPAH, 2-methylphenol, 4-methylphenol, phthalate
esters, and oil and grease. Priority 3 contaminants are dichlorobenzenes,
N-nitrosodi phenyl amine, aniline, and benzyl alcohol. The area of concern
is defined as the main channel from the head to the 11th Street bridge,
based on biological and chemical analyses of sediments collected during
this project at stations CI-01, CI-03, CI-11, CI-12, CI-13, CI-14, CI-15,
C1-17, and CI-18 (Figure 11), and on evaluation of historical sediment
61
-------
USA Saltwater luti-
Vestern Ftปh-
01 d Tปccm light-
Colonial Fruit l>
Produce
Johnny's Suf003 s-
Scofltld, Tru-#1x,
N. Paclf1e Plywood '
(closed)
Vacant'
J.H. Galbralth Co.-
Maraon Furniture ฆ
(TซCOW Spur)
k
u
o
Martlnae Shipbuilding
Tar Pits S1t*
(Miltlple owners)
West CNIt 6ri*ery
City Marina
Facilities
Pickering Industries
Union Pacific I
lurllngton Northern
Railroad!
American Plating
2SO
| METERS
500
Figure 9. Industries surrounding City Waterway Segment 1,
62
-------
Union Oil Co. NPDES WA0Q0072B ,,,
Mobil 011 Corp. NPDES WAQ0033B7
Shell Oil Co. NPDES WA0001210 twu>
CI-214
Flck Foundry NPDES WA0037B5J
CI-209
CI-224
CI-225 Uth St. Drain
CI-227 Western Fish I Oyster Co
NPDES WA0022B53
CI-230 ISth St. Drain
Cl-2311
CI-23? George Scofleld Co.
NPDES HA0003298
CI-233 j
CI-703 Ortln at Haraon Furniture ->
CI-234 21st St. Drain ,
Atlas Foundry NPDES WA0022918
CI-059
CI-219
C1-21B
CI-212
CI-060
CI-221
CI-222
CI-215
CI-213
CI-211
CI-210
CI-223
CI-20B
CI-207
CI-206
CI-228
CI-229
CI-249
CI-244
CU-2S4 Mieeltr-Osgood Drain
CW-253
CI-248
CI-247
CI-246
CI-24S Drain fron Railroad Yards
CI-243 Drain from Railroad Yards
/Ct-242
CI-241
Cl-239
-CI-238
500 1000
FEET
CN-237 Nalley Valley Drain CS.2J; South Tlcom| 0r4ln Q
METERS
250
Figure 10. NPDES-pernritted and non-permitted discharges to
City Waterway.
63
-------
+ WDOE, 1984
0 WDOE, Historical
A EPA
~ Tetra Tech
X Other Agencies
North
CI-15
Sediment Core
CI-63
Sediment Core
CI-61
CI-11
CI-18
CI14
Sediment Cor
CI-62
Sediment Core
CI-60
1000 2000
J FEET
500
METERS
1000
Figure 11. Surficial sediment and sediment core sampling station locations from all
studies in City Waterway.
-------
data. Analyses indicated contaminant concentrations exceeding AET values
at all stations and several abnormal biological conditions. Sediment bioassays
indicated significant oyster larvae and amphipod toxicity. Benthic analyses
indicated low mollusc counts. Fish in City Waterway had significant accumu-
lations of PCBs in muscle tissue.
Within the waterway, lead exhibited one of the most consistent concen-
tration gradients of any substance in any Commencement Bay study area.
Sediment lead concentrations at the head of the waterway were among the
highest observed in any sediment away from Segment 2 of the Ruston-Pt. Defiance
Shoreline. Lead concentrations decreased regularly from a maximum at Station
CI-11 (at the head of the waterway) to levels comparable to those elsewhere
in the study area toward the mouth of the waterway. A similar gradient
in percent organic carbon was observed from the head of the waterway to
the mouth. PAH concentrations generally decreased from the head of the
waterway along the main channel of City Waterway, but maximum PAH concen-
trations were observed at Station CI-12 rather than CI-11. Chlorinated
benzenes, especially 1,4-dichlorobenzene, were found at high concentrations
only at the head of the waterway in Segment 1.
3.4.3 Contaminant Sources
Source identification for City Waterway Segment 1 indicates that the
two 96-in storm drains at the head of the waterway are the largest known
source of zinc, lead, cadmium, nickel, and organic matter to City Waterway.
Contaminant loadings for the storm drains that discharge to City Waterway
and the Wheeler-Osgood branch of City Waterway are presented in Table 4.
Stormwater runoff from south Tacoma and the Nalley Valley is discharged
to City Waterway via CS-237 and CN-237, respectively. Storm water from
these two drains accounts for nearly 92 percent of the total storm water
discharged to City Waterway (excluding the Wheeler-Osgood branch). WDOE
sampled 10 storm drains that discharge to City Waterway Segment 1 and the
Wheeler-Osgood branch as part of the Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats
Remedial Investigation (Johnson and Norton 1984). In general, contaminant
loadings from most other storm drains to City Waterway Segment 1 were much
smaller than those from CS-237 and CN-237; however, the 15th Street drain
(CI-230) was determined to be the largest source of mercury, LPAH, and
HPAH to City Waterway Segment 1. Metals loading from CI-230 was ranked
second for cadmium, and third for zinc and lead. In an effort to identify
and document sources of metals to City Waterway (Norton and Johnson 1984) ,
WDOE studied sediments near three industries thought to be likely sources
of metals to City Waterway: American Plating and Martinac Shipbuilding,
located along the east shore of City Waterway Segment 1, and Fick Foundry,
located in Segment 3. No problem was identified with the activities at
Fick Foundry. Metals concentrations in sediments near Martinac Shipbuilding
were substantially elevated with respect to other sediments within City
Waterway and Commencement Bay (Norton and Johnson 1984). Concentrations
of nickel in surficial sediments near American Plating were higher than
those observed in adjacent sediment samples. Silver and chromium were
non-priority contaminants observed at higher levels in surficial sediments
near American Plating than in sediments from adjacent areas. Concentrations
of the priority contaminants of mercury, zinc, copper, and lead, and the
non-priority contaminants of arsenic and beryllium near American Plating
65
-------
TABLE 4. CONTAMINANT LOADINGS AND RELATIVE PERCENTAGES FOR CITY WATERWAY
AND THE WHEELER-OSGOOD BRANCH OF CITY WATERWAY
CI-225
(S 11th St)
Cl-230
(S 15th St)
CI-234
{S 21st St)
C! -243
(E 21st St)
CI-245
(E 19th St)
CI-248
(E 18th St)
C1-703 CN-237
(Below Harmons) Nalley Valley
CS-Z37
(South Tacoma)
CW-2 54*
(Wheeler-Osgood)
Flow
HQ)
I of loading to segment
0.05
0.52
0.173
1.81
0.035
0.37
0.365
3.83
0.07
0.73
0.02
0.21
0.075
0.79
3.97
41.62
4.78
50.12
0.2825
NA
COD
lb/day
1 of loading to segment
NS
237.26
1,9.94
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
314.97
26.47
637.62
53.59
672.88
NA
TSS
lb/day
0.361
181.37
7.58
9.22
3.79
0.14
3.52 2
,346.09
664.14
16.82b
NA
PAHs
HPAH
lb/day
X of loading to segment
--
<0.00085
55.20
<0.00057
37.01
-
<0.00012
7.79
-
-
-
-
-
LPAH
lb/day
I of loading to segment
-
<0.44
71.43
--
-
-
<0.16
25.97
<0.016
2.60
0.036
NA
Netals
Wareary
lb/day
( of loading to nyatnt
-
0.0005627
93.16
--
-
0.0000321
5.31
0.0000092
1.53
-
-
--
0.000267
NA
line
lb/day
1 of loading to segment
0.0046
0.15
0.24
8.04
0.0057
0.19
0.11
3.68
0.018
0.60
0.0055
0.18
0.0056
0.19
1.4
46.83
1.2
40.14
0.19
NA
load
lb/dav
I of loading to segment
0.03
O.M
0.33
9.20
0.0065
0.18
0.017
0.47
0.00058
0.02
0.00058
0.02
0.0013
0.04
1.9
52.98
1.3
36.25
0.097
NA
Catolu*
lb/day
I of loading to segnant
0.0000417
0.03
0.0046892
3.78
0.0000584
0.05
0.0006088
0.49
0.0010508
0.85
0.0000167
0.01
0.0000626
0.05
0.113677
91.53
0.0039865
3.21
0.000589
NA
Nickel
lb/day
I of loading to segmawt
-
--
0.0023352
l.Ofi
-
0.0008757
0.40
0.005004
2.26
0.0006255
0.28
0.1324392
59.92
0.0797304
36.08
0.030629
NA
Copper
lb/day
t of loading to ngwant
-
0.30
9.52
0.0096
0.30
-
-
0.0017
0.05
-
0.84
26.66
2.0
23.47
0.058
* Contaminant loadings for Wheeler-Osgood Waterway are not sumed with the other loadings for
City Waterway for calculation of relative percentages. Contaminant transport between these
two waterways Is unknown, but Is believed to be Insignificant.
b COD loadings are believed to be over-estimated using analysis data of samples collected during
high tide conditions.
ฆ Not detected.
MA Not applIcable.
NS Not sampled.
-------
were also elevated, but not above the concentrations in sediment samples
from an area irmediately adjacent to storm drains CN-237 and CS-237.
A potential source of PAH metals to City Waterway Segment 1 is the
Tacoma Spur site situated between South 21st and 23rd Streets to the north
and south, and Dock and A Streets to the east and west. Release of PAH
and metals results from two independent activities. Contaminated soil
was discovered while conducting routine soil borings for the SR-705 highway
project near the site of an old coal gasification plant that operated from
1884 to 1924. Soil and groundwater investigations by the Washington State
Department of Transportation (WDOT) consultant, Hart-Crowser and Associates,
indicated that soil and groundwater at this site was significantly contaminated
with PAH. Some of the material removed from the site was designated as
an extremely hazardous waste (pursuant to WDOE Dangerous Waste Regulations
Chapter 173-303 WAC). The remaining, less contaminated material will be
isolated in on-site storage facilities.
Approximately 200 batteries were also discovered under 1 ft of soil
during the field investigation for the SR-705 highway project. WDOE estimated
that the batteries were buried about 30 yr ago and had probably been used
as switching signal batteries (Pierce, R., 2 August 1985, personal communi-
cation). Under WDOE direction, Burlington Northern Railroad and WDOT removed
the batteries and sent them to the Chemical Securities Hazardous Waste
disposal facility in Arlingon, Orgeon. Residual soil and groundwater contam-
ination from the activities described above may continue to be sources
of PAH and metals to City Waterway via groundwater transport.
The Tar Pits are located approximately 2,000 ft east of the City Waterway
where a coal gasification plant operated from 1924 to 1950. Several ponds
filled with liquid tar have been discovered at this site. The potential
exists for PAH to migrate via groundwater to City Waterway. Source investi-
gations are ongoing at the Tacoma Spur and Tar Pits sites.
Two additional sources of LPAH have been identified in City Waterway
Segment 1. Petroleum product was collecting in storm drains near West
Coast Grocery and discharging Into City Waterway via CI-248. The source
is unknown, but may be associated with the operation of a railroad roundhouse
in this area. Oil/water separators were installed and the amount of product
reaching the waterway was reduced. Petroleum product was also discovered
on the west side or the waterway near 15th Street. The source was not
determined, but WDOE identified four gasoline stations in the vicinity
that are over 20 yr old (Pierce, R., 2 August 1985, personal communication!.
The WDOT installed portable air-stripping towers to remove the volatile
compounds while dewatering this area for some construction work on the
proposed freeway right-of-way. Further source investigations are recotimended
for the sources of petroleum product near 15th Street (east and west sides
of City Waterway).
Sources of 2-methylphenol, phthalate esters, 4-methylphenol, N-nitrosodi-
phenylamine, aniline, and benzyl alcohol could not be identified using
existing data.
67
-------
3.4.3.1 Storm Drains CN-237, CS-237, and CI-230
Storm drains CN-237 and CS-237, located at the head of City Waterway,
discharge stormwater runoff generated in the NaT ley Valley and south Tacoma.
Additionally, some industries are authorized through issuance of NPDES
permits to discharge noncontact process waters to these storm drains.
Collectively, storm sewers CN-237 and CS-237 drain an area of approximately
8.2 mi2. These drains account for 92 percent of the stormwater discharged
to City Waterway Segment 1 and are the largest sources of zinc, lead, nickel,
and organic matter to this segment. Combined loadings from these drains
were estimated to be 2.6 lb/day of zinc, 3.2 lb/day of lead, and 0.212 lb/day
of nickel. Organic loadings from these drains vary greatly. Average COD
loadings from CN-237 and CS-237 were calculated to be 314 lb/day and 638
lb/day, respectively. The organic loading for CN-237 was calculated using
an average flow of 3.97 MGD (over a 3-yr period) and an average COD concentra-
tion of 11 mg/L. The organic loading for CS-237 was calculated using an
average flow of 4.78 MGD (over a 3-yr period) and an average COD concentration
of 18.5 mg/L. Loading of LPAH was calculated to be less than 0.176 lb/day,
and no HPAH were detected.
Storm drain CI-230, located on the west bank of City Waterway near
the old 15th Street bridge, is the largest known source of HPAH, LPAH,
and mercury. However, flow from this storm drain represents only approximately
1.8 percent of the total to City Waterway Segment 1. Contaminant loadings
were estimated to be less than 0.00085 lb/day of HPAH, less than 0.44 lb/day
of LPAH, and 0.00056 lb/day of mercury. After CN-237 and CS-237, CI-230
is the third largest source of zinc and lead. Contaminant loadings from
CI-230 were estimated to be 0.24 lb/day of zinc and 0.33 lb/day of lead.
Several factors contribute to the contaminant loadings within the
drainage areas of these storm drains. Urban runoff from areas including
the 1-5 freeway and commercial/industrial areas within drainages contribute
metals, PAH, and organic matter to the storm sewer system. Cross-connections
with the sanitary sewer system may be a source of organic matter and industrial
wastes. Other potential contaminant sources include direct discharge or
spillage into the storm sewers through catch basins, unauthorized commercial/in-
dustrial connections, and infiltration of contaminated groundwater. Remedial
technologies which may be applicable to control contamination reaching
City Waterway via CN-237, CS-237, and CI-230 include stormwater control
technologies discussed in Section 2.3.5.
3.4.3.2 Martinac Shipbuilding--
Martinac Shipbuilding is located on the east bank of City Waterway,
north of East 15th Street. Activities at this facility Include building
and repairing of ships. On the basis of a study conducted as part of the
Cormiencement Bay Remedial Investigation, WD0E concluded that sediments
near Martinac were substantially higher 1n priority contaminants zinc,
and copper, and non-priority contaminants arsenic and beryllium relative
to sediments in City Waterway and other waterways (Norton and Johnson 1984).
Zinc concentrations in sediments collected off Martinac were up to eight
times greater than those in sediments from mid-channel stations (Norton
and Johnson 1984). Metals may be entering the waterway through the use
of sandblasting grits and antifouling paints at this facility (Norton and
68
-------
Johnson 1984). During the WDOE study (Norton and Johnson 1984), a coarse-
grained black material, tentatively identified as sandblasting grit, was
observed on the surface of grab samples and on portions of the beach at
Martinac. "Tuf-Kut," the sandblasting material commonly used by Martinac,
typically has a very high concentration of copper (1,300-5,000 ppm) and
lower chromiun and zinc concentrations (100 ppm and 75 ppm, respectively).
Another potential source of metals from Martinac is antifouling paints,
which have high concentrations of zinc and copper that act as toxic agents
(Norton and Johnson 1984). These antifouling paints may enter the waterway
by direct spillage during painting and repair of ships, and when old paint
is sandblasted off ships. Remedial technologies which may be applicable
to reduce amounts of metals entering City Waterway from the activities
at Martinac Shipbuilding include:
Discontinuation of direct discharge of sandblasting materials
into City Waterway
Improvements in product handling to prevent spillage of
sandblasting materials and antifouling paints directly into
City Waterway or within the surface water drainage of this
waterway
Improvements in ship repair procedures to minimize the amount
of sandblasting grit (potentially containing old antifouling
paint) that enters City Waterway (i.e., use of curtains
or other containment devices around work area)
Construction of surface drains along dry dock to collect
wash water that may contain sandblasting grit and antifouling
paints
Treatment for contaminated surface and/or process water
from the building and repair activities (e.g., sedimentation,
filtration, coagulation/flocculation).
3.4.3.3 American Plating--
American Plating is an electroplating company located on the east
bank at the head of City Waterway. A study conducted by the WD0E as part
of the Commencement Bay Remedial Investigation indicated that sediment
concentrations of nickel near American Plating were higher than those in
adjacent sediments within City Waterway (Norton and Johnson 1984). Delineation
of the relative importance of American Plating as a source of metals is
complicated by the major metals loadings from storm drains CN-237 and CS-237,
which also discharge at the head of City Waterway. Historically, metals
may have entered City Waterway via the direct discharge of process wastewater.
This discharge was discontinued 1n 1981 when American Plating connected
to the sanitary sewer. For this reason, historical loading from American
Plating 1s believed to be more significant than the present loading, if
any. However, spills and unpermitted discharges from this facility are
possible sources of recent or ongoing metals loadings to City Waterway.
The WDOE Southwest Regional Office has documented numerous permit violations
and spills around American Plating, and is currently in the process of
collecting penalties issued against this company (Norton and Johnson 1984).
69
-------
Remedial technologies which may be applicable to reduce quantities of metals
entering City Waterway from American Plating include:
t Improvements in handling and storage of product and waste
materials to minimize spillage and leakage (may include
personnel training, inventory inspections)
Development of an emergency spill plan to ensure expedient
response and complete cleanup of spilled product and waste
materials
Construction of barriers, surface drains, or collection
systems to prevent migration of spilled product and waste
materials from property
Treatment for contaminated surface water emanating from
facilities, including floor drains (e.g., sedimentation,
filtration, coagulation/flocculation)
Soil sampling and, if necessary, removal
Inspection of facility for non-permitted discharges to City
Waterway
Investigation of groundwater as a potential contaminant
pathway to City Waterway from American Plating.
3.4.3.4 Unknown Sources--
For several of the priority contaminants in City Waterway Segment 1,
confirmed sources have not been identified. Contaminants for which source
identification was not possible with existing data are 2-methylphenol,
4-methyl phenol, and phthalate esters, which are priority 2 contaminants;
and dichlorobenzenes, N-nitrosodiphenylamine, aniline, and benzyl alcohol
which are priority 3 contaminants. Some source information exists for
HPAH and LPAH, but it appears unlikely that all sources and their respective
loadings have been accounted for, since sampling data for these contaminants
are limited and transport mechanisms are not well understood. Resampling
of known sources is recommended to determine if PAH concentrations are
increasing or decreasing. Additional source identification is also necessary
for those contaminants with no available loading data.
3.4.4 Sediment Remedial Actions
Sediments within City Waterway Segment 1 have been assigned an environ-
mental significance of 4 based on observed contamination levels, toxicity,
and biological effects. This problem area is therefore recommended for
consideration of remedial action to mitigate the environmental threat associated
with the priority contaminants in the sediments. Remediation of the existing
contamination is recommended only after the present sources of contaminants
have been effectively controlled.
Options for management of contaminated sediments within City Waterway
Segment 1 include dredging, in situ treatment/stabilization, and capping.
70
-------
Capping may not be a feasible remedial option for management of contaminated
sediments within City Segment 1 because present water depth is less than
10 ft below MLLW and facilities along the banks depend on waterway access
by commercial and private vessels. In general, priority contaminants within
City Waterway Segment 1 are either particle-bound or soluble and are likely
to be most effectively removed by hydraulic dredging. Hydraulic dredging
may be enhanced by the unconsolidated, slurry-like consistency of sediments
within this segment. Currently, the only dredging project proposed in
City Waterway is at the City Marina, but it is not certain whether this
project will be pursued since the owner has not been willing to have chemical
analyses performed on the sediments.
The volume of contaminated sediment within City Waterway Segment 1
is estimated to be 440,440 yd3. This volume was estimated using a surface
area of 42 ac, computed with a planimeter, and an average sediment depth
of 6 to 7 ft. For the purpose of this preliminary volume calculation,
contamination was assumed to extend through the soft sediment layer. If
groundwater is determined to be a source of contaminants to City Waterway,
lower sediment layers are also probably contaminated. Additional deep
core sampling is necessary to determine the vertical extent of contamination.
3.4.5 Data Needs
Several data gaps exist for City Waterway Segment 1 that hinder the
development and evaluation of specific source control and sediment remedial
action alternatives. The vertical extent of contamination has not been
defined and conclusive identification of potential sources has not been
made. Data needs specific to City Waterway Segment 1 include
Additional source investigation for priority contaminants
listed in Section 3.2.3.4:
Priority 2: 2-methylphenol, 4-methylphenol, phthalate esters
Priority 3: N-nitrosodiphenylamine, aniline, benzyl
alcohol
Focused source investigations for the Tacoma Spur site;
the Tar Pits site; city of Tacoma storm drains CN-237, CS-237,
and CI-230; and West Coast Grocery
Investigation of potential sources of petroleum product
near 15th Street, both east and west sides of City Waterway
The potential of the Wheeler-Osgood branch as a source of
contaminants to City Waterway
Cross section sediment sampling of City Waterway in the
vicinity of 15th Street to define cross-waterway trends
for PAH
The vertical extent of contamination as determined by deep
core sampling
71
-------
Sediment core dating to determine deposition dates of contami-
nants to delineate whether sources are ongoing or historical
Determination of sedimentation rates in City Waterway Segment 1.
3.5 HYLEBOS WATERWAY SEGMENT 5
3.5.1 Physical Description
Segment 5 of Hylebos Waterway is located at the northwestern portion
of the waterway, extending approximately from 2,250 ft to 5,800 ft from
the mouth of the waterway. The width of the main channel measures between
600 ft and 1,000 ft in this segment, with a large intertidal area west
of East 11th Street extending another 800 ft to the north. Recent subbottom
profiling of Hylebos Waterway showed average mid-channel depths of 37-44 ft
below MLLW in Segment 5. Cross sections in this segment indicate that
depth varies from 28 ft below MLLW at the south bank to 36 ft below MLLW
at mid-channel. Sediment accumulation is between 1 and 4 ft in this segment,
with a pronounced accumulation of 4 ft along the south side of the waterway,
adjacent to Occidental Chemical Corporation (Figure 36 of Raven Systems
and Research 1984). Sediments within Hylebos Waterway are typically silty
sands with an average composition of 64 percent fine-grained material and
an average clay content of 20 percent. Past dredging activities in this
segment include maintenance dredging by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
in 1931, 1962, and 1972; and by the Occidental Chemical Corporation in
1967, 1968, and 1974.
Industrial facilities located along the banks of Hylebos Waterway
Segment 5 include Tacoma Boatbuilding Company, PRI Northwest Inc., Occidental
Chemical Corporation, and the Port of Tacoma industrial yard on the south
bank. The north bank is bordered by a relatively steep, forested bluff
above Marine View Drive (Figure 12). Occidental Chemical Corporation (HY-707,
NPDES WA0037265) is the only permitted discharge to Hylebos Waterway Segment
5. Non-permitted discharges associated with Occidental Chemical Corporation
include groundwater seeps (HY-083), seven steel pipes (HY-085), and the
groundwater beneath Occidental Chemical Corporation. There are an additional
18 non-permitted surface water discharges to Segment 5 (Figure 13).
3.5.2 Extent of Contamination
Results of the Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats Remedial Investigation
indicate that polychorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are the priority 1 contaminant
in Hylebos Waterway Segment 5. Priority 2 contaminants are hexachlorobutadiene,
chlorinated benzenes, nickel, chlorinated ethenes, the pentachlorocyclopentane
isomer, and lead. Priority 3 contaminants are mercury, HPAH, copper, zinc,
LPAH, phenol, benzyl alcohol, and biphenyl. The area of concern is defined
as the entire deep-water portion of the segment, excluding the intertidal
area, based on biological and chemical analyses of sediment samples collected
during this project at Stations HY-36, HY-38, HY-39, HY-40, HY-41, HY-42,
HY-45, HY-46, and HY-47 (Figure 14); and on evalutation of historical sediment
data. Analyses indicated elevated contaminant concentrations at the above
stations within this segment and several abnormal biological conditions.
Sediment bioassays indicated oyster larvae and amphipod toxicity. Analyses
72
-------
1000 2000
METERS
Figure 12. Major industries surrounding Hylebos Waterway.
-------
MMUIII
"Th!
O 1000 2000
METERS
1000
Figure 13. NPDES-permitted and non-permitted discharges to Hylebos Waterway.
-------
Sediment Core
HY-63C
HY-48
HY-02
Sediment Core
HY-63
HY-46
Sediment Core
HY-63A HY-45
HY-42
44 /
Sediment
Sediment
HY-63B
Core HY-62
HY-41
Sediment Core
HY-61
Sediment Core
HY-60A
Sediment Core
HY-60B
* HBOC. MM
O MJOC. W*tor1eป1
A CM
O Tttrt Ttch
X Otlwr tacncltt
2000
FEET
METERS
Figure 14. Surficial sediment and sediment core sampling sta-
tion locations from all Hylebos Waterway Segment 5
studies in the Commencement Bay Remedial Investi-
gation database.
75
-------
of fish caught in Hylebos Waterway indicated liver lesions and signifi-
cant accumulation of mercury, phthalates, and PCBs in muscle tissues.
A high priority problem area was identified in Hylebos Waterway Segment
5, west of the 11th Street Bridge. While cross-channel sampling was limited,
existing data showed sediments from the southern side of the waterway to
be more contaminated than those from the middle or north side. A single
sample from the large shallow area on the north shore (HY-02) indicated
that chemicals in this area were not significantly elevated above Puget
Sound Reference conditions. Anomalously low elevations above reference
for all chemicals were also measured at Station HY-44, located within the
problem area. The simplest explanation is that this station contained
relict sediments either dumped at the site in a dredging operation or exposed
by ship scour. Concentrations of the majority of the chemicals measured
in sediments along the south shore were not greatly elevated above reference
conditions, although selected chlorinated compounds were present in the
highest concentrations observed throughout Commencement Bay. Their spatial
distributions were not as simple as might have been expected if all compounds
had originated from a single source. Intertidal and shallow subtidal sediments
along the southern shore about 3,000 ft from the waterway mouth were highly
contaminated with chlorinated ethenes. The concentrations of these compounds
sometimes exceeded AET values by several orders of magnitude. These very
high contaminant levels were restricted to the nearshore area, and declined
rapidly with distance offshore and alongshore. Chlorinated butadiene
concentrations exhibited the strongest single gradient, maximizing at Stations
HY-43, HY-46, and HY-47 (all contiguous nearshore stations on the south
side of the channel). Only concentrations of hexachlorobutadiene exceeded
AET in this area. Concentrations of a tentatively identified pentachloro-
cyclopentane isomer and many of the chlorinated benzenes were highly elevated
(above AET) at Station HY-46 and also at Station HY-36, near the 11th Street
Bridge. PAH concentrations were also elevated near the 11th Street Bridge.
3.5.3 Contaminant Sources
Occidental Chemical Corporation is the only confirmed source of chlorinated
hydrocarbons (chlorinated ethenes, butadienes, and benzenes) and mercury
to Hylebos Waterway Segment 5. Contaminant loadings from the discharges
associated with Occidental Chemical Corporation are presented in Table 5.
Groundwater beneath Occidental Chemical Corporation is the maior transport
mechanism by which chlorinated ethenes enter the waterway, while the principal
known route for chlorinated benzenes and butadienes has been the main plant
outfall (HY-707). The only confirmed route of mercury to Segment 5 is
via discharge HY-085. However, it is likely that observed mercury contamination
in the sediment is from other unknown sources.
The sources of PCBs are unknown. It is also unknown whether the
contaminant levels observed in surficial sediments are due to historical
or recent deposition. There are several possible explanations for elevated
concentrations of PCBs in surficial sediments, including exposure of historical
contamination during dredging activities and by ship scouring, dispersion
of PCB-contaminated sediments during dredging activities, ana ongoing or
recent discharges. Ongoing or recent discharges were not considered a
major source since PCBs were not detected in discharges to this segment.
In addition, chemical analyses of these sediment PCBs indicated they were
76
-------
TABLE 5. CONTAMINANT LOADINGS AND RELATIVE PERCENTAGES
FOR HYLEBOS WATERWAY SEGMENT 5
Contaminant
HY-0B3
Discharge
HY-085
HY-707
Groundwater
Beneath
Occidental
PCB*
loading, lb/day
ND
ND
ND
X of loading
to segment
X of loading
to waterway
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
Butadienes3
loading, lb/day
ND
0.00002
0.026
X of loading
to segment
0.08
99.92
* of loading
to waterway
0.08
99.58
Benzenesฎ
loading, lb/day
ND
<0.00006
0.039
X of loading
to segment
0.15
99.85
X of loading
to waterway
<0.01
6.01
Ethenes8
loading, lb/day
<0.00015
0.0016
0.65
5.9
X of loading
to segment
<.01
0.02
9.92
90.05
X of loading
to waterway
<.01
0.02
8.16
74.11
Metals
Mercurya
loading, lb/day
0.000029
ND
X of loading
to segment
100
X of loading
to waterway
<0.01
* priority contaminant.
77
-------
weathered, either in the terrestrial or the marine environment over a period
of years. Sources of pentachlorocyclopentane isomer, phenol, benzyl alcohol,
and biphenyl remain unknown as well.
3.5.3.1 Occidental Chemical Corporation--
Occidental Chemical Corporation is an ongoing source of chlorinated
hydrocarbons (benzenes, butadienes, and ethenes) and mercury to Hylebos
Waterway Segment 5. Current discharges associated with Occidental Chemical
Corporation include the main plant outfall HY-707, surface drain HY-085,
groundwter seep HY-083 and the groundwater beneath the plant site (area 2
and area 3). Occidental Chemical Corporation is the largest known source
of chlorinated ethenes and butadienes to Hylebos Waterway. A total loading
of approximately 6.6 lb/day of tri- and tetrachloroethene has been discharged
to Hylebos Waterway from Occidental Chemical Corporation, representing
over 82 percent of the total loading to the waterway. Groundwater contributes
the majority of the loading: 5.9 lb/day from both areas 2 and 3. An estimated
0.02602 lb/day of chlorinated butadienes are discharged to Segment 5 via
the main plant outfall (HY-707) and surface water (HY-085), which represent
the total known loading to Segment 5, and nearly 100 percent of the known
loading to Hylebos Waterway. Of the four confirmed sources of chlorinated
benzenes to Hylebos Waterway, Occidental Chemical Corporation is ranked
third in significance. An estimated 0.03906 lb/day of chlorinated benzenes
is discharged to Segment 5 from Occidental Chemical Corporation via the
main plant outfall (HY-707) and surface water (HY-085). This loading represents
100 percent of the known loading to Segment 5, but only 6 percent of the
known loading to the entire waterway. Mercury has only been detected in
one discharge associated with Occidental Chemical Corporation. The estimated
loading of 0.000029 lb/day of mercury is discharged to Hylebos Waterway
Segment 5 via HY-085. This loading represents 100 percent of the known
loading to Segment 5, but only 0.01 percent of the known loading to the
waterway.
Chlorinated hydrocarbons, particularly chlorinated ethenes, have been
released into the environment either as a product or a byproduct of past
and present manufacturing practices. At Occidental Chemical Corporation
two independent activities identified as potential sources of chlorinated
hydrocarbons are: 1) the production of chlorine and caustic soda by electroly-
sis of sodium chloride brine, and 2) the operation of a solvents production
facility. There has been historical practices of direct discharge of wastes
from these two operations. Contamination of Hylebos Waterway occurring
via groundwater is largely the result of solvent plant wastes that were
disposed on-site during the years from 1947 to 1973 when Occidental Chemical
Corporation operated their solvents plant. Contaminants were leaching
into groundwater and subsequently into Hylebos Waterway from unlined waste
lagoons and buried wastes. Waste lagoons were removed from service about
1974. Occidental Chemical Corporation hired consulting firms Walker Wells,
Inc., and Hart-Crower and Associates to assess the extent of chlorinated
organic contamination in the soil and groundwater beneath the plant site.
Sample analyses revealed total chlorinated organics concentrations up to
20,000 ug/kg in soils and up to 700 ug/L in groundwater from the Occidental
Chemical Corporation property. As a result of these investigations, WD0E
ordered Occidental Chemical Corporation to remove the most contaminted
soils (exceeding 150 mg/kg) and to cap with an impermeable material those
78
-------
areas that exceeded concentrations of 15 mg/kg (Docket No. DE81-153).
These actions have been completed, and groundwater wells were installed
to monitor contaminant concentrations after the removal of contaminated
soils. Occidental Chemical Corporation is required to monitor groundwater
quality quarterly. No improvement in groundwater quality has been observed
since contaminated soils were removed in 1981 as evidenced by the data
submitted by Occidental Chemical Corporation to WDOE (Figure 15).
Waste sludges removed from these lagoons during routine maintenance
were disposed in several locations within the Commencement Bay area. The
WDOE confirmed the locations of four such disposal areas and suspects a
fifth location (Pierce, R., 13 May 1985, personal communication). Occidental
Chemical Corporation voluntarily installed monitoring wells at three of
the confirmed disposal sites and sampled the groundwater on two separate
occasions. The extent of groundwater monitoring required at the fourth
confirmed site is currently being negotiated between WDOE and Occidental
Chemical Corporation (Pierce 1985).
Occidental Chemical Corporation is planning to dredge Hylebos Waterway
in the vicinity of their dock. The WDOE reviewed and approved the sampling
and analysis plan on December 5, 1984, and sediments were sampled on Decenber
10, 1984, while WDOE Inspected Occidental's sampling and analysis procedures.
A turn-around time of 6 wk was scheduled for lab analyses, but as of April
22, 1985, the WDOE had not received the sediment data from Occidental Chemical
Corporation. Previous sediment samples analyzed in 1983 showed high concen-
trations of chlorinated organic compounds (particularly chlorinated ethenes).
WDOE believes a significant quantity of organic chemicals may be leaving
Occidental Chemical Corporation adsorbed onto solids in the effluent waste
stream but undetected due to high dilution. To quantify this amount, if
present, the WDOE 1s considering requesting Occidental Chemical Corporation
and other chemical manufacturers to perform organic chemical analyses on
the filtered solids from their effluents (Eaton, T., 10 May 1985, personal
communication).
Contaminants enter Hylebos Waterway and the surrounding environment
via direct discharge of process wastewaters, groundwater, and potentially
surface water runoff from Occidental Chemical Corporation. Control of
these contaminant routes may require implementation of a remedial plan
that integrates several technologies. Although discussion of specific
in-plant control technologies is not within the scope of this task, contaminant
loadings from process effluents are significant and must be addressed in
a source control plan. The main plant outfall is the largest source of
chlorinated butadienes and the third largest source of chlorinated ethenes
to Hylebos Waterway.
There has been no documented release of contaminated surface water
from the Occidental Chemical Corporation; however, the potential exists
for shallow contaminated groundwater to infiltrate storm sewer lines and
enter Hylebos Waterway via these outfalls. Since the most highly contaminated
soils have been removed and most of the site paved, surface water runoff
from Occidental Chemical Corporation is not expected to be contaminated.
Additional investigation is necessary to determine whether surface water
is a transport route for contaminants from Occidental Chemical Corporation.
79
-------
1400
* 800
Total ChloHnaHl"^
_ _Tr 1ichi oroetbene j
Tetrachlproethene ,
*
ซ
r-
3 CO
CNi
CO
CSJ
CO
OJ
CO
CM
CO
m
00
ro
CO
n
CO
n
00
CO
CO
CO
fSJ
cnj
o ^
(NJ
o
8
ON
o
(VI
m
ฉ
ฃ
9>
O
n
o
SO
ฉ
OV
o
Sampling Date
NOTE: DATA SHOWN ARE FROM WELL NO.4, LOCATED IN AREA 2. SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED
AT SCREENED DEPTHS OF 45 FT. SAMPLE COLLECTED 12/79 HAS ANALYZED BY CAN
TEST. ALL OTHER SAMPLES WERE ANALYZED BY OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION.
Figure 15. Concentration of chlorinated compounds in ground-
water beneath Occidental Chemical Corporation.
80
-------
If confirmed, evaluation and implementation of surface water controls may
be necessary to reduce the contaminant loadings from this route.
Groundwater beneath Occidental Chemical Corporation is the largest
source of chlorinated ethenes to Hylebos Waterway. Contamination of groundwater
may be a result of one or more of the following: leaching from historically
contaminated soils, leaching from buried waste sludges, exfiltration from
buried waste and process lines, leaking storage tanks, and chemical spills.
Applicable remedial technologies to mitigate groundwater contamination
at Occidental Chemical Corporation include
Excavation of remaining contaminated soils and replacement
with clean material, if necessary
Capping, covering, or paving of remaining contaminated areas
to reduce vertical migration of contaminants
Inspection of underground lines and tanks (if appl icable)
for cracks, breaks, and leaking connections. Repair, if
necessary
Groundwater controls, see Section 2.4.
The above technologies vary considerably in the extent to which they
control groundwater contamination. For maximum mitigation, groundwater
pumping and treatment in conjuction with contaminated soil removal is neces-
sary. Effectiveness of the previous groundwater and contaminated soils
remedial actions should be evaluated prior to implementation of new control
technologies. Since the contaminants of major concern are volatile organics,
air stripping, with appropriate air pollution controls, may prove to be
the most effective technology for groundwater contamination at Occidental
Chemical Corporation.
3.5.3.2 Unknown Sources--
For several of the priority contaminants in Hylebos Waterway Segment
5, confirmation of sources is not possible with existing data. Contaminants
for which additional source identification is needed include PCBs, pentachloro-
cyclopentane isomer, lead, HPAH, copper, zinc, LPAH, phenol, benzyl alcohol,
and biphenyl. Additional discharge monitoring for these specific contaminants
is necessary to identify the sources. Mercury has been detected in a discharge
from Occidental Chemical Corporation (HY-085). However, this discharge
is approximately 1,000 ft closer to the mouth of the waterway than is the
"hot spot" and is not likely to be the only source. Therefore, additional
source identification is required for mercury within Segment 5 and other
segments of Hylebos Waterway.
81
-------
3.5.4 Sediment Remedial Actions
Sediments in Hylebos Waterway Segment 5 have been assigned an environmental
significance ranking of 4 based on observed contamination levels, toxicity,
and biological effects. Therefore, it is recommended that this area be
considered for remedial action to reduce the environmental and public health
threat associated with the priority contaminants in the sediments. Remediation
of the existing contaminated sediments should be implemented only after
the present sources of all priority contaminants have been effectively
controlled.
As part of a dredging permit application process, Occidental Chemical
Corporation recently sampled sediments immediately off their dock. It
is likely that sediments close to the Occidental Chemical Corporation outfall
will be classified as a dangerous waste under the Washington State Dangerous
Waste regulations, and if dredged, will require disposal at a RCRA-approved
site (e.g., Chem Securities in Arlington OR). It should be noted that
dredging in this area may expose buried sediments that are more contaminated
than are the surficial sediments.
Options for management of contaminated sediments within Hylebos Waterway
Segment 5 include capping, in situ treatment/stabilization, and dredging.
Capping probably is not applicable as a remedial technology within Hylebos
Waterway because frequent dredging will be necessary to allow clearance
for deep draft ships. Selection of the most appropriate dredging method
is complicated by the combination of very high concentrations of volatile
organic compounds (greater than 350,000 ppb of chlorinated ethenes) and
PCBs, which are sediment-bound contaminants. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
generally recommends mechanical dredging for the former group of contaminants
and hydraulic dredging for the latter group. The volume of contaminated
sediments within Hylebos Waterway Segment 5 is estimated to be 198,440 yd3.
This volune was estimated using a surface area of 41 ac, computed with
a planimeter, and an average sediment depth of 3 ft, estimated from recent
subbottom profiles (Raven Systems and Research 1984). For the purpose
of this preliminary volume calculation, contamination was assumed to extend
through the soft sediment layer. Contamination probably extends into the
harder underlying sediment layers from the migration of contaminants in
groundwater. Additional deep core sampling 1s necessary to determine the
actual vertical extent of contamination.
3.5.5 Data Needs
Several data needs were identified that hinder the development or
evaluation of potential remedial alternatives for the problem area in Hylebos
Waterway Segment 5. Data gaps are associated with either the non-definitive
boundaries of the area problem or with the inconclusive identification
of potential sources. Specific data needs include
Additional source Identification of priority contaminants
listed in Section 3.5.3.2:
82
-------
Priority 1 - PCBs
Priority 2 - Hexachlorobutadiene, chlorinated benzenes,
chlorinated ethenes, pentachlorocyclopentane isomer,
lead
Priority 3 - Mercury, HPAH, copper, zinc, LPAH, phenol,
benzyl alcohol, biphenyl
More precise definition of vertical extent of contaminant
by deep core sampling of sediments
Vertical distribution of PCBs and the extent to which sediment
concentrations are due to current discharges, if any. Infor-
mation that may be useful in this determination includes
sedimentation rates, dating of deep sediment cores, and
additional source investigation
A survey to identify all potential past and current sources
of PCBs, including identification of electrical equipment
containing PCB oil.
3.6 SITCUM WATERWAY
3.6.1 Physical Description
Sitcum Waterway is situated between Blair Waterway to the north and
Milwaukee Waterway to the south. The Port of Tacoma owns the land along
the north and the south shores (Figure 16). The south shore is leased
to Sealand for storage, shipping, and receiving facilities. The Port's
Terminal 7 is located along the north shore and is equipped with facilities
for container handling and bulk unloading of alumina, various ores, and
ore concentrates (primarily zinc, copper, and lead). Tlie pier at Terminal
7 is 2,700 ft long with four berths (A, B, C, and D). Both properties
are paved and accessible by railroad. There are no permitted discharges
to Sitcum Waterway and 17 non-permitted discharges. There are 10 storm
drains (SI-172, SI-175, SI-176, SI-716-01, SI-716-02, SI-717, SI-718-01,
SI-718-02, SI-719-01, and SI-719-02); and various sized concrete outfalls
(SI-165, SI-166, SI-167, SI-168, SI-169, SI-170 and SI-171) (Figure 17).
SI-176 also serves as an emergency sanitary sewer bypass.
Nine dredging activities since 1946 have shaped the Sitcum Waterway
into its present configuration. The waterway is approximately 3,200 fl
in length with an average width of 600 ft. Initial dredging of Sitcum
Waterway occurred in 1946 and routine waterway dredging was performed again
in 1956 and 1968. Terminal 7 was dredged in 1961, 1966, 1973 and 1982.
The West Sitcum Terminal (Sealand) was dredged 1n 1979 and 1983. Currently,
water depths at Terminal 7 range from 35 ft below MLLW in berth A to 50
ft below MLLW in berth D (Norton and Johnson 1985b). The main channel
is 40 ft below MLLW or deeper (Raven Systems and Research 1984). Sediments
are typically 70 percent fine-grained material, with a day content of
nearly 20 percent. Recent profiling of the Sitcum Waterway indicated little
recent sedimentation of solids in the channel, except outside the mouth
where deposition of soft mud ranged from 1 to 6 ft (Raven Systems and Research
1984).
83
-------
rmI f.
' w aw I
he.
~wr t#.
!"ป a.
Nmhn
>ซซ.
*ซซ Mto|
(MlNiltl
a*tw
- T*coซi
ITottm QctMi
fmttt, I*.)
-------
SI-165
SI-166
CM
GO
VO
m ซ?
to
1/1
S1-172
A-4 A A4
+ S-1
SI-716-01
1-9
S-2 +
ASI
SI-11 DX
S-15D SI-04 X
~ SI-13
~SI-12
SI-15
S-3 +
S-4
5A
SI-716-02
00
SI175
~ Tปtrซ TkH
A EM
X Other Agencies
~ MDOC, 1984
00
300
Figure 17. Surficial sediment and sediment core sampling station locations from all
studies in Sitcum Waterway.
-------
3.6.2 Extent of Contamination
Results of the Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats Remedial Investigation
indicate that arsenic, copper, zinc, and lead are priority 2 contaminants
and that N-nitrosodiphenylamine, dibenzofuran, 1-methyl(2-methylethyl)benzene,
diterpenoid hydrocarbons, LPAH, and HPAH are priority 3 contaminants.
The area of concern is defined as the entire waterway, based on chemical
and biological analyses of sediment samples collected during the project
at Stations SI-11, SI-12, SI-13, SI-14, and SI-15 (Figure 17) and an evaluation
of historical sediment data. Chemical analyses indicated elevated contaminant
concentrations at all stations, and sediment bioassays indicated amphipod
toxicity. Bioaccimulation of PCBs in fish muscle tissue and a high prevalence
of hepatic neoplasms in English sole were major factors that increased
the ranking of this problem area. Sitcum Waterway sediments differed from
those in neighboring waterways primarily in the much higher EAR for most
of the metals.
Based on the most recent midchannel samples collected by Tetra Tech,
metals were present at high EAR at the head of the waterway and decreased
in concentration toward the mouth. However, consideration of historical
data reveals more patchy distribution of metals, with no apparent longitudinal
gradient. This may be a result of recent dredging activities at Terminal 7
and Sealand, or the locations of known sources on both sides and at the
head of the waterway. The concentrations of several metals in both data
sets exceed AET (i.e., arsenic, copper, lead and zinc). Host of the organic
compounds were present at low EAR compared with those in many other areas
of Commencement Bay. Both the LPAH and HPAH had two maxima, one near the
head of the waterway in conjunction with the high EAR for metals, and one
near the mouth at Station SI-14. Recent dredging by the Port of Tacoma
off the Sealand facility, located at the mouth of Sitcum Waterway, removed
approximately 11 ft of sediment. Station SI-14 was located within the
area disturbed by this dredging activity. PCBs were detected in Sitcum
Waterway sediments, but the concentrations did not exceed the 80th percentile
value for all Commencement Bay sediments.
3.6.3 Contaminant Sources
Metals are entering Sitcum Waterway by two major routes: ore spillage
at the Port of Tacoma's Terminal 7 and storm drains (particularly SI-172,
SI-176, and SI-717). Metals loadings from storm drains that discharge
to Sitcufn Waterway and their respective percentages compared to total loadings
are presented in Table 6.
Metals loadings from storm drain SI-172 may be underestimated relative
to those from other storm drains in Sitcum Waterway. Loadings from SI-172
were calculated by averaging data collected on several occasions, including
during dry weather, while the loadings for the other storm drains were
calculated using data from a single storm event. After evaluating data
collected from 10 storm drains during a single storm event on June 26, 1984,
the WDOE concluded that SI-172 contributed 80 to 90 percent of the total
metals loadings (Norton and Johnson 1985b). This percent differs greatly
from the loading of 36 percent calculated using all available data. For
the purposes of this report, metals sources will be prioritized on relative
importance based on all available data. Ore spillage from Terminal 7 is
86
-------
TABLE 6. CONTAMINANT LOADINGS ANO RELATIVE
PERCENTAGES FOR SITCUM WATERWAY
Discharge
Contaminant SI-172 SI-175 SI-176 SI-716 SI-717 S1-718 S1-719 Total
Metals
Zincฎ
loading, lb/day 1.23 0.20 1.75 0.029 1.23 0.03 0.11 4.579
X total to
waterway 26.86 4.37 38.22 0.63 26.86 0.66 2.40
Lead3
loading, lb/day 0.36 0.022 1.56 0.028 0.90 0.0057 0.084 2.9597
X total to
waterway 12.16 0.74 52.71 0.95 30.41 0.19 2.84
Arsenicฎ
loading, lb/day 1.8 0.0040 0.068 0.0035 0.056 0.0098 0.0024 1.9437
X total to
waterway 92.61 0.21 3.50 0.18 2.88 0.50 0.12
Copperฎ
loading, lb/day 0.57 0.03 0.38 0.018 0.36 0.0069 0.027 1.3919
X total to
waterway 40.95 2.16 27.30 1.29 25.86 0.50 1.94
Total
loading, lb/day 3.96 0.256 3.758 0.0785 2.546 0.0524 0.2234 10.8743
X total to
waterway, X 36.42 2.35 34.56 0.72 23.41 0.48 2.05
a Priority contaminant.
-------
a major source of metals to the Sitcum Waterway, but the relative importance
of this source has not been quantified. In order of significance, discharges
of arsenic from storm drains are as follows: SI-172, SI-176, SI-717, SI-718,
SI-175, SI-716, and SI-719. In order of significance, discharges of other
metals (copper, lead, and zinc combined) are as follows: SI-176, SI-172,
SI-717, SI-716, SI-175, SI-719, and SI-718. In general, the overall priority
for source control is as follows: Port of Tacoma Terminal 7, SI-172, SI-176,
and SI-717. Terminal 7 should be given top priority because it is believed
to be a major source that does not need additional source identification
efforts. Identification and control of contaminant sources to the storm
drainage system, and subsequently to Sitcum Waterway, will require additional
source identification and longer implementation time. No sources of aromatic
hydrocarbons and dibenzofuran could be identified.
3.6.3.1 Port of Tacoma Ore Docks--
Ore spillage from the Port of Tacoma's Terminal 7 is considered to
be a potentially large source of metals to Sitcum Waterway. Although no
quantitative loadings have been calculated, it is estimated that spillage
of approximately 10 lb of zinc ore would exceed the combined metals loading
from all storm drains 1n Sitcum Waterway. As part of a study of metals
loadings to Sitcum Waterway (Norton and Johnson 1985b), WDOE found that:
The Port has had a practice of collecting recoverable ore
and washing the remaining ore into Sitcum Waterway
EP toxicity tests on samples of ore spilled at Terminal 7
indicated that lead and zinc ores would be designated as
dangerous wastes under WDOE's 1984 Dangerous Waste Regulations
when spilled or discharged into the environment
High concentrations of zinc, lead, and copper were present
in sediments along the north side of the channel, in front
of Terminal 7.
To prevent the release of spilled ores at the Terminal 7 unloading
facility, improved materials handling procedures are required. Control
technologies that may be applicable to control metals contamination from
the Port's Terminal 7 Include
Discontinuation of washing unrecovered ore Into Sitcum Waterway
ง Construction of a surface water collection/diversion system
to prevent metal-laden runoff from entering Sitcum Waterway
Treatment of surface water by physical or chemical means
(e.g., filtration, carbon adsorption, flocculatlon/coagulation)
Construction of sedimentation ponds to remove particulate
matter prior to discharge of stormwater to Sitcum Waterway
88
-------
Use of particle curtains or other barriers to prevent atmospheric
transport of ore dust during unloading and handling activities
Use of aprons between ships and dock during unloading operations.
3.6.3.2 Storm Drains SI-172, SI-176, and SI-717
Storm drains SI-172, SI-176, and SI-717 are confirmed sources of metals
(arsenic, copper, lead, and zinc) to Sitcum Waterway. Although loading
estimates have been calculated for each of these storm drains (and four
others in Sitcum Waterway), caution must be exercised when using these
loadings to prioritize sources since most loadings were calculated based
on a single sampling event. Storm drains SI-172, SI-176, and SI-717 were
given a higher priority for further source evaluation and control because
these three drains were clearly the largest known sources of metals, and
the total combined loadings represented over 94 percent of the total known
metals loading for Sitcum Waterway.
Storm drain SI-172, commonly referred to as the North Corner Drain,
is a confirmed source of metals (arsenic, copper, lead, and zinc) to Sitcum
Waterway. The 60-in concrete pipe conveys stormwater runoff from the com-
mercial/industrial area east of the waterway to the northeast corner of
the waterway. The drainage area of approximately 214 ac is bounded by
East 11th Street, Port of Tacoma Road, Lincoln Avenue, and Milwaukee Way
(Figure 16). The North Corner drain (SI-172) is the largest known source
of arsenic and copper to Sitcum Waterway. Estimated loadings are 1.8 lb/day
of arsenic and 0.57 lb/day of copper, representing approximately 92.6 percent
and 41 percent of the total respective loadings to this waterway. SI-172
is ranked second in source loadings of zinc (1.23 lb/day) and third for
lead (0.36 lb/day). The North Corner drain is the largest confirmed source
of combined metals loading to Sitcum Waterway (estimated to be 3.96 lb/day
of metals) and has a high priority for source control.
Several sources may be contributing to the high metals concentration
of surface water discharged from SI-172: motor vehicles, unauthorized
storm sewer connections, ore spillage from railroad cars, and infiltration
of groundwater contaminated by Tacoma Landfill leachate and buried ASARCO
slag.
Storm drain SI-176 is a 30-in concrete outfall that discharges stornwater
runoff from the 170-ac Sealand facility located on the south side of the
waterway. The entire site 1s paved and has several sets of railroad tracks
that access the West Sitcum Terminal. Host of the southwest shore, on which
the Sealand facilities are located, has been r1p-rapped with ASARCO slag
(Kucinski, 6 August 1985, personal communication). Discharge SI-176 is
the largest source of lead and zinc to Sitcum Waterway. Estimated loadings
are 1.56 lb/day of lead and 1.75 lb/day of zinc. These loadings represent
nearly 53 percent (lead) and 38 percent (zinc) of the total loadings pf
these metals. Discharge SI-176 is the second largest source of arsenic
and copper. Estimated loadings are 0.068 lb/day of arsenic and 0.38 lb/day
of copper. Storm drain SI-176 is the second largest confirmed loading
to Sitcum Waterway (estimated to be 3.76 lb/day of metals), and has high
priority for source control. High metals loadings in the surface water
collected 1n the drainage area of storm drain SI-176 may be the result
89
-------
of direct discharge or spills of materials containing metals, or infiltration
of groundwater contaminated by ASARCO slag.
Storm drain SI-717 is located approximately 1,200 ft from the head
of Sitcum Waterway on the northwest bank. SI-717 collects surface water
runoff from the Port of Tacoma's Terminal 7. Drain SI-717 is the second
largest known source of lead and zinc to Sitcum Waterway. Estimated loadings
are 0.90 lb/day of lead and 1.23 lb/day of zinc, representing over 30 percent
of the total known loadings of these metals to Sitcum Waterway. Storm
drain SI-717 is ranked third in source loadings of arsenic (0.056 lb/day)
and of copper (0.36 lb/day). Based on available source information, drain
SI-717 is ranked third for total metals loading to Sitcum Waterway. Spillage
of ores and ore concentrates at the Port of Tacoma's Terminal 7 is most
likely the largest source of metals within the drainage area of SI-717.
Remedial technologies that may be applicable to reduce metals loadings
to Sitcum Waterway via storm drains SI-172, SI-176, and SI-717 include
Stormwater controls, Section 2.3.5
t Improvement in ore handling procedures by the Port of Tacoma
to minimize spillage from railcars
Improvement in ore off-loading procedures by the Port of
Tacoma to minimize spillage at the facility and within the
drainage area (particularly SI-717)
Inspection of Sealand facilities for potential sources of
metals and implementation of control measures, if applicable.
Stabilization of slag to prevent further leaching of metals
into the waterway (e.g., cement).
3.6.3.4 Unknown Sources-
Contaminants in Sitcum Waterway for which additional source identification
is necessary are N-nitrosodiphenylamine, dibenzofuran, 1-methyl(2-methylethyl)-
benzene, diterpenoid hydrocarbons, LPAH and HPAH. These organic compounds
are all priority 3 contaminants. For accurate identification of sources,
the discharges to Sitcum Waterway should be sampled for these specific
compounds.
3.6.4 Sediment Remedial Action
Sediments within Sitcum Waterway have been assigned an environmental
significance ranking of 4 based on observed contamination levels, toxicity,
and biological effects. Therefore, it is recommended that this area be
evaluated further for sediment remedial actions to reduce the environmental
threat associated with the priority contaminants in the sediments, ^mediation
of the existing contaminated sediments should be implemented only after
the present sources of contamination have been effectively controlled.
90
-------
Options for management of contaminated sediments in Sitcum Waterway
include capping, in situ treatment/stabilization, and dredging. Capping
may not be a feasible option for management of contaminated sediments within
Sitcum Waterway because maintenance dredging will be required to provide
clearance for deep draft vessels using the Sealand facilities and the Port
of Tacoma's Terminal 7. Sediment management technologies are discussed
in Chapter 2 of this report.
In general, the priority contaminants are classified as primarily
particle-bound, indicating that hydraulic dredging may be the preferred
sediment removal method. The volume of contaminated sediment within Sitcum
Waterway is estimated to be 80,667 yd3. This volume was estimated using
a surface area of 50 ac, computed with a planimeter, and an average sediment
depth of 1.0 ft, estimated from recent subbottom profiles (Raven Systems
and Research 1984). For the purpose of this preliminary volume calculation,
contamination was assumed to extend through the soft sediment layer. However,
it may extend into the harder underlying sediment layers. Additional deep
core sampling is necessary to determine the actual vertical extent of contami-
nation.
3.6.5 Data Needs
Some data gaps for Sitcum Waterway are associated with non-definitive
boundaries of the area of concern, while others are associated with the
inconclusive Identification of potential sources. Data needs specific
to Sitcum Waterway include
Additional source identification for compounds identified
in Section 3.6.3.4:
Priority 3 - N-nitrosodiphenylamine, dibenzofuran,
l-methyl(2-methylethyl)benzene, diterpenoid hydrocarbons,
LPAH, HPAH
t Investigation of the mechanisms by which metals are reaching
the stormwater collection system within the Sitcum Waterway
drainage area (e.g., unauthorized storm connections, contaminated
groundwater, spills)
More precise definition of the spatial and vertical extent
of the problem area (i.e., surface sediment sampling beyond
the mouth of Sitcum Waterway and deep sediment coring).
3.7 HYLE80S WATERWAY SEGMENT 1
3.7.1 Physical Description
Segment 1 of Hylebos Waterway is located at the southeast end of the
waterway, and extends from the head of the waterway (16,500 ft from the
mouth) to approximately 13,500 ft from the mouth (Figure 12). Facilities
located along this segment include Tacoma Boatbuilding to the north; Wasser
Winters and Louisiana Pacific at the head of the waterway; and Glacier
Sand and Gravel, and Weyerhaeuser to the south. Glacier Sand and Gravel
(NPDES No. WA003042) and Tacoma Boatbuilding (State Permit No. WA003710-9)
91
-------
are the only permitted discharges to this segment of the waterway. Non-
permitted discharges to this segment for which loading data exists include
an 8-in concrete pipe (HY-040), Hylebos Creek (HC-000), Kaiser Ditch (HK-052),
and runoff from the log sort yards. Additional non-permitted discharges
include 10 surface water outfalls (Figure 13). Surface water runoff from
Kaiser Aluminum, Cascade Timber Yard #2, Dunlap Towing, and Weyerhaeuser
are also discharged to Hylebos Waterway Segment 1 via Kaiser Ditch. The
upper turning basin is located within this segment at the head of Hylebos
Waterway and measures approximately 1,000 ft at its widest point. Water
depth in this segment is fairly constant at 40 ft below MLLW (Raven Systems
and Research 1984). Sediments are typically 66 percent fine-grained, with
approximately 20 percent clay. (Tetra Tech 1985). Accumulation of soft
sediments ranges from 1 to 4 ft in Segment 1 (Raven Systems and Research
1984). Past dredging activities include maintenance dredging by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers in 1964, 1966, and 1972; by Tacoma Boatbuilding in 1976;
by Glacier Sand and Gravel in 1973 and 1982 ; and by Weyerhaeuser in 1970,
1972 and 1976. Glacier Sand and Gravel has applied for a 5- to 10-yr
maintenance dredging permit with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Tne
industry has completed sediment sampling and will apply for a shoreline
permit from the City of Tacoma (Thornton, J., 23 April 1985, personal
communication). The WD0E is considering requiring the industry to sample
sediments every 3 yr during the maintenance dredging project.
3.7.2 Extent of Contamination
Results of the Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats Remedial Investigation
indicate that HPAH, arsenic, and zinc are priority 1 contaminants. Priority
2 contaminants are phenol and antimony. Priority 3 contaminants are phthalate
esters, ethylbenzene, tetrachloroethene, xylenes, 1-methyl(2-methylethyl)ben-
zene, methylpyrenes, and total volatile solids (TVS). The area of concern
is defined as the entire segment, based on chemical and biological analyses
of sediment samples collected during this project at Stations HY-11, HY-12,
HY-13, HY-14, HY-15, HY-16, H7-17, HY-18, and HY-19 (Figure 18); and on
evaluation of historical sediment data. Analyses indicated elevated contaminant
concentrations and several abnormal biological conditions at all stations
within this segment. Sediment bioassays indicated significant oyster larvae
and amphipod toxicity. Benthic analyses indicated low polychaete and mollusc
counts within this segment. Fish in Hylebos Waterway had significant accumu-
lations of mercury, PCBs, and phthalates in muscle tissues, and significantly
elevated prevalences of liver lesions.
The problem area was highly contaminated with HPAH and most of the
metals. Distributions of these chemicals in Segment 1 were not clearly
separated from those in Segment 2. Both groups of substances exhibited
high EAR near the south side of the channel at Stations HY-15 and HY-16.
Compositional differences and similarities were generally too weak to either
confirm or refute that PAH originated from the same source. Arsenic and
copper were present at relatively high levels compared to those of the
other metals, but only arsenic was present above toxicity or benthic effects
AET at some stations. Although this composition was not observed at most
stations in Commencement Bay, it was characteristic of some sediments along
the Ruston-Pt. Defiance Shoreline.
92
-------
Sediment Core
HY-63C
Sediment Core
HY-63
Sediment
Sediment
Core
Sediment Core
HY-24
Sediment Core
HY-61
HY-23
HY-22
HY-21
HY-ZO
HY-17
HY-18
Sediment Core
HY-60A
HY-15
HY-14
HY-19
HY-12
Sediment Core
HY-60B
HY-13
woe, 1W4
0 wot, HI storied
A If*
0 Tปtrซ T*ch
1 Othrr Agtncltt
HY-11
1000
2000
METERS
Figure 18.
Surficiai sediment and sediment core sampling sta-
tion locations from all Hylebos Waterway Segment 1
and 2 studies in the Commencement Bay Remedial In-
vestigation database.
93
-------
3.7.3 Contaminant Sources
In general , sources of metals to Hylebos Waterway Segment 1 have been
well identified. Sources and their respective contaminant loadings are
presented in Table 7. The log sorting yards have been identified as the
first priority source of total metals. Combined loadings from these facilities
range from 1.8 lb/day of lead to 9.5 lb/day of arsenic. Log sorting yards
within the drainage of Segment 1 include Wasser Winters, Louisiana Pacific,
Weyerhaeuser, Dunlap Towing, and Cascade Timber Yard #2. The Weyerhaeuser
log sorting yard is not a significant source of metals, most likely because
its yard is paved. Hylebos Creek is the second priority source of metals
to Segment 1. Major metals loadings to Hylebos Creek include Fife ditch
and two landfills (U.S. Gypsum and B&L Landfill). The third priority source
of metals is Kaiser Ditch, which carries surface water runoff from Kaiser
Aluminum and Chemical Corporation, Weyerhaeuser, Dunlap Towing, and Cascade
Timber Yard #2 to the waterway. Only Kaiser Ditch has consistently been
documented as a source of PAH to Hylebos Waterway Segment 1. This is attributed
primarily to historical practices of sludge disposal at Kaiser Aluminum
and Chemical Corporation, and possibly to atmospheric deposition of PAH
that are released from plant vents that eventually enter Hylebos Waterway
via stormwater runoff. Source identification for PAH is complicated by
several potential sources (i.e., Kaiser Aluminun and Chemical Corporation,
General Metals, and Tacoma Boatbuilding), the lack of strong spatial trends,
and limited data. Additionally, these contaminants are expected to be
ubiquitous in an industrialized area like Commencement Bay from activities
such as burning of fossil fuels and release of petroleum products into
the environment. Although the WDOE maintains records of spill incidents,
this is a recent activity (since about 1970) and would not be useful to
quantify PAH loading from historical spills. Also, the PAH loading from
unreported spills and bilge pumping cannot be quantified. Possible sources
of tetrachloroethene to Hylebos Segment 1 may be Pennwalt Chemical Corporation
and Tacoma Boatbuilding.
3.7.3.1 Log Sorting Yards-
Log sorting yards are the first priority for implementation of source
control remedies because these facilities are collectively the largest
source of metals to Hylebos Waterway Segment 1 and because enforcement
action to reduce contaminant discharge from these facilities is currently
being planned. Loadings from log sorting yards represent approximately
76 percent of the arsenic, 34 percent of the zinc, 51 percent of the copper,
and 53 percent of the lead to this segment. The log sorting yards within
the Segment 1 drainage area are Wasser Winters, Louisiana Pacific, Dunlap
Towing, Cascade Timber Yard #2, and Weyerhaeuser. A WDOE study of the
log sorting yards as sources of metals to Commencement Bay (Norton and
Johnson 1985a) found that slag particles containing metals were being pulverized
by heavy equipment, and that metals were mobilized by a combination of
acidic rainwater, stormwater runoff, and wood alcohol. WDOE concluded
that these yards are sources of metals to Hylebos Waterway via surface
water runoff and possibly via groundwater contamination.
Daily metals loadings from log sorting yards adjacent to Hylebos Waterway
were calculated on the basis of data provided by Norton and Johnson (1985a)
to be 9.5 lb/day of arsenic, 4.3 lb/day of zinc, 3.0 lb/day of copper,
94
-------
TABLE 7. CONTAMINANT LOADINGS AND RELATIVE PERCENTAGES
FOR HYLEBOS WATERWAY, SEGMENT 1
Contaminant
Discharge
HC-000 HY-040
Cascade
Wasser Timber
HY-052 Wintersa Yard #2a
Louisiana
Pacific3 Weyerhaeuser
ND
ND
PAH
LPAH
loading, lb/day
% of loading
to segment
% of loading
to waterway
HPAHb
loading, lb/day
% of loading
to segment
% of loading
to waterway
Metals
Arsenic"
loading, lb/day 2.4
% of loading
to segment 19.19
% of loading
to waterway 7.04
Copper
loading, lb/day 2.4
% of loading
to segment 41.27
% of loading
to waterway 26.94
ND
ND
<0.046
100
<100
<0.15
100
<100
0.65
5.20
1.91
0.43
7.39
4.83
4.4
35.18
12.90
I.0
17.19
II.22
0.74 4.3
1.2
0.018
5.91 34.38 0.14
2.17 12.61 0.05
0.73 0.056
20.63 12.55 0.97
13.47 8.19 0.63
95
-------
TABLE 7. (Continued)
Lead
loading, lb/day 1.1 0.51 0.62 0.72 0.49 0.016
% of loading
to segment 31.83 14.76 17.94 20.83 14.18 0.46
1 of loading
to waterway 22.45 10.41 12.65 14.69 10.00 0.33
Zincb
loading, lb/day 6.5 1.8 1.5 1.6 1.0 0.2
% of loading
to segment 51.59 14.29 11.90 12.70 7.94 1.58
% of loading
to waterway 24.41 6.76 5.63 6.01 3.76 0.75
Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons
Ethenesb NO
loading, lb/day 0.27 0.052
% of loading
to segment 83.85 16.15
% of loading
to waterway 3.39 0.65
a Log sorting yard that used ASARC0 slag as ballast,
b Priority contaminant.
96
-------
and 1.8 lb/day of lead for four of the five yards within Segment 1 (i.e.,
all but Dunlap Towing). The WDOE has held two meetings with owners and
operators of the log sorting yards to encourage joint action to control
runoff from these sites. At this time, no action has been taken by these
facilities. WDOE plans to take enforcement action against all unpaved
log sorting facilities that used ASARCO slag as ballast (Pierce, R., 22 April
1985, personal communication). Surface water control technologies that
have been discussed by WDOE and log sorting yard operators include paving
the yards and constructing sedimentation ponds. Removal of the ASARCO
slag material, construction of shallow slurry walls, or construction of
collection drains may be considered if it is determined that these log
sorting facilities are contaminating shallow groundwater. Remedial action
for shallow groundwater may only be necessary if it is determined that
this contaminant pathway contributes significant metals loadings to the
waterway.
3.7.3.2 Hylebos Creek--
Hylebos Creek is a major source of metals to Hylebos Waterway. It
is ranked as the largest source of zinc, and the second largest source
of arsenic, copper, and lead (the log sorting yards are the largest source).
Metals loadings include 6.5 lb/day of zinc, 2.4 lb/day of arsenic, 2.4 lb/day
of copper, and 1.1 lb/day of lead. Loadings from Hylebos Creek represent
approximately 51.6 percent of the zinc, 19.2 percent of the arsenic, 41.3
percent of the copper, and 31.8 percent of the lead to this segment. Although
source identification did not typically extend past the immediate vicinity
of Commencement Bay, two landfills (U.S. Gypsum and B&L Landfills) and
two drainage ditches (Fife and Marine View Drive) are considered to contribute
these metals to Hylebos Creek. The U.S. Gypsum site was used to landfill
baghouse dust from the manufacture of insulation made with ASARCO slag.
This site was excavated and contaminated materials were removed in December,
1984 (Pierce, R.t 22 April 1985, personal communication). Monitoring of
the site has been implemented to determine effectiveness of the cleanup.
It is believed discharge of metals from this site will decrease with time
and will not contribute to future loadings of metals to the Hylebos Creek.
The B&L Landfill, which is not a permitted site, has received soil and
wood wastes contaminated with ASARCO slag from log sorting yards. The
WDOE is currently preparing to have corrective action taken to have contaminated
materials removed from this site (Pierce, R., 23 July 1985, personal commun-
ication). A WDOE study of metals contamination within the Hylebos Creek
drainage area (Johnson and Norton 1985a) concluded that these two landfills
have been major sources of metals to Hylebos Waterway via Hylebos Creek.
Until corrective measures are implemented, B&L Landfill will continue to
be a source of metals. Sources of metals within the drainage areas of
Fife Ditch and Marine View Drive have not been identified, but observed
metals concentrations are within typical ranges for urban runoff.
Source control of metals for Hylebos Creek is focused on controlling
individual discharges from the major metals sources within the drainage
area, including B&L Landfill, Fife Ditch, and Marine View Drive Ditch.
Recent and planned remedial action at the two landfill sites achieved through
enforcement by regulatory agencies will alleviate two major sources of
metals to Hylebos Creek. The U.S. Gypsum site should continue to be monitored.
It is recommended that regulatory agencies proceed with plans to have corrective
97
-------
action taken for the mitigation of contaminated materials from the B&L
Landfill. It is also recommended that the state proceed with plans to
require surface water control measures at all log sorting facilities and
that groundwater contamination at these facilities be investigated.
3.7.3.3 Kaiser Ditch-
Sampling at Kaiser Ditch has confirmed the release of HPAH and metals
in this discharge. On the basis of available source information, Kaiser
Ditch is the largest source of HPAH to Hylebos Waterway (0.15 lb/day). Kaiser
Ditch is also a source of metals. Estimated loadings including 0.65 lb/day
of arsenic, 0.51 lb/day of lead, 0.43 lb/day of copper, and 1.8 lb/day
of zinc. Based on available source data, these loadings from Kaiser Ditcn
represent approximately 5.2 percent of the arsenic, 14.8 percent of the
lead, 7.4 percent of the copper, and 14.3 percent of the zinc to Hylebos
Waterway Segment 1.
It appears that discharge of HPAH from the Kaiser Ditch is largely
due to the deposition of these contaminants between 1969 and 1971 during
dredging of the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation wet scrubber settling
ponds. This is substantiated by sediment core data from Hylebos Waterway
off Kaiser Ditch showing high concentrations of HPAH in sediments buried
beneath relatively less contaminated recent deposition. It is likely that
the observed ongoing discharge of PAH from the Kaiser Ditch is primarily
a result of the transport of historically deposited contaminants adhered
to ditch sediments that are being deposited into Hylebos Waterway. Ongoing
release of PAH through stack emissions and plant vents may be occurring
at Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation. Discharge of metals is also
believed to be ongoing. A study conducted by CH2M HILL (1983) indicated
that copper and zinc were both present in stormwater runoff from the Kaiser
Aluminum and Chemical Corporation property. Loadings of these metals were
calculated at 0.20 lb/day of copper and <0.20 lb/day of zinc. Other sources
of metals to the Kaiser Ditch include surface runoff from Cascade Timber
Yard #2, Dunlap Towing, and Weyerhaeuser log sorting yards.
No remedial measures for the sediments in Kaiser Ditch are recommended
at this time until ongoing sources of metals and PAH from Kaiser Aluminum
and Chemical Corporation and other sources have been controlled, and the
transport of contaminants from this ditch are investigated. Deep sediment
cores from Kaiser Ditch should be taken to determine the veritcal extent
of contamination prior to evaluation of remedial actions for Kaiser Ditch
sediments. Surface water runoff controls should be implemented at the
Kaiser facility to control migration of contaminants via this route. Possible
options include sedimentation ponds and collection and treatment (see Chapter 2
for surface water control technologies). Surface water controls at the
log sorting yards will decrease the metals loadings to the Kaiser Ditch
and to Hylebos Waterway. Additional source control of PAH released from
stack emissions and exhaust vents at Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation
may be necessary to reduce loadings to Hylebos Waterway.
Remedial action may be necessary for the contaminated sediments in
Kaiser Ditch, if, after implementation of the above source control measures
at Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation and the log sorting yards,
residual loadings of PAH and metals are not effectively controlled from
98
-------
the Kaiser Ditch. Alternatives that may be applicable to reduce the transport
of contaminants from the Kaiser Ditch include
Removal of Kaiser ditch sediments
Diversion of surface water to prevent contact with contaminated
sediments in Kaiser Ditch
Installation of culvert or other type conduit to convey
storm water to prevent contact with contaminated sediments
in Kaiser Ditch
In situ stabilization of contaminated sediments (e.g., paving,
clay 1iner).
3.7.3.4 Unknown Sources--
For several of the priority contaminants in Hylebos Waterway Segment 1,
confirmation of sources is not possible with existing data. Contaminants
for which additional source identification is needed include phenol, phthalate
esters, ethylbenzene, xylenes, 1-methyl(2-methylethyl)benzene, and methyl-
pyrenes. Discharge monitoring for these specific contaminants is necessary
to identify the sources. Although some source information is available
for tetrachloroethene and HPAH, it appears that confirmed loadings are
relatively small, and it is unlikely that all potential sources have been
identified and monitored. Therefore, additional source identification
is necessary for tetrachloroethene and HPAH.
3.7.4 Sediment Remedial Actions
Sediments within Hylebos Waterway Segment 1 have been assigned an
environmental significance ranking of 4 based on observed contamination,
toxicity, and biological effects. Therefore, it is recommended that this
area be considered for remedial action to remove the environmental and
public health threat associated with the priority contaminants 1n the sedi-
ments. Remediation of the existing contamination 1s recommended only after
the present sources of contaminants have been effectively controlled.
Options for management of contaminated sediments within Hylebos Waterway
Segment 1 Include capping, in situ treatment/stabilization, and dredging.
Capping, although not eliminated from consideration, probably does not
have much applicability in Hylebos Waterway due to frequent maintenance
dredging required to provide clearance for deep draft vessels that use
this waterway. The vol line of contaminated sediment within Hylebos Waterway
Segment 1 is estimated to be 295,240 yd3. This volume was estimated using
a surface area of 61 ac, computed using a planimeter, and an average sediment
depth of 3 ft, estimated from cross sections of the upper turning basin
(Raven Systems and Research 1984). For the purpose of this preliminary
volume calculation, contamination 1s assumed to extend through the soft
sediment layer. However, 1t may extend Into the harder underlying sediment
layers. Additional deep core sampling 1s necessary to determine the actual
vertical extent of contamination.
99
-------
3.7.5 Data Needs
Several data needs were identified that hinder the development and
evaluation of potential remedial alternatives for the problem area in Hylebos
Waterway Segment 1. Some data gaps are associated with non-definitive
boundaries of the problem area, while others are associated with the in-
conclusive identification of potential sources. Specific data needs include
Additional source identification of priority contaminants
listed in Section 3.7.4:
Priority 1 - HPAH
Priority 2 - Phenol
Priority 3 - Phthalate esters, ethyl benzene, tetrachloro-
ethene, xylenes, 1-methyl(2-methylethyl)benzene, methylpyrenes
Additional source identification within the Hylebos Waterway
Segment 1 drainage area if significant metals loadings continue
after control of known sources
t Investigation of General Metals as possible source of metals,
organic solvents, and PAH to Segment 1
Investigation of Tacoma Boatbuilding as a possible source
of metals and organic solvents in Hylebos Segment 1
Determination of whether contaminant contribution from Kaiser
Ditch is from historical deposits or from ongoing discharges
from Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation
Relative contaminant loading from Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical
Corporation, Dunlap Towing, Cascade Timber Yard #2 and Weyer-
haeuser to the Kaiser Ditch and control of these confirmed
sources
Additional sediment sampling to determine if PCBs observed
in historical sediments of Segment 2 are present in Segment 1
at these same depths, coordinated with a waterway source
and sediment investigation for PCBs
t Contribution from atmospheric loading of HPAH from Kaiser
Aluminum and Chemical Corporation in stormwater runoff
Additional deep core sampling in Kaiser Oitch to determine
the vertical extent of PAH contamination.
3.8 HYLEBOS WATERWAY SEGMENT 2
3.8.1 Physical Description
Segment 2 of Hylebos Waterway is located in the southeastern portion
of the waterway, extending approximately from 10,900 ft to 13,500 ft from
the mouth of the waterway. The lower turning basin is located within Segment 2
and measures approximately 750 ft at Its widest point. Recent subbottom
100
-------
profiling of Hylebos Waterway showed that mid-channel depths in this segment
average approximately 33 ft below MLLW. Depth varied across the channel
bottom between 30 ft and 35 ft below MLLW. Channel cross sections indicated
that sediment accumulation is between 1 and 5 ft in the lower turning basin
(Raven Systems and Research 1984). Sediments within the Hylebos Waterway
are typically silty sands with an average composition of 64 percent fine-grainea
material and an average clay content of 20 percent. Past dredging activities
include maintenance dredging by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1951,
1958, 1962, and 1964 through 1966; by General Metals in 1972, 1974, 1975,
1979, and 1984; and by Pennwalt Chemical Corporation in 1982. As of April 22,
1985, there were no planned or pending dredging activities in this segment.
Facilities located along the banks of Hylebos Waterway Segment 2 include
Jones Chemical and General Metals to the north, and Dunlap Towing, Cascade
Timber Yard #2, and Pennwalt Chemical Corporation to the south (Figure 12).
General Metals (state permit No. 5006) and Pennwalt Chemical Corporation
(HY-058, NPDES WA0003115), are the only permitted discharges to Segment 2.
Non-permitted discharges to Segment 2 for which loading data exist include
Morningside Ditch (HM-028) on the north bank, and East Channel Ditch (HY-054),
Pennwalt East Seep (HY-700) , Pennwalt West Seep (HY-701), Pennwalt East
Stormwater drain (HY-708), a 6-in concrete pipe (HY-056), Pennwalt discharge
pipe (HY-709), and groundwater seeps (HY-061) along the south bank. There
are eight additional surface water discharges to Hylebos Waterway Segment 2
(Figure 13).
3.8.2 Extent of Contamination
Results of the Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats Remedial Investigation
indicated that PCBs are priority 1 contaminants in Segment 2. Priority 2
contaminants include HPAH, nickel, arsenic, and tetrachloroethene. Mercury,
copper, zinc, and lead were also identified as priority 2 contaminants
based on an evaluation of historical data of intertidal sediments. Priority 3
contaminants are hexachlorobutadiene, chlorinated benzenes, phthalate esters,
phenol, benzyl alcohol, dibenzothiophene, methylphenanthrenes, and methyl-
pyrenes. The area of concern is defined as the eastern portion of the
segment, based on biological and chemical analysis of sediment samples
collected at Stations HY-20, HY-21, HY-22, and HY-23 (Figure 18) and evaluation
of historical sediment data. Analysis indicated elevated contaminant concen-
trations at stations within this segment and several abnormal biological
conditions. Sediment bioassays indicated significant oyster larvae and
amphipod toxicities. Fish in Hylebos Waterway had significant accumulations
of mercury, phthalates, and PCBs in muscle tissues and significantly elevated
prevalences of liver lesions.
Concentrations of PCBs 1n surficial sediments of Segment 2 ranged
from <200 to 2,000 ug/kg. PCB concentrations peaked about 12,000 ft from
the mouth of the waterway, off Pennwalt Chemical Corporation. The peak
observed at this location is believed to be the result of dredging in the
area by Pennwalt in 1982 and therefore may not be representative of recent
sedimentation. This hypothesis is supported by sediment analyses performed
just prior to dredging indicating that surficial sediments had concentrations
of <100 ug/kg PCBs (Riley 1981). Furthermore, concentrations present in
surficial sediments after dredging were similar to those found in deeper
layers of undisturbed portions of the waterway. In general, deep cores
101
-------
indicated that historical discharges were greater than current discharges.
Concentrations of PCB at Station 3 (Riley 1981) were typically 10 times
greater in the lower horizon {0.30-0.35 m) than in surficial sediments.
There are no known ongoing discharges of PCBs to Hylebos Waterway Segment 2.
Kaiser Ditch is the only documented source of PCBs in the entire waterway.
The problem area within Hylebos Waterway Segment 2 was highly contaminated
with HPAH and most of the metals, although the concentrations of only some
metals exceed toxicity or benthic AET. Distributions of these chemicals
in Segment 2 were not clearly separate from those in Segment 1. Both groups
of contaminants (especially HPAH) exhibited high EAR on the south side
of the waterway at Station HV-22. Compositional differences and similarities
were generally too weak to either confirm or refute that PAH originate
from the same source. Evaluation of the historical sampling data showed
metals were present at relatively high concentrations in the intertidal
sediments along the south side of the waterway. PCBs and chlorobenzene
concentrations were also elevated above AET in this problem area.
3.8.3 Contaminant Sources
Contaminant loadings are presented in Table 8. All but two of the
identified discharges are associated with Pennwalt Chemical Corporation.
Available data indicate that Pennwalt is the largest source of chlorinated
ethenes, chlorinated benzenes, chlorinated butadienes, arsenic, zinc, and
mercury to Hylebos Waterway Segment 2. Contaminants are entering Hylebos
Waterway from Pennwalt Chemical Corporation via plant effluent, surface
water runoff, and groundwater. Enforcement actions have been initiated
by WDOE regarding violations of NPDES permit limitations and contamination
of soils on the property from the recent sodium chlorate and potassium
dichromate spill. Horningside Ditch is a confirmed but minor source of
chlorinated ethenes, arsenic, zinc, and mercury. Loadings for Morningside
Ditch are typically less than 1 percent of the total loadings to Segment 2,
except for zinc, which is 9 percent. The East Channel Ditch is also a
source of arsenic and zinc, but these loadings are most likely from surface
water runoff from the Dunlap Towing and the Cascade Timber log sorting
yard, which used ASARCO slag as ballast. As discussed in Section 3.7,
WDOE plans to take enforcement action against all unpaved log sorting facilities
that used ASARCO slag as ballast.
3.8.3.1 Pennwalt Chemical Corporation--
Pennwalt Chemical Corporation is an ongoing source of PAH, chlorinated
hydrocarbons (butadienes and ethenes), arsenic, zinc, and mercury to Hylebos
Waterway Segment 2. Current discharges associated with Pennwalt include
the main plant outfall (HY-058), a surface drain (HY-055), groundwater
seeps (HY-700 and HY-701), and the groundwater beneath the property (shallow
and intermediate aquifers). Discharges HY-056, HY-708, and HY-709 conveyed
surface water runoff from the Pennwalt facility to Hylebos Waterway until
1981, when they were discontinued and their flows were routed through the
main plant outfall. For the purposes of quantifying average loadings and
determining relative source contributions, loadings from these discharges
will be added to the main plant discharge. This probably results in a
slight overestimate of the actual plant discharge. However, due to the
relatively small amounts of most contaminants (except arsenic) and the
102
-------
TABLE 8. CONTAMINANT LOADINGS AND RELATIVE PERCENTAGES
FOR HYLEBOS WATERWAY, SEGMENT 2
Contaminant Discharge
W-028 HY-054C HY-055& HY-056" HY-058H
HY-061 HY-700&
Groundwater Pennwalt
HY-701& HY-708& HY-709& Beneath Pennwalt Total
PCS*
MH
NO
loading, lb/day
X of loading
to segment
X of loading
to waterway
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
IMH
loading, lb/day
X of loading
to segment
X of loading
to waterway
HMHt
loading, lb/day
X of loading
to segment
X of loading
to waterway
Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons
Ethenes*
loading, lb/day
X of loading
to segment
X of loading
to waterway
0.0055 0.00055
0.50
0.07
0.05
<0.01
0.034 0.92
3.13 84.60
0.43 11.56
0.0061 0.0024
0.56
0.08
0.22
0.03
0.119
10.94
1.49
1.0815
99.45
13.59
-------
TABLE 8. (Continued)
Benzenes*
loading, lb/day <0.21
ND
NO
ND
ND
0.000059
NO
ND
0.000059
X of loading
to segment
99.97
0.03
0.03
X of loading
to waterway
32.35
<0.01
<0.01
Butadienes'
loading, lb/day
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.00004
0.00005
ND
0.00009
S of loading
to segment
44.44
55.56
100
X of loading
to segment
0.15
0.19
0.34
Metals
Arsenic"
loading, lb/day
0.0045
0.68
0.51
7.2
4.3
0.00075
0.12
0.57
1.3
14.00075
X of loading
to segment
0.03
4.8
3.60
50.80
30.34
<0.01
0.85
0.40
9.17
95.16
X of loading
to waterway
0.01
1.99
1.50
21.11
12.61
<0.01
0.35
0.17
3.81
39.55
Z1ncซ
loading, lb/day
0.97
0.56
0.003
0.0057
9.3
0.0007
0.0024
0.022
0.0019
9.3347
X of loading
to segment
8.94
5.15
0.02
0.05
85.60
<0.01
0.02
0.20
0.02
85.91
X of loading
to waterway
3.64
2.10
<0.01
0.02
34.93
<0.01
<0.01
0.08
<0.01
35.03
Mercury8
loading, lb/day
0.0013
0.00017
0.00011
0.0017
0.28
0.000045
0.000096
0.00023
0.00032
0.282501
X of loading
to segment
0.46
0.06
0.04
0.60
98.60
0.02
0.03
0.08
0.11
99.48
X of loading
to waterway
0.42
0.05
0.04
0.55
90.22
0.01
0.03
0.07
0.10
91.02
ฆ Priority contaminant.
& Discharge associated with Pennwalt Chemical Corp.
c Includes loading from HY-055.
NO - Not detected.
0 - Detected.
-------
range in contaminant concentrations from these discharges, the possible
error is believed to be insignificant.
PAH have been detected in discharges HY-055, HY-056, HY-700, and HY-701,
but loadings based on average flows and concentrations are minor. Chlorinated
hydrocarbons have been detected in discharges HY-055, HY-056, HY-058, HY-700,
and HY-701, and in groundwater aquifers beneath the plant site. Pennwalt
is the largest source of chlorinated ethenes to Hylebos Waterway Segment 2.
An estimated combined loading of approximately 1.08 lb/day of chlorinated
ethenes, representing 95 percent of the total known loading to Segment 2, is
discharged from Pennwalt via the main plant outfall (average loading of
0.95 lb/day), surface drains, and groundwater (average loading of 0.119
lb/day). Chlorinated butadienes have been detected in the groundwater
seeps (HY-700 and HY-701) along the bank in front of the Pennwalt property,
and the estimated loading averages 0.00009 lb/day. These loadings are
the only confirmed sources of chlorinated butadienes to Segment 2. They
represent 100 percent of the total known loading to this segment, but less
than 1 percent of the total loading to the entire waterway.
Arsenic has been detected 1n discharges from the main plant outfall
(HY-058), surface drains (HY-055, HY-056, HY-708, and HY-709), and groundwater
seeps (HY-700 and HY-701) associated with Pennwalt. The combined arsenic
loading is estimated to be 14 lb/day, which represents 95 percent of the
known loading to Segment 2 and nearly 40 percent of the total known loading
to Hylebos Waterway. This loading is probably a slight underestimation,
since the groundwater beneath Pennwalt is contaminated with arsenic (Eaton, T.,
22 April 1985, personal communication) and it is uncertain whether this
loading was fully quantified by existing data from seeps and infiltration
into the storm drains. Mercury has been detected in discharges from the
main plant outfall (HY-058), surface drains (HY-055, HY-056, HY-708, and
HY-709), and groundwater seeps (HY-700 and HY-701). Pennwalt is the largest
source of mercury to Hylebos Waterway, with an estimated loading of 0.283
lb/day, representing nearly 100 percent of the total known discharge to
Segment 2 and approximately 91 percent of the total known loading to Hylebos
Waterway.
Currently, there are several regulatory activities involving the Pennwalt
facility. The NPDES permit for Pennwalt Chemical Corporation expired in
1980. The WD0E is drafting a new permit and is expected to issue it by
August 15, 1985 (Eaton, T.. 29 July 1985, conference). Pennwalt has been
in chronic noncompliance with their NPDES permit conditions for pH, chlorine
residual, and suspended solids. From January, 1984 to February, 1985,
Pennwalt had six violations of both pH and residual chlorine limitations
and four violations of suspended solids limitations (quarterly monitoring)
(Eaton, T., 10 May 1985, personal communication). Because of concern about
groundwater contamination due to the leaching of arsenic from pennite (sodium
arsenite) sludges buried on Pennwalt Chemical Corporation property, WDOE
required Pennwalt to perform a study, including soil and groundwater monitoring,
to determine the environmental effects of the buried pennite sludges.
The study revealed arsenic concentrations of 50 to 70 mg/L in the groundwater
beneath the burial site. Resolution of this issue is still pending. The
WDOE is also concerned about the potential for groundwater contamination
from the unlined lagoons used for dewatering of brine muds and asbestos
wastes from the chlorine cells at the Pennwalt facility. Over the last
105
-------
several years, however, waste volumes discharged to this lagoon have decreased.
This decrease has mitigated overflows during periods of high precipitation
and has reduced the groundwater seeps emanating from the banks in front
of the Pennwalt facility (Eaton, T., 10 May 1985, personal communication).
On January 3, 1985, approximately 75,000 gal of a sodium chlorate
and potassium dichromate solution was spilled at the Pennwalt Chemical
Corporation facility when a tank collapsed. Most of the spill ran into
Hylebos Waterway and only a small amount infiltrated into the ground.
WDOE has taken enforcement action against Pennwalt to insure the proper
cleanup of the spill area. Pennwalt was ordered to collect samples and
to define the spatial extent and degree of contamination. An area of
approximately 1 ac in size and 6 in deep was determined to be contaminated
with > 5 mg/kg of total chromium- WDOE plans to issue an administrative
order requiring the removal of contaminated soils. Pennwalt will most
likely construct a temporary treatment lagoon to recover the chromium,
(Eaton, T., 22 April 1985, personal communication). WDOE also ordered
Pennwalt to collect samples of the waterway sediments and have them analyzed
for hexavalent chromium. Pennwalt has until mid-August to submit the analyses
results to WDOE (Eaton, T., 30 July 1985, personal communication).
Based on elevated PCB concentrations in the sediments off the Pennwalt
Chemical Corporation outfall, the WDOE initiated PCB sampling of the area
adjacent to the electrical equipment, including the storm drains. Samples
were collected in February, 1985, and while results of the analyses have
been received by the WDOE, they were not available at the time of this
writing (August 6, 1985).
WDOE believes a significant quantity of organic chemicals may be leaving
the Pennwalt Chemical Corporation facility absorbed onto solids in the
effluent waste stream but undetected due to high dilution. To quantify
this amount, the WDOE is considering requesting Pennwalt Chemical Corporation
and other chemical manufacturing companies to perform analyses for organic
contaminants on the filter solids from their effluents (Eaton, T., 10 May
1985, personal communication).
Contaminants are entering Hylebos Waterway and surrounding environ-
ment via the direct discharge of process wastewaters, surface water runoff,
and groundwater from Pennwalt Chemical Corp. Control of this source will
require implementation of a remedial plan that integrates several technologies.
Discussion of in-plant control technologies is not within the scope of
this report. However, contaminant loadings from process effluents are
significant and must be addressed in a source control plan. Discharge
of process effluent and the rerouted surface water via the main plant outfall
is the largest source of zinc and the second largest source of arsenic,
copper, and chlorinated ethenes to Hylebos Waterway.
Contamination of surface water runoff may be resulting from any or
all of the following situations: contaminated surface soils, chemical
spills and leaks, and historical deposition of contaminated sediments within
surface water collection system. Potentially applicable remedial technologies
to control contaminated surface waters at Pennwalt Chanical Corporation include
106
-------
Excavation of contaminated soils and fill with clean material
Removal of contaminated sediments from the waste lagoon,
including underlying contaminated soils; installation of
a liner; and enlargement of the berm around the lagoon to
prevent overflow
Capping, covering, or pavement of contaminated areas to
reduce migration of contaminants
Inspection and cleaning of surface water collection system
and channels to prevent mobilization of historically deposited
contaminants and infiltration of contaminated groundwater
Inspection of all above-ground lines and tanks for leaks,
and repair if necessary
Surface water controls, Section 2.3.
A combination of the above technologies may be necessary to control contam-
inants entering Hylebos Waterway via surface water runoff.
Groundwater beneath Pennwalt Chemical Corporation is the fourth largest
known discharge of chlorinated ethenes to Hylebos Waterway. Groundwater
is also a confirmed source of arsenic, with a concentration of 50 to 70 mg/L
(Eaton, T., 10 May 1985, personal communication). Contamination of groundwater
may result from leaching of contaminants from the waste lagoon, contaminated
soils, and sodiun pennite sludge buried on-site; exfiltration from buried
waste and process lines; leaking from storage tanks; and chemical spills.
Potentially applicable remedial technologies to control groundwater contam-
ination at Pennwalt Chemical Corporation include
Excavation of contaminated soils and fill with clean materials
Removal of contaminated sediments from waste lagoon, including
underlying contaminated soils; installation of a liner;
and enlargment of the berm around the lagoon to prevent
overflow
Capping, covering, or pavement of contaminated areas to
reduce migration of contaminants
Inspection of underground lines and tanks (if applicable)
for cracks, breaks, and leaking connections. Repair, if
necessary
Groundwater controls, Section 2.4.
The above technologies vary considerably in the extent to which they mitigate
groundwater contamination. For example, capping will prevent the further
contamination of overlying soils and reduce or prevent the driving force
of surface water infiltration. However, existing contamination will remain
and the soils may continue to be a source of contaminants to the groundwater.
For full control, a combination of groundwater pumping and treatment in
107
-------
conjunction with contaminated soil remediation may be necessary. Groundwater
control technologies are discussed in further detail in Chapter 2, Remedial
Technologies.
3.8.3.2. Morningside Ditch--
Morningside Ditch (HM-028) is an ongoing source of PAH, chlorinated
hydrocarbons (benzenes and ethenes), arsenic, copper, lead, and zinc.
The Morningside Ditch collects surface water from the north side of Hylebos
Waterway along Marine View Drive, from approximately 11,000 ft to 15,300 ft
from the mouth of the Hylebos. Drainage channels are composed of open
ditches and pipes, and provide surface drainage for commercial activities,
including Woodworth Sand and Gravel, Jones Chemical, and Manke Lumber Yard.
The Coski Landfill is within the drainage area of the Morningside Ditch
and it is conceivable that leachate from this landfill reaches the Hylebos
Waterway via this drainage. Also, a waste sludge disposal site used by
Occidental Chemical Corporation is located north of Marine View Drive,
between HW-031 and W-032. Currently the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department
is collecting additional information and updating the existing report of
surface drainage within the Commencement Bay area. This information is
due for release late in 1985 as part of the final report of the Marine
Resource Program (Pierce, D., 10 May 1985, personal communication).
Morningside Ditch is the second largest known source of chlorinated
benzenes (<0.21 lb/day) to Hylebos Waterway. Metals loadings from the
Morningside Ditch are relatively minor. Rankings of this source for copper,
lead, and zinc are tenth, ninth, and eighth, respectively. Concentrations
of priority chemicals in the intertidal sediments off the Morningside Ditch
were not significantly elevated. For these reasons, it was concluded that
Morningside Ditch is probably not a major source of contaminants to Hylebos
Waterway Segment 2. In the absence of definitive sources of contamination
and of sediment data implicating Morningside Ditch as a problem source,
no technologies are recommended for Morningside Ditch.
3.8.3.3. Uhknown Sources--
For most of the priority contaminants in Hylebos Waterway Segment 2,
confirmation of sources is not possible with existing data. Contaminants
for which source identification is needed include PCBs. HPAH, nickel, copper,
zinc, lead, phthalate esters, phenol, benzyl alcohol, dibenzothiophene,
methylphenanthrenes, and methylpyrenes. Additional discharge monitoring
for these specific contaminants is necessary to identify sources. Some
information is available on sources of HPAH, arsenic, tetrachloroethene,
mercury, hexachlorobutadiene, and chlorinated benzenes.
3.8.4 Sediment Remedial Action
Sediments within Hylebos Waterway Segment 2 have been assigned an
environmental significance ranking of 4 based on observed contamination,
toxicity, and biological effects. Therefore, it is recommended that this
area be considered for remedial action to remove the environmental and
public health threat associated with the priority contaminants in the sedi-
ments. Remediation of the existing contamination is recommended only after
the present sources of contaminants have been effectively controlled.
108
-------
Options for management of contaminated sediments within Hylebos Segment 2
include capping, in situ treatment/stabilization, and dredging. Capping
probably has little application within Hylebos Waterway because frequent
maintenance dredging will be required to provide clearance for the deep
draft vessels using this waterway. Remedial action including source control
and/or sediment removal within Hylebos Waterway Segment 2 should be coordinated
with activities proposed for Segment 1, since the two problem areas within
these segments merge spatially, and contaminant spillover occurs between
the two problem areas. The volume of contaminated sediment within Hylebos
Waterway Segment 2 is estimated at 106,480 yd3. This volume was estimated
using a surface area of 22 ac, computed with a planimeter, and an average
sediment depth of 3 ft, estimated from recent subbottom profiles (Raven
Systems and Research 1984). For the purpose of this preliminary volume
calculation, contamination was assumed to extend through the soft sediment
layer. Additional deep core sampling is necessary to determine the actual
vertical extent of contamination.
3.8.5 Data Needs
Several data needs were identified that hinder the development and
evaluation of potential remedial alternatives for the problem area in Hylebos
Waterway Segment 2. Some data gaps are associated with non-definitive
boundaries of the problem area, while others are associated with the incon-
clusive identification of potential sources. Specific data needs include
Additional source identification of priority contaminants
listed in Section 3.8.3.3:
Priority 1 - PCBs
Priority 2 - HPAH, nickel, arsenic, mercury, copper,
zinc, lead
Priority 3 - Hexachlorobutadiene, chlorinated benzenes,
phthalate esters, phenol, benzyl alcohol, dibenzothiophene,
methylphenanthrenes t methylpyrenes
More precise definition of the vertical extent of contamination
by deep core sediment sampling
Vertical distributions of PCBs, and the extent to which
sediment contamination is due to current discharges (if
any). Information that may be useful for this determination
includes sedimentation rates, dating of sediment cores,
and additional source investigation
A survey to identify all potential past and current sources
of PCBs, including identification of electrical equipment
containing PCB oil
Additional investigation at Pennwalt Chemical Corporation
to determine the in-plant source of arsenic.
109
-------
3.9 CITY WATERWAY, SEGMENT 2
3.9.1 Physical Description
Segment 2 of City Waterway is commonly referred to as the Wheeler-
Osgood Waterway, which was formed from the old western channel of the Puyallup
River. Wheeler-Osgood Waterway is ringed by abandoned buildings, warehouses,
and several small industries with undetermined operations. Hygrade Foods,
formerly (prior to 1960) Carsten's Meat Packing Company, is located on
the north bank of Wheel er-Osgood Waterway (Figure 19). Currently, there
are no permitted discharges to Wheeler-Osgood Waterway and 11 non-permitted
discharges (Figure 10). Storm drain CW-254 is a 30-in outfall that discharges
surface water runoff at the head of the waterway from a drainage area of
less than 1 ac. CW-254 is the only drain for which loading data are available.
Wheeler-Osgood Waterway is approximately 1,500 ft in length, with an average
width of 225 ft. This is an inactive waterway with limited access during
low tides. Since much of Wheel er-Osgood Waterway was exposed during the
recent subbottom profiling, sediment accumulation was not determined for
the upper portion. Sediment depth was not determined with any accuracy
because the coring device was unable to penetrate through the accumulated
wood wastes in this portion of the waterway. Sediments within City Waterway
are typically 64 percent fine-grained material with an average clay content
of 18 percent. These sediments are anoxic, with organic carbon content
of 10.9 to 18 percent. Visual examination of the sediments indicated consid-
erable accumulation of wood debris in Wheeler-Osgood Waterway.
3.9.2 Extent of Contamination
Results of the Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats Remedial Investigation
indicated that HPAH, cadmium, copper, zinc, dichlorobenzenes, LPAH, lead,
n-nitrosodiphenylamine, 4-methylphenol, phenol, biphenyl, total volatile
solids, total organic carbon, and oil and grease are priority 2 contaminants
in Wheel er-Osgood Waterway. There were no priority 1 or 3 contaminants
identified for this waterway. The area of concern is defined as the entire
waterway, based on biological and chemical analyses of sediment samples
collected at Station CI-16 (Figure 20) and evaluation of historical sediment
data. Analyses indicated elevated contaminant concentrations and several
abnormal biological conditions. Sediment bioassays indicated significant
oyster larvae toxicity, and benthic studies revealed low numbers of total
benthic organisms, polychaetes, molluscs, and crustaceans. Fish from City
Waterway had significant accumulation of PCBs in muscle tissue.
EAR for metals and HPAH in the Wheel er-Osgood problen area were comparable
to those at adjacent stations in the main channel. Selected chlorobenzenes
and 4-methylphenol were found at high concentrations in this problem area
and all exhibited clear gradients of decreasing concentrations in the main
channel of City Waterway with distance from the mouth of the Wheeler-Osgood
branch. These latter compounds distinguished Wheeler-Osgood Waterway from
the rest of City Waterway, but the full extent of the possible contamination
is uncertain because of the limited numbers of samples collected.
110
-------
wป
woo
014 St. RtgU Door Mill (cloitd)
z
MOO
Hw** roedt
Tor Htป Site
Uultiplt ewntrt)
1000
500
FEET
METERS
0 250 500
Figure 19. Industries surrounding City Waterway Segment 2
(Wheeler-Osgood Waterway).
Ill
-------
+ WDOE, 1984
0 WDOE, Historical
A EPA
~ Tetra Tech
X Other Agencies
Sediment Core
CI-60
North
Sediment Core
CI-63
Sediment Core
CI-61
Sediment Cor
CI-62
1000 2000
J FEET
500
METERS
1000
Figure 20. Surficial sediment and sediment core sampling station locations from all
studies in City Waterway.
-------
3.9.3 Contaminant Sources
Evaluation of contaminant sources in Wheeler-Osgood Waterway indicates
that storm drain CW-254 is the only confirmed ongoing source of cadmium,
zinc, lead, organic matter, and solids to this waterway. Contaminant loadings
from CW-254 are presented in Table 4. WDOE conducted a survey of priority
pollutants and other contaminants in City Waterway Storm drains as part
of the Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats Remedial Investigation (Johnson
and Norton 1984). CW-254 is considered to be a major source of organic
matter and solids. Estimated organic loading is believed to be high due
to the high specific conductance of the sample resulting from tidal infuence.
No ongoing sources could be identified for HPAH, dichlorobenzenes, n-nitro-
sodiphenylamine , 4-methylphenol, phenol, and biphenyl. Carsten's Packing
Company may have been a historical source of dichlorobenzenes, given the
association of these compounds with degreasing and tanning of animal hides;
however, there is no evidence this compound was used by them. Three possible
sources of 4-methylphenol were identified. The first is St. Regis Door
Mill, which is a possible historical source due to the association of 4-methyl-
phenol with the wood products industry. The second is the migration of
contaminated groundwater and surface water from the old coal gasification
plant (Tar Pits Site). A third potential source is degradation of wood
chip debris buried in the sediments.
It was not possible to determine definitely whether contaminant loading
in Wheeler-Osgood Waterway is due to ongoing sources or to historical dis-
charges. Several data gaps prevented this determination, including the
following: inconclusive source identification, limited discharge monitoring,
few surface sediment samples, unknown transport mechanisms into and away
from this waterway, and unquantified sedimentation rate. Over the last
several years, much of the commercial and industrial activity within this
waterway has declined and presently active industries are reportedly connected
to the sanitary sewer system. Contaminant concentrations in surficial
sediments (0-2 cm) are several times lower than in sediment samples composited
over the top 14 cm of a core collected in the same area. These data indicate
that any recent or ongoing sources within Wheel er-Osgood are substantially
less than in the past. A slow sedimentation rate is Indicated by these
data, resulting in slow burial of contaminated sediments, so that only
a thin layer at the surface reflects a reduced contaminant discharge.
Alternatively, a more rapid sedimentaton rate might be indicated because
there is a constant source of solids and organic matter from the storm
drains emptying into Wheeler-Osgood Waterway. This waterway is fairly
isolated and is not subject to vigorous flushing during tidal exchanges. The
sedimentation rate should be determined. Available sampling data indicate
that CW-254 is an ongoing source of metals, solids, and organic matter.
Loading data were not available for the other 12 discharges.
3.9.3.1 Storm Drain CW-254--
Storm drain CW-254 is a 30-in steel outfall that discharges surface
water runoff at the head of Wheel er-Osgood Waterway. Drain CW-254 is the
only confirmed ongoing source of LPAH, mercury, zinc, lead, cadmium, and
organic matter to this waterway. The drainage area 1s relatively small
(<1 ac) and is located to the east of Wheeler-Osgood Waterway. Active
industries within this drainage area are Chevron and Hygrade Foods. Histor-
113
-------
ically, a very large source of organic matter to Wheeler-Osgood Waterway
was Carsten's Meat Packing Company, whose slaughtering wastes were discharged
via CW-254. Cross connections with the sanitary sewer were also a source
of organic loading to Wheeler-Osgood prior to sewer separation in 1969.
It is believed that most of the organic loading has been diverted to the
sanitary sewer, but recent sampling of CW-254 indicated that this outfall
still contributes COD. Sampling in 1981 and 1982 showed COD concentrations
of 170 to 490 mg/L (Johnson and Norton 1984). Using these data, loading
of organic matter, as measured by COD, was estimated to be 673 lb/day based
on an average flow of 0.28 MGD. This loading is believed to be an overestimate
because discharge samples, collected during high tide conditions, had high
concentration of chlorides and other ions that increased the apparent COD
concentration determined by the test method (Yake, W., 29 May 1985, personal
communication). Concentrations of metals from CW-254 were typically below
those concentrations observed in stormwater runoff from residential areas
(Galvin et al . 1982). Metals loadings to Wheeler-Osgood Waterway from
this drain were calculated on the basis of data from Johnson and Norton
(1984) to be 0.0004 lb/day of cadmium, 0.19 lb/day of zinc, and 0.097 lb/day
of lead. Organic and solids loadings from CW-254 continue to be a major
source, although historical loadings were most likely greater before sanitary
and storm sewers were separated, and before slaughtering house wastes were
diverted to the sanitary sewer. LPAH may be entering the storm sewers
through spillage of petroleum products at the Chevron facility. Loading
of LPAH from CW-254 has been calculated at 0.036 lb/day (Tetra Tech 1985).
In summary, contaminants may be entering Wheeler-Osgood via CW-254
by one or more of the following: cross connections with the sanitary sewer
system, resuspension of material in the storm sewers from historical discharge,
unauthorized commercial/industrial connections to the storm sewer system,
and product spillage. Potentially applicable remedial technologies to
reduce concentrations of contaminants reaching Wheeler-Osgood Waterway
via discharge CW-254 include
Inspection and cleaning, 1f necessary, of accumulated solids
from the storm sewers and catch basins within the drainage
area of Wheeler-Osgood Waterway
Storm water controls, Section 2.3.5.
3.9.3.2 Unknown Sources--
No confirmed sources have been identified for several of the priority
contaminants in Wheel er-Osgood Waterway. Contaminants for which source
identification was not possible are HPAH, dichlorobenzenes, N-nitrosodi-
phenylamine, phenol, and biphenyl. Some information is available for possible
sources of cadmium, copper, zinc, LPAH, and 4-methylphenol, but source
confirmation for these contaminants was not possible.
3.9.4 Sediment Remedial Actions
Sediments within Wheeler-Osgood Waterway have been assigned an environ-
mental significance ranking of 4 based on observed contamination levels,
toxicity, and biological effects. It is therefore recommended that this
problem area be considered for remedial action to remove the environmental
114
-------
threat associated with the priority contaminants in the sediments. Remediation
of the existing contamination is recommended only after the present sources
of contaminants have been effectively controlled.
Options for management of contaminated sediments within Wheeler-Osgood
Waterway include capping, in situ treatment/stabilization, and dredging.
Wheeler-Osgood is one of the few problem areas within the Commencement
Bay Nearshore/Tideflats study area where capping has high potential as
a remedial technology if groundwater sources can be effectively controlled.
This is due to minimal conmercial activity around this waterway requiring
waterway access. Dredging of Wheeler-Osgood Waterway, if evaluated as
a sediment management option, may be most effectively accomplished with
hydraulic methods since the contaminants of concern are primarily sediment-
bound. Since much of this waterway is intertidal, special consideration
should be given to portable and land-based dredging units. The configuration
and physical characteristics of this waterway also make it particularly
suitable for the use of cofferdams with mechanical dredges. Contaminated
sediments are estimated to cover 7 ac. However, the volume of contami-
nated sediments could not be estimated because sediment depth was not accurately
determined. If groundwater is determined to be a source of contaminants
to Wheeler-Osgood Waterway, it is likely that lower sediment layers are
also contaminated. Additional deep core sampling is necessary to determine
the actual vertical extent of contamination.
3.9.5 Data Needs
Several data needs were identified that hinder the development and
evaluation of potential remedial alternatives for the problem area in Wheel er-
Osgood Waterway. Some data gaps are associated with the physical processes
within the waterway, including sediment deposition rate and transport from
this waterway. Other data gaps are associated with the inconclusive identi-
fication of potential sources. Specific data needs for Wheeler-Osgood
Waterway include
Additional source identification for those compounds identified
in Section 3.9.3.2:
Priority 2 - HPAH, cadmium, copper, zinc, dichlorobenzenes,
LPAH, lead, N-nitrosodiphenylamine, 4-methylphenol,
phenol, and biphenyl
Determine sedimentation rates within Wheeler-Osgood Waterway
to define temporal contaminant deposition. Delineation
of historical versus ongoing or recent contaminant deposition
1s complicated because sediment deposition rates within
this waterway and their changes over time are unknown
Dating of deep sediment cores to determine deposition dates
of contamination
Sediment transport between Wheeler-Osgood and City Waterways.
Generally, it is believed that Wheeler-Osgood Waterway is
isolated from the rest of City Waterway. However, spatial
115
-------
trends of some contaminants (e.g., dichlorobenzenes) suggest
that this waterway may be a source to the main waterway
Potential contribution of LPAH from Chevron and West Coast
Grocery via groundwater and surface water drains
Potential contribution of PAH and 4-methyphenol via groundwater
migration from the Tar Pits site
t Monitoring storm results from drains in Wheeler-Osgood Waterway
for priority contaminants, loadings, and evaluation of source
control tehnologies.
3.10 MIDDLE WATERWAY
3.10.1 Physical Description
Middle Waterway is situated between St. Paul Waterway to the north
and City Waterway to the south. Industries along the north shore include
Paxport Mills, located about three-fourths of the length from the head
of the waterway, and Champion International, which occupies most of the
remaining area to the southeast. Coast Craft, a custom woodworking company,
is located along the southwest shore of the waterway. Washington Belt
and Drive, Western Machine, Pacific Yacht Basin, a fire station, and a
power substation are located at the head of the waterway. Several maritime
industries are located along the west shore, including Foss Launch and
Tug (a Dillingham Maritime Company), Marine Industries Northwest, and Cook's
Marine Specialties (Figure 21). There are no permitted discharges to Middle
Waterway and six non-permitted discharges. A surface water drain (MD-200)
and a groundwater seep (MD-199) are located at the head of the waterway.
Two iron pipe outfalls (MD-202 and MD-220) and a catch basin with inlet
pipes (MD-203) are located at the mouth of the waterway on the west shore.
Surface drain MD-201, located at the head of the waterway, was recently
abandoned (Pierce, R., 15 July 1985, personal communication).
In general. Middle Waterway has remained relatively unchanged since
before 1923. Much of this waterway remains intertidal, with the upper
half exposed during low tides. There has been only one Corps of Engineers
dredging project since 1970. Past dredging projects by private companies
include Puget Sound Plywood in 1972 and 1978, and Paxport Mills in 1982.
Middle Waterway is approximately 3,500 ft in length, with an average width
of 350 ft. Water depth increases from the head of the waterway toward
the mouth, and recent transects indicate the east side of the channel is
deeper than the west (Raven Systems and Research 1984). Water depths along
the east side typically Increased from 0 ft below MLLW at the head to 25 ft
below MLLW at the mouth of the waterway. Along the west side, water depths
increase from 0 ft below MLLW to approximately 23 ft below MLLW, then decrease
to 13 ft below MLLW immediately in front of the mouth. Both transects
show a sharp increase 1n water depth, below 40 ft MLLW, at the mouth of
the waterway. Cross-sections of Middle Waterway show a significant accunulation
1-4 ft) of soft sediment in the middle and eastern side of the channel .
ediments within Middle Waterway are typically 54 percent fine-grained
material with a clay content of approximately 12 percent.
116
-------
Paxport Mills
St. Paul Waterway
Champion
International
Foss/
Dillingham
Cooks
Marine
Specialties
Marine Industries Northwest
Puget Sound 1/1
Plywood
D-Street Petroleum
Facilities
(multiple owners)
Coast Craft
Power
Substatlo
Middle Waterway
Foss Tug
Washington
!ip-Be1t & Drive
-200
Western
zoi Machine
^(dlsconnj
disconnected)
Pacific
Yacht Basin
Fire Station
SOO
eoo
ซr
METERS
1SO
300
Figure 21. Major industries along and discharges to Middle Waterway (boundries approx-
imate, based on drive-by inspection).
-------
3.10.2 Extent of Contamination
Results of the Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats Remedial Investigation
indicate that mercury and copper are priority 2 contaminants in Middle
Waterway. HPAH, arsenic, zinc, dichlorobenzenes, LPAH, pentachlorophenol,
lead, 4-methylphenol, phenol, dibenzothiophene, diterpenoid hydrocarbons,
and methyl pyrenes are priority 3 contaminants. No priority 1 contaminants
were identified in this waterway. The area of concern is defined as the
entire waterway, based on chemical and biological analyses of sediment
samples collected at stations MD-11, MD-12, and MD-13 (Figure 22). Analyses
indicated elevated contaminant concentrations at all stations and several
abnormal biological conditions. Fish in Middle Waterway had significantly
elevated prevalences of liver lesions and significant accumulation of PCB
in muscle tissues.
Pentachlorophenol was detected at the head of the waterway (Station MD-11)
at 620 ug/kg dry weight. This concentration, and two others in Blair Waterway,
were the only Commencement Bay stations where pentachlorophenol concentrations
exceeded 150 ug/kg dry weight. There were no biological data available
from any of these three stations, which limited the analysis of AET for
pentachlorophenol. Concentrations of copper, arsenic, and mercury increased
regularly from the head to maximum values near the mouth (Station MD- 13),
while lead (and to a lesser extend zinc) concentrations peaked in the middle
of the waterway at Station MD-12. The EAR of copper and mercury were among
the highest observed in this study away from Segment 2 of the Ruston-Pt.
Defiance Shoreline. These two metals exceeded their toxicity and benthic
effects AET at station MD-13.
LPAH concentrations decreased from the head to the mouth of the waterway.
LPAH and HPAH concentrations exceeded their AET only at Station MD-11 where
the highest concentration in all available data was found. Naphthalene,
2-methylnaphthalene, and phenanthrene were the PAH that exhibited the highest
EAR. HPAH also decreased in concentration from the head to the mouth of
the waterway, but the composition differed along the waterway. HPAH in
sediments near the head and the mouth of the waterway were dominated by
pyrene and benzo(a)pyrene and had low levels of methyl pyrenes. Sediments
from Station MD-12 in the center of the waterway had higher relative concen-
trations of methylpyrenes and benzo(a)pyrene than did sediments from the
other stations.
3.10.3 Contaminant Sources
In general, confirmed sources for most of the priority contaminants
within Middle Waterway cannot be Identified, although several likely sources
have been suggested for further Investigation. Champion International,
Paxport, and Coast Craft are potential sources of pentachlorophenol and
other phenolic compounds, since these contaminants are associated with
wood products industries. Copper and mercury are also components of wood
preserving materials that may have been used by these wood products Industries.
Another potential source of metals contamination is the use of sandblasting
grits and the other ship repair activities by the maritime Industries including
Foss Launch and Tug, Marine Industries Northwest, and Cooks Marine Specialties
located along the west shore of Middle Waterway. Leaching of metals from
ASARCO slag used as riprap along the west shore is another possible source.
118
-------
IO
Sediment
Core MD-60
~
MD-13
gMD-12
MD-19
MD-2?0
MD-199
i- MD-200
m-m
(disconnected)
~ Tctra Tech
A EPA
X Other Agencies
METERS
Figure 22. Surf1c1al sediment and sediment core sampling station locations from all
studies in Middle Waterway.
-------
Paxport may also be a source of metals at the mouth of Middle Waterway
because wood wastes containing ASARCO slag were used to fill a salmon
enhancement area developed in 1982. According to the approved dredging
permit, Paxport was to fill the salmon enhancement area with clean fill
material. The U.S. EPA and the Corps of Engineers are currently planning
enforcement action against Paxport for this violation of their dredging
permit terms. Discharge of surface water runoff from MD-200 is the only
confirmed source of metals to Middle Waterway. Any or all of the activities
located along the Middle Waterway are potential sources of PAH, but no
sources have been confirmed.
3.10.3.1 Unknown Sources-
Source identification was hindered by the lack of sampling data for
the discharges and Middle Waterway. Contaminants for which additional
source identification is necessary are mercury, copper, HPAH, arsenic,
zinc, dichlorobenzenes, LPAH, pentachlorophenol, lead, 4-methylphenol,
phenol, dibenzothiophene, diterpenoid hydrocarbons, and methylpyrenes.
Champion International, Paxport, and Coast Craft are possible sources of
pentachlorophenol, phenol, mercury and copper due to the use of these in
the wood products industry as components in wood preservatives. Discharge
of wood wastes from the Paxport and Champion Saw Mills and the storage
of logs in the waterway by these companies may contribute to observed
concentrations of 4-methylphenol (e.g., either directly or through a bio-
degradation process). Only MD-200 has been analyzed for this contaminant
and none was detected on three separate occasions. All of the activities
along Middle Waterway are potential sources of PAH. Due to the ubiquity
of these contaminants and the absence of a clear concentration gradient
within the waterway, confirmation of sources is Impossible without additional
investigation and sediment sampling.
A few possible scenarios exist for the metals contamination in Middle
Waterway. First, the use of sandblasting grits and marine paints by Foss
Launch and Tug, Marine Industries Northwest, and Cook's Marine Specialties
may have contributed metals to the waterway. Metals loadings from these
sources need further investigation. Second, a historical land use survey
conducted by Dames and Moore (1982) indicated that ASARCO slag was placed
at the southwest shore near the mouth of Middle Waterway. Confirmation
could not be obtained regarding the physical state of the slag (i.e., whether
it is fill or rip-rap). Groundwater contaminated with metals from the
slag may be entering the waterway via groundwater seeps at discharges MD-202
and MD-203. Good correlation was seen in arsenic and zinc ratios of ASARCO
slag, sediments along the Ruston-Pt. Defiance Shoreline, and sediments
at the mouth of Middle Waterway. Copper concentrations were higher in
sediments from the mouth of Middle Waterway, although this may be explained
by copper loading from Champion International, which is a confirmed source
of this metal. The third scenario is loading from the storm drains at
the head of the waterway. MD-200 1s a confirmed source of copper (0.0075
lb/day) and mercury (0.000053 lb/day). Calculated loadings from the storm
drains at the head of the waterway are relatively small and spatial trends
are patchy and do not indicate specific sources. Therefore, metals loadings
to the Middle Waterway are most likely from a combination of the above
sources and possibly some unidentified sources.
120
-------
In the absence of confirmed sources of the priority contaminants,
recommendation of specific remedial technologies is not possible at this
time. Additional source identification is necessary in Middle Waterway.
Recommendations for source identification include implementation of an
industrial survey (particularly Foss Launch and Tug, Marine Industries
Northwest, and Cook's Marine Specialties) to determine chemical usage and
waste generation, sampling of discharges for priority contaminants, and
sampling of additional sediments to determine the existence of contaminant
gradients.
3.10.4 Sediment Remedial Actions
Sediments within Middle Waterway have been assigned an environmental
significance ranking of 3 based on observed contamination, toxicity, and
biological effects. Observed environmental effects were moderate and therefore
this waterway has lower priority for sediment remedial action. Additionally,
contaminant loading to Middle Waterway is ongoing, but confirmed sources
and their respective loadings have not been determined. Consideration
of sediment remedial action is not recommended until contaminant sources
have been identified and controlled.
The volume of contaminated sediment within Middle Waterway is estimated
to be 125,033 yd3. This volume was estimated using a surface area of 31 ac,
computed using a planimeter, and an average sediment depth of 2.5 ft, estimated
from cross sections of Middle Waterway (Raven Systems and Research 1984).
For the purpose of this preliminary volume calculation, contamination is
assumed to extend through the soft sediment layer. It may, however, extend
into the harder underlying sediment layers. Based on a low priority ranking
for environmental effects and inconclusive source identification, Middle
Waterway is not recommended for sediment remedial action at this time.
3.10.5 Data Needs
Several data needs were identified that hinder the development and
evaluation of potential remedial alternatives for remedial alternatives
for the problem area in Middle Waterway. Some data gaps are associated
with non-definitive boundaries of the area of concern, while others are
associated with the inconclusive identification of possible sources. Specific
data needs for Middle Waterway include
Additional source identification of priority contaminants,
including
Priority 2 - Mercury, copper
Priority 3 - HPAH, arsenic, zinc, dichlorobenzenes,
LPAH, pentachlorophenol, lead, 4-methylphenol, phenol,
dibenzothiophene, diterpenoid hydrocarbons, methylpyrenes
More precise definition of the spatial and vertical extent
of contamination, if cost effective (i.e., to determine
whether the area of concern is the entire waterway or two
separate areas at the mouth and the head) by additional
surface and deep core sampling of the sediments. This may
121
-------
not be necessary, unless sediment management technologies
are considered for this problem area
Characterization of the effluent from storm drains
t Determination of significance of contaminant loadings from
Paxport, Coast Craft, and Champion International to the
Middle Waterway from the discharge of wood wastes and/or
wood treating products
t Evaluation of loadings of metals from sandblasting operations
of Foss Launch and Tug, Marine Industries Northwest, and
Cook's Marine Specialties; evaluation of the use and possible
discharge of organic contaminants contained in solvents,
strippers, paints, thinners, and degreasers from these facil-
ities.
3.11 RUSTON-PT. DEFIANCE SHORELINE SEGMENT 3
3.11.1 Physical Description
Segment 3 of the Ruston-Pt. Defiance Shoreline extends from the Tacoma
Yacht Club north along the shore, in front of Pt. Defiance Park (Figure 5).
Facilities located along Segment 3 include the Tacoma Yacht Club and the
Pt. Defiance Ferry Terminal. There are no known discharges to this segment
of the Ruston-Pt. Defiance Shoreline. However, the drainage investigation
performed by the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department (TPCHD) did not
extend north of ASARCO property, "foe recent subbottom profiling that was
performed as part of the Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats Remedial
Investigation did not extend through the problem area off Pt. Defiance
(Raven Systems and Research 1984). Sediments along the Ruston-Pt. Defiance
Shoreline are typically sands, averaging less than 20 percent fine-grained
material, and having a clay content of 5 percent.
3.11.2 Extent of Contamination
Results of the Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats Remedial Investigation
indicate that arsenic, cadnnium, copper, zinc, lead, N-nitrosodiphenylamine,
and antimony are priority 2 contaminants. There were no priority 1 or
priority 3 contaminants identified in the Segment 3 problem area off Pt.
Defiance. Definition of this problem area was based on chemical and biological
analyses of sediment samples collected at Stations RS-22 and RS-24 (Figure 6).
Sediment bioassays indicated significant amphipod toxicity at Station RS-24.
No taxonomic characterization was performed on sediment samples from this
problem area. Significant copper accumulations were present in the muscle
tissues of fishes collected along the Ruston-Pt. Defiance Shoreline.
3.11.3 Contaminant Sources
The metals contamination in the problem area defined within Segment 3
off Pt. Defiance is believed to be associated exclusively with slag or
spilled ore because of the granular nature of the sediments. The peninsula
enclosing the Tacoma Yacht Basin, located immediately south of the problem
area, was formed by copper smelting slag placed there under permits issued
122
-------
from 1917 to 1962. The shoreline adjacent to the Tacoma Yacht Club (to
the south), on which the ASARCO plant is located, has also been built up
with slag. Hie source of N-nitrosodiphenylamine is unknown, additional
source investigation is necessary into possible sources of this compound
or its precursors. N,N-dimethylaniline (DMA) was used by ASARCO to remove
sulfur dioxide from stack emissions. WDOE inspectors documented the poor
conditions of storage facilities for this substance, which has been observed
leaking beneath the subfloor of the storage building. Samples of surface
water showed high concentrations of DMA in drainage water beneath and near
the storage building. Outfalls RS-003 (north) and RS-005 (south) are the
most likely surface water routes to Commencement Bay (Pierce, R., 6 August
1985, personal communication). In addition to contaminated surface waters,
WDOE suspects DMA may be leaching into the groundwater. It was not determined
whether this compound occurs in sediments off ASARCO. Under appropriate
acidic conditions, N,N-dimethylaniline (DMA) could be converted to p-nitroso-
N,N-dimethylaniline or to an azo compound. The p-nitroso compound is not
similar in structure to the N-nitrosodiphenylamine found in sediments off
ASARCO. The conversion of DMA to N-nitrosodiphenylamine is not chemically
feasible because it would require substitution of the methyl groups in
the stable tertiary amine.
3.11.4 Sediment Remedial Actions
Sediments in the problem area defined in Segment 3 off Pt. Defiance
have been assigned an environmental significance ranking of 1, based on
observed contaminant levels, toxicity, and biological effects. Because
of the relatively low environmental risk associated with these sediments,
this problem area should receive low priority for evaluation of sediment
remedial action. However, if sediment removal is considered for this problem
area, source control remedial actions may be necessary to stabilize the
slag, used extensively along this portion of the shoreline to prevent further
sediment contamination by decomposing slag.
3.11.5 Data Needs
Data needs associated with the problem area in the Ruston-Pt. Defiance
Shoreline Segment 3 are generally applicable if sediment remedial actions
are being evaluated. Except for N-nitrosodiphenylamine, the source of
the contaminants has been identified as ASARCO, and it 1s believed that
contaminant transport mechanisms are well defined for this problem area.
Data needs specific to the problem area off Pt. Defiance include
Additional source identification for N-nitrosodiphenylamine;
investigation of possible sources of this compound or its
precursors
Analyze for N,N-dimethylaniline (DMA) in sediments off ASARCO
More precise definition of spatial extent by surface sediment
sampling (only necessary if evaluating sediment remedial
actions)
More precise definition of vertical extent by deep sediment
coring (only necessary if evaluating sediment remedial actions).
123
-------
3.12 CITY WATERWAY SEGMENT 3
3.12.1 Physical Description
Segment 3 of City Waterway extends from the 11th Street Bridge (approxi-
mately 3,500 ft from the mouth of the waterway) to the mouth of the waterway.
Facilities located along the east bank are Puget Sound Plywood, the "D"
Street petroleum facilities, Fick Foundry, Olympic Chemical, and Globe
Machine. Totem Marina is located along the west shore (Figure 23). There
are four permitted discharges to City Waterway Segment 3 and 19 unpermitted
discharges (Figure 10). Facilities with NPDES permits are the "D" Street
facilities [Union Oil Company (No. WA0000728), Mobil Oil Corporation (No.
WA000387), and Shell Oil Company (No. WA0001210)] and Fick Foundry (No.
WA0037851).
City Waterway Segment 3 is approximately 3,500 ft in length and 750 ft
wide. Totem Marina extends nearly 300 ft into the waterway from the west
shore, which greatly reduces the actual navigable portion. The depth of
City Waterway in Segment 3 increases from the 11th Street Bridge to the
mouth of the waterway. Recent subbottom profiling of City Waterway Segment 3
showed mid-channel depths ranging from 30 ft below MLLW at 11th Street
to 35 ft below MLLW at the mouth (Raven Systems and Research 1984). Sediment
accumulation within Segment 3 is from 1 to 4 ft. A cross section of City
Waterway near the 11th Street Bridge shows a fairly uniform soft sediment
layer from 2 to 3 ft thick. Another cross section immediately north of
Totem Marina shows localized sediment deposition, up to 4 ft deep, in what
appears to be dredge scars (Raven Systems and Research 1984). Sediments
within City Waterway are typically 64 percent fine-grained material with
an average clay content of 18 percent. There are no proposed dredging
projects in City Waterway Segment 3. The Corps of Engineers has not dredged
City Waterway since 1948. The only other dredging project in Segment 3
has been Superior Oil Company in 1983.
3.12.2 Extent of Contamination
Results of the Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tldeflats Remedial Investigation
indicate that HPAH and LPAH are priority 2 contaminants in City Waterway
Segment 3; PCBs, zinc, phenol, biphenyl, and dibenzothiophene are priority 3
contaminants. There were no priority 1 contaminants identified witnin
Segment 3. A potential hot spot was defined near the mouth of City Waterway,
including Stations CI-20 and CI-21 (Figure 24). High levels (but below
AET) of 2-methoxyphenol were present in sediments from the mouth of the
waterway, and may have resulted from transport into the waterway from the
St. Paul Waterway problem area. With the exception of PAH, which had elevated
concentrations in this area above their toxicity and benthic AET, most
other chemicals detected appeared to be part of a gradient of decreasing
concentrations from the middle or head of City Waterway. Sediment bioassays
Indicated oyster larvae and amphipod toxicity. Fish analyses showed significant
accumulation of PCBs in muscle tissue.
124
-------
Puget Sound Plywood
"0" Street Petrolei* Facilities
"0" Street Petroieua Facilities (auitlple oซmers)
Coest Craft
Flcfc Foundry
Oly^>1c Chtalcel
Clot* Machine
TOten Nerlna
O SOO 1000
METERS
Figure 23. Industries surrounding City Waterway Segment 3
125
-------
+ WDOE, 1984
0 WDOE, Historical
A EPA
~ Tetra Tech
X Other Agencies
North
Sediment Core
CI-63
Sediment Core
CI-61
CI-21
Sediment Cor
CI-62
Sediment Core
CI-60
1000 2000
JFEFr
500
METERS
1000
Figure 24. Surficial sediment and sediment core sampling station locations from all
studies in City Waterway.
-------
3.12.3 Contaminant Sources
Attempts to identify contaminant sources in City Waterway Segment 3
have been unsuccessful. In a study of the "D" Street petroleum facilities
as a possible source of PAH and other organic contaminants to City Waterway
(Johnson and Norton 1985b), WDOE inspectors compared contaminant concentrations
in groundwater collected from interceptor wells near the bulk storage facilities
with contaminant concentrations in the sediments adjacent to the "D" Street
facilities. The WDOE concluded that petroleum product entering City Waterway
from the "D" Street facilities is not significantly contributing to the
observed sediment contamination. LPAH, benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene,
and xylenes were the major contaminants identified in groundwater contaminated
by petroleum products. LPAH compounds detected in sediments adjacent to
the "D" Street facilities did not match those found in the groundwater
contaminated by petroleum product. HPAH were one of the major contaminants
identified in City Waterway sediments. HPAH are typically associated with
combustion products, and not raw petroleum product. Although the HD" Street
facilities have not been proven to be a major source of contaminants to
City Waterway Segment 3, improvement of the storage and distribution systems
at the "D" Street facilities is recommended to minimize the release of
petroleum product into the environment. Sources of HPAH, LPAH, PCBs, phenol,
biphenyl, and dibenzothiophene to City Segment 3 have not been identified.
Additional source identification is necessary for all priority contaminants
within City Waterway Segment 3 prior to delineation of potential remedial
technologies.
3.12.4 Sediment Remedial Action
Sediments in City Waterway Segment 3 have been assigned an environmental
significance ranking of 3, based on observed contaminant levels, toxicity,
and biological effects. Contaminant sources for this problem area have
not been identified. Therefore, remedial action for these sediments is
not recommended at this time.
3.12.5 Data Needs
Several missing pieces of information prevent the identification of
contaminant sources to City Waterway Segnent 3 and the evaluation of appropriate
remedial technologies. Potential source control remedial technologies
cannot be identified until additional source information is available.
Remedial action for sediments within City Waterway Segment 3 is not recommended
until sources have been identified and controlled. Specific data needs
for the problem area in City Waterway segment 3 include
# Additional source identification for the priority contaminants
within this problem area, including
Priority 2 - HPAH, LPAH
Priority 3 - PCBs, zinc, phenol, biphenyl, dibenzothiophene
Thorough inspection of the HD" Street petroleum facilities
to identify locations within the storage and distribution
system where petroleum product is being released into the
environment
127
-------
Vertical extent of contamination by deep sediment coring
(may only be necessary if sediment remedial actions are
being evaluated for this problem area)
Investigation of Totem Marina as a potential source of PAH
Investigatation of storm drains as potential contaminant
sources.
3.13 SUMMARY
The success of source control remedial actions within the problem
areas of Comnencement Bay is dependent on accurate and complete identification
of all major sources of the problem chemicals to those problem areas.
The degree to which this has been accomplished for each problem area varies
greatly. In general, additional source investigations are required in
all problem areas for at least some of the problem chemicals prior to evaluation
of sediment remedial actions. Additionally, sedimentation rates within
individual waterways have not been measured, and therefore the potential
recovery time (i.e., coverage with clean sediments) for a problem area
cannot be determined, assuming the sources of the problem chemicals can
be controlled. In most problem areas, the vertical extent of contamination
was not adequately determined. Typically, sediment cores did not reach
background levels of problem contaminants in the bottom horizons. Definition
of the vertical extent of contamination is necessary for evaluation of
sediment removal technologies and may also provide guidance for management
of an areawide dredging plan.
Potential remedial technologies were not identified for problem areas
1n Segments 3, 4, and 6 of Hylebos Waterway, Blair Waterway, or Ruston-Pt.
Defiance Shoreline Segment 1. These areas were all given a low priority
for remedial action because the environmental significance was relatively
low (except for RSSla), the spatial extent was small (less than 10 ac in
surface area), and contaminant sources could not be identified with any
confidence. The problem areas in Hylebos Waterway Segments 3, 4, and 6,
and Blair Waterway contained stations where contaminants exceeded AET,
but no confirming biological data were available. Milwaukee Waterway contained
no chemicals above their AET. The problem area in Ruston-Pt. Defiance
Shoreline Segment 1 is a single station "hot spot" whose spatial extent
was not well defined. Source evaluation was conducted for this problem
area, and 1t was concluded that the observed contamination is most likely
from a historical source. Therefore, potential source control remedial
technologies were not identified for this problem area.
128
-------
4.0 REFERENCES
Brown and Caldwell, E.V.S. Consultants, and Tetra Tech, Inc. 1984. Sampling
and analysis plan. Task 3. Commencement Bay Superfund Project. Brown and
Caldwell, Seattle, WA. 43 pp.
BRCA012F
CH2M HILL. 1983. Source control feasibility study: OMC hazardous waste
site, Waukegan, Illinois. Hazardous Site Control Division. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
CH2M002F
CH2M HILL. 1983. Water management study. Prepared for Kaiser Aluminum
and Chemical Corporation.
Clark, G.R. 1983. Dredging survey of portable hydraulic dredges. Prepared
for Office of Engineering, U.S. Army, Washington, DC. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Crecelius, E.A., M.H. Bothner, and R. Carpenter. 1975. Geochemistry of
arsenic, antimony, mercury, and related elements in sediments of Puget
Sound. Environ. Sci. Technol. 9:325-333.
CREC001F
Dames and Moore. 1982. Historical land use study of the Tacoma tideflats.
Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 76 pp.
Eaton, T. 22 April 1985. Personal Communication (contact by Ms. Glynda J.
Steiner). Washington Department of Ecology, Southwest Regional Office,
Olympia, WA.
Eaton, T. 10 May 1985. Personal Communication (phone by Ms. Glynda J.
Steiner). Washington Department of Ecology, Southwest Regional Office,
Olympia, WA.
Eaton, T. 29 July 1985. Personal Communication (meeting with Ms. Glynda J.
Steiner). Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
Eaton, T. 30 July 1985. Personal Communication (phone by Ms. Glynda J.
Steiner). Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
Ehrenfeld, J., and J. Bass. 1983. Handbook for evaluating remedial action
technology plans. EPA-600/2-83-076. U.S. EPA Office of Research and
Development, Cincinnati, OH.
Gahler, A.R., J.M. Cummins, J.N. Blazevich, R.H. Rieck, R.L. Arp, C.E. Gangmark,
S.V.W. Pope, and S. Filip. 1982. Chemical contaminants in edible, non-
salmonid fish and crabs from Commencement Bay, Washington. EPA-910/9-82-093.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA. 118 pp.
129
-------
Galvin, D.V., and R.K. Moore. 1982. Toxicants in urban runoff. Prepared
for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington Operation Office.
Toxicant Control Planning Section, Water Quality Division, Municipality
of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA.
Hahlbrock, U. 1983. Bucket wheel excavators in the marine environment.
Terra et Agua 25:10-21.
Hand, T., A. Ford, P. Malone, D. Thompson, and R. Msrcer. 1978. A feasibility
study of response techniques for discharges of hazardous chemicals that
sink. Prepared for U.S. Department of Transportation. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Johnson, A., and D. Norton. 1984. Completion report on WDOE Project 5
(Part 1) for the Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats Remedial Investigation:
priority pollutants and other contaminants in City Waterway storm drains,
Sept-Nov, 1983. Final. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
26 pp.
WD0E087F
Johnson, A., and D. Norton. 1985a. Completion report on WQ1S Project
2 for the Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats Rmedial Investigation:
metals concentrations in water, sediment, and fish tissue samples from
Hylebos Creek drainage, Augsut 1983 - September 1984. Washington Department
of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
Johnson, A., and D. Norton. 1985b. Completion report on WDOE Project 5
(Part 3}. Aromatic hydrocarbons and other organic compounds in groundwater
beneath D Street petroleum storage facility and in nearby City Waterway
sediments, April 1984. Commencement Bay Investigation. Washington Department
of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
WD0E108D
Johnson, A., and S. Prescott. 1982. Memorandum dated June 21, 1982 from
A. Johnson and S. Prescott (WDOE) to D. Cummingham (WDOE) regarding the
receiving environment survey at the St. Regis Paper Company.
JRB Associates. 1984. Methodology for screening and evaluation of remedial
responses (draft). U.S. EPA Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH, and Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.
JRB Associates. 1984. Remedial investigations guidance document (final
draft). Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. JRB Associates,
McLean, VA.
JRB Associates 1984. Removal and mitigation of sediments contaminated
with hazardous substances (draft). Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, OH. JRB Associates, McLean, VA.
JRB Associates. 1985. Guidance document for feasibility studies under
CERCLA. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal
Environmental Research Laboratory. Cincinnati, OH, and Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. (draft).
130
-------
Kucinski, 6. 6 August 1985. Personal Communication (phone by Ms. Glynda J.
Steiner). Port of Tacoma, Tacoma, WA.
Malins, D.C., B.B. McCain, D.W. Brown, A.K. Sparks, and H.O. Hodgins.
1980. Chemical contaminants and biological abnormalities in central and
southern Puget Sound. NOAA Technical Memorandum 0MPA-2. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, CO. 295 pp.
MALI002F.
Mai ins, D.C., B.B. McCain, D.W. Brown, A.K. Sparks, H.O. Hodgins, and S.L.
Chan. 1982. Chemical contaminants and abnormalities in fish and invertebrates
from Puget Sound. NOAA Technical Memorandum 0MPA-19. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, CO. 168 pp.
MAL1003F
Norton, D., and A. Johnson. 1984. Completion report on WQIS Project 5.2
for Commencement Bay investigation: metals in City Waterway of American
Plating, Martinac Shipbuilding, and Fick Foundry. Washington Department
of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 17 pp.
WDOE095F
Norton, 0., and A. Johnson. 1985a. Completion report on WQIS Project
1 for the Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats Remedial Investigation:
Assessment of log sort yards as metals sources to Commencement Bay waterways,
November 1983 - June 1984. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia,
WA. 51 pp.
WDQE133F
Norton, D., and A. Johnson. 1985b. Completion report on WQIS Project
4 for the Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats Remedial Investigation:
sources of sediment contamination in Sitcum Waterway, with emphasis on
ores unloaded at Terminal 7. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia,
WA. 25 pp.
WD0E134F
Pierce, D. 10 May 1985. Personal Communication (phone by Ms. Glynda J.
Steiner). Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department, Tacoma, WA.
Pierce, R. 22 April 1985. Personal Communeiation (contact by Ms. Glynda J.
Steiner). Washington Department of Ecology, Southwest Regional Office,
Olympia, WA.
Pierce, R. 13 May 1985. Personal Communication (phone by Ms, Glynda J.
Steiner). Washington Department of Ecology, Southwest Regional Office,
Olympia, WA.
Pierce, R. 15 July 1985. Personal Communication (memorandum to Mr. James
Krull (WDOE) concerning Commencement Bay Remedial Investigation Tasks 4
and 5 review comments). Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
131
-------
Pierce, R. 23 July 1985. Personal Communication [written comments to
Mr. James Krull (WDOE) concerning Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats
Remedial Investigation, Potential Remedial Technologies (draft)]. Washington
Department of Ecology, Olympia, VIA.
Pierce, R. 2 August 1985. Personal Communication (phone by Ms. Glynda J.
Steiner). Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
Pierce, R. 6 August 1985. Personal Communication (phone by Ms. Glynda J.
Steiner). Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
Pierce, R. 1985. Monthly Status Report Comencement Bay controlled sites.
Hazardous/Solid Waste Section, Southwest Regional Office, Washington Department
of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
Raven Systems and Research, Inc. 1984. Cormencsnent Bay, Washington Nearshore/
Tideflats Project, subbottom profiling task. Prepared for E.V.S. Consultants.
Seattle, WA.
Readman, J.W., R.F.C. Mantoura, and M.M. Rhead. 1982. Aquatic distribution
and heterotrophic degradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)
in the Tamar estuary. Est. Coast. Shelf Sci. 14:369-389.
READ001F
Riley, R.G., E.A. Crecelius, and D.C. Mann. 1980. Quantitation of pollutants
in suspended matter and water from Puget Sound. NOAA Technical Memorandum
ERL MESA 49. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder,
CO. 99 pp.
RILE001F
Riley, R.G. 1981. Letter dated March 3, 1981, from R.G. Riley, Battelle
Pacific Northwest Laboratories to E. Long, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
Riley, R.G., E.A. Crecelius, and M.L. O'Malley. 1981. Organic pollutants
in waterways adjacent to Commencement Bay (Puget Sound). NOAA Technical
Memorandum 0MPA-12. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder,
CO. 90 pp.
RILE002F
Ruckelshaus, M. 2 August 1985. Personal Communication (phone by Ms. Glynda J.
Steiner). Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
Swartz, R.C., W.A. DeBen, and K.A. Sercu. 1982. Sediment toxicity and
the distribution of amphipods in Commencement Bay, Washington, USA. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 13:359-364.
SWAR002F
Tacoma-Pierce County, Health Department. 1983. Commencement Bay nearshore/
tideflats area drainage Investigation: field work sheets for Hylebos and
Wapato Creeks, map and legend. Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department,
Tacoma, WA. 43 pp.
TPHD014F
132
-------
Thornton, J. 23 April 1985. Personal Communication (phone by Ms. Glynda J.
Steiner). Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1983. The ports of Tacoma, Grays Harbor
and Olympia, Washington. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
100 pp.
C0EW001F
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1984. Evaluation of alternative dredging
methods and equipment, disposal methods and sites, and site control and
treatment practices for contaminated sediments. Conmencement Bay Nearshore/
Tideflats Superfund Remedial Investigation. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Seattle, WA. 300 pp.
C0ES003D
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1985. Decision-making framework for managanent
of dredged material: application to Commencement Bay, Washington. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Quality criteria for water.
Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Handbook for remedial actions
at waste disposal sites. EPA-625/6-82-006.
Yake, W., 29 May 1985. Personal Communication (conference with Ms. Glynda J.
Steiner). Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
133
-------
APPENDIX A
LAND AND STORM DRAIN OWNERSHIP IN THE COMMENCEMENT BAY
NEARSHORE/TIDEFLATS STUDY AREA
-------
LAND AND STORM DRAIN OWNERSHIP IN THE COMMENCEMENT BAY
NEARSHORE/TIOEFLATS STUDY AREA
Occupant
Owner
Owner's Address
Tax Lot Number
CITY WATERWAY
American Plating
Chevron
City Marina
Facilities
MD" Street
Petroleum
Facilities
"D" Street
Petroleum
Facilities
(multiple
owners)
Fick Foundry
Hygrade Foods
L. R. Jones
Chevron USA Inc.
City Marina Inc.
Superior Oil Co.
Puget Sound Plywood
Inc.
Union Oil Co. of
California
Shell Oil Co.
Mobil Oil Corp.
Fick Foundry
Hygrade Foods
Martinac Shipbuild- Martinac Shipbuild-
ing ing
4 Forest Glen
Blvd. SW
Tacoma, WA
Marshall W. Perro
1616 E. D St.
Tacoma, WA
P.O. Box 24447
Terminal Annex
Seattle, WA
2203 C St.
Tacoma, WA 98401
P.O. Box 1636
Tacoma, WA
401 E. 15th
Tacoma, WA 98421
Northern Pacific
Plywood
Burlington Northern P.O. Box 38
Railroad
St. Regis Door Mill The Wattley Co.
(closed)
Graham, WA
29314 11th PI. S.
Federal Way, WA
895000-176-0
-177-0
-178-0
-179-0
-180-0
03-20-04-4-002
895000-066-1
637500-008-0
-006-1
637500-009-3
637500-005-0
637500-011-0
-006-0
637500-014-1
03-20-04-4-004
03-20-04-1-017
895000-191-0
-190-0
895000-405-1
A-l
-------
Puget Sound Plywood Puget Sound Plywood
Tacoma Spur
Tar Pits Site
Totem Marina
Union Pacific &
Burlington
Northern
Railroads
Tacoma Spur
Simon & Sons
B.N.R.R.
Union Pacific R.R.
Hygrade
R. W. Bright
Moorage Associates
Union Pacific &
Burlington
Northern
Railroads
West Coast Grocery West Coast Grocery
Western Fish
Woodworth & Co,
Surface Water
Drains
C1-225
C1-230
C1-234
CI-243
C1-245
C1-248
CI-237
CS-237
CW-254
CI-703
CI-236
230 E. F St,
Tacoma, WA
1401 A St.
Tacoma, WA
P.O. Box 3532
Lacey, WA
P.O. Box 1001
Bellevue, WA
98009
1525 E. D St.
Tacoma, WA
Burlington Northern
Railroad
Woodworth & Co.,
Inc.
City of Tacoma
Harmon Furniture
Atlas Foundry
2100 Interstate
Center
999 3rd Avenue
Seattle, WA
98104-1105
1200 E. D St.
Tacoma, WA
747 Market Street
Tacoma, WA 98401
895000-061-0
-064-0
03-20-04-2-011
895000-217-1
895000-218-1
895000-208-1
895000-167-0
-166-0
-165-0
-164-0
-169-1
-170-0
-171-3
895000-197-1
895000-106-0
-120-0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
A-2
-------
HYLEBOS WATERWAY
Cascade Timber
Yard No. 1
Cascade Timber
Yard No. 2
Dunlap Towing
McFarland & Cascade P.O. Box 1496
Tacoma, WA
03-21-26-4-005
Port of Tacoma
Dunlap Towing
P.O. Box 1837
Tacoma, WA 98401
P.O. Box 593
LaConner, WA
98257
General Metals
Inc.
Leslie Sussman
Jones Chemical
Inc.
Kaiser Aluminum
& Chemical
Corporation
Ulto Pricola
Kaiser Aluminum
& Chemical
Corporation
Louisiana Pacific Louisiana Pacific
Murray Pacific
Yard No. 1
Occidental Chemical
Corporation
Pennwalt Chemical
Corporation
Pan Pacific
Occidental Petro-
leum Co.
Pennwalt Chemical
Corporation
1 N. Stadium Way
#6
Tacoma, WA
100 Sunny Sol Blvd.
Caledonia, NY
14423
P.O. Box 24471
Oakland, CA
Sound Refining Inc. Sound Refining
Tacoma Boatbuilding Tacoma Boatbuilding
Wasser-Winters
Port of Tacoma
P.O. Box 1936
Tacoma, WA 98401
3502 Lincoln Ave.
Tacoma, WA
P.O. Box 868
Houston, TX
2901 Taylor Way
Tacoma, WA
2628 Marine View
Dr.
Tacoma, WA
184 Marine View Dr.
Tacoma, WA 98401
P.O. Box 1837
Tacoma, WA 98401
03-21-36-2-032
-033
-037
-038
-051
-053
03-21-36-2-409
03-21-36-3-013
03-21-36-4-024
03-21-35-1-039
03-21-35-1-041
03-21-26-4096
03-21-36-1-800
-801
-2-045
03-21-36-4-017
-026
A-3
-------
Weyerhaeuser
Weyerhaeuser
3401 Taylor Way 03-21-36-2-046
Tacoma, WA 98477
Surface Water
Drains
HY-052
HY-054
Kaiser Aluminum and
Chemical Corp.
II
P.O. Box
Oakland,
II
24471
CA
N/A
N/A
MIDDLE WATERWAY
Champion Interna-
tional
Champion Interna-
tional
P.O. Box 2133
Tacoma, WA 98401
895000-126-2
-052-5
Coast Craft
Wes Ohlson
1002 E. F St.
Tacoma, WA
895000-076-0
-088-0
Cooks Marine
Special ties
Dillingham Corp.
c/o Foss
& Tug
660 Wing
Seattle,
Launch
Co.
St.
WA
895000-074-1
Foss/Oillingham
Dillingham Corp.
c/o Foss
& Tug
660 Wing
Seattle,
Launch
Co.
St.
WA
895000-074-2
Foss Tug
Dillingham Corp.
c/o Foss
& Tug
660 Wing
Seattle,
Launch
Co.
St.
WA
895000-074-4
Marine Industries
Northwest
Dillingham Corp.
c/o Foss
& Tug
660 Wing
Seattle,
Launch
Co.
St.
WA
895000-074-3
Surface Water
Drain MD-200
N/A
American Smelting
& Refining Co.
RUSTIN-PT. DEFIANCE SHORELINE
American Smelting
& Refining Co.
P.O. Box 1677
Tacoma, WA
895000-337-0
022123-100-0
023650-006-7
Tacoma North Sewage
Treatment Plant
City of Tacoma
747 Market St.
Tacoma, WA 98402
A-4
-------
Surface Water
Drains
RS-002
RS-040
City of Ruston
City of Ruston
N/A
N/A
SITCUM WATERWAY
Port of Tacoma
Port of Tacoma
Seal and
Surface Water
Drains
SI-172
SI-175
SI-716
SI-176
SI-717
SI-718
SI-719
Port of Tacoma
Port of Tacoma
City of Tacoma
II
II
Port of Tacoma
P.O. Box 1837
Tacoma, WA 98401
P.O. Box 1837
Tacoma, WA 98401
747 Market St.
Tacoma, WA 98402
P.O. Box 1837
Tacoma, WA 98401
N/A
N/A
ST. PAUL WATERWAY
Champion Interna-
tional
Champion Interna-
tional
P.O. Box 2133
Tacoma, WA 98401
895000-052-3
A-5
------- |