Selecting Remediation Techniques for Contaminated Sediment

Click here for DISCLAIMER Document starts on next page United States Environmental Agency Protection Office of Water (WH-585) EPA-823-B93-001 June 1993 EPA Selecting Remediation Techniques For Contaminated Sediment MONITORING NO ACTION ASSESSMENT PREVENTION DREDGING REMEDIATION TREATMENT DISPOSAL SELECTING REMEDIATION FOR CONTAMINATED TECHNIQUES SEDIMENT Office of Water Office of Science and Technology Standards and Applied Science Division U. S. Environmental Protection agency Washington, D.C. 20460 and Office of Research and Development Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Cincinnati, Ohio 45219 ABSTRACT The objective of this planning guide is to assist federal and state remedial agencies, private cleanup companies, and supporting contractors in the remedial process at contaminated sediment sites. It attempts to accomplish the following: • managers, local decision-making Define the characteristics of contaminated that affect remedy selection, Provide a streamlined process for selecting conventional sediments and of surrounding water bodies • an appropriate remedy, applicable innovative • Describe commonly-selected technologies. remedies and potentially Current literature on processing contaminated sediment has provided the generic content in this guide. This sediment-specific data has been consolidated for easy reference. It brings together conventional options and potential alternatives appropriate to these sites; it provides treatability study data and examples drawn from relevant case studies. An excellent companion document to this guide is Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (USEPA, 1991) which focuses on small site contaminated sediments remediation with particular emphasis on treatment technologies. Innovative treatment of contaminated sediment is in the early stages of development. remedial manager must be alert to the ongoing development of new remedies, new regulations, new policy issues that may affect operations at contaminated sediment sites. The and CONTENTS Page Abstract ......................................................... Figures ......................................................... Tables .......................................................... ........................................... Abbreviations and Symbols .................................................. Acknowledgments ................................................. Executive Summary 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i v vi viii xiii xiv 1-1 1-1 1-2 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 2-1 2-1 2-2 2-6 2-8 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-9 3-9 3-10 3-12 3-14 3-15 3-17 3-18 Purpose and scope of this document Use of this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. ............................. Assessing contaminated sediments .......................... Description of contaminated sediment ................................ Determining sediment quality Regulatory issues ........................................ 2. Characterization considerations . . . . . . . . . choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Site characteristics Sediment affecting treatment and behavior characteristics characteristics . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . in sediment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contaminant and their behavior evaluation . Data requirements 3. Selection of remedial for treatment options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Initial screening using generic site conditions Selecting the most effective options/identifying marginal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . options/determining ineffective options ...................................... Removal and transport ........................... Removal of contaminated sediment .................................... Mechanical dredges Hydraulic dredges ...................................... ..................................... Pneumatic dredges ............. Comparison of dredge advantages and disadvantages .................................. Transporting the sediment ................ Selecting a compatible dredge and transport system ii CONTENTS Preconditioning/pretreating Dewatering techniques Particle classification (continued) 3-18 3-18 3-27 3-23 3-24 3-24 3-27 3-33 3-33 3-34 3-35 3-36 3-36 3-38 3-38 3-38 3-38 3-38 3-40 3-40 3-40 3-40 3-41 3-41 3-41 3-41 3-41 3-43 3-45 3-45 3-45 3-45 3-45 3-47 3-48 3-53 3-53 3-53 3-57 3-57 3-59 3-59 3-59 3-62 3-62 3-62 .......................... the sediment .................................... ..................................... .................... Remedial options commonly applied to sediment No action ............................................. Subaqueous capping ...................................... Confined disposal facility (CDF): upland, near-shore, in-water ...................... Treatments potentially applicable to sediment ........................................ In situ treatments ................................ Solidification/stabilization Biological treatment ..................................... .................................... Chemical treatment ....................................... Ground freezing ........................................ Ex situ treatment ...................................... Biological treatment ........................... Slurry phase biological treatment ................................... Process description ............................. Applicability and limitations .................................... Performance data Cost ............................................. ............................ Solid phase biological treatment ................................... Process description ............................. Applicability and limitations .................................... Performance data Cost ............................................. .......................................... Dechlorination ................................... Process description ............................. Applicability and limitations .................................... Performance data Cost ............................................. .................................... Extraction technologies ..................................... Solvent extraction ................................... Process description ............................. Applicability and limitations .................................... Performance data Cost ............................................. ......................................... Soil washing ................................... Process description ............................. Applicability and limitations .................................... Performance data cost ............................................. ..................................... Thermal desorption ................................... Process description ............................. Applicability and limitations .................................... Performance data Cost ............................................. ......... iii CONTENTS (continued) 3-62 3-62 3-65 3-66 3-66 3-66 3-66 3-66 3-71 3-71 3-71 3-72 3-72 3-72 3-72 3-73 4-1 4-1 4-6 R-1 ........................... Solidification/stabilization treatment ................................... Process description ............................. Applicability and limitations .................................... Performance data ............................................. cost ....................................... Thermal treatment .......................................... Incineration ................................... Process description ............................. Applicability and limitations .................................... Performance data cost ............................................. .............................. Post-treatment of residual streams ......................................... Water treatment ..................................... Air emissions control ......................................... Solids treatment Disposal .............................................. 4. Combining Developing Estimating References Appendices A. components into a treatment system .................... ................ treatment systems using generic examples ..................................... system costs ....................................................... Case studies .............................................. Selection and evaluation of treatment technologies ................... for the New Bedford Harbor Superfund project Kepone in the James River, Hopewell, VA ........................ ................................... PCBs in the Hudson River ......................................... B. Treatability studies No action .............................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. In situ treatment Dredging and disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. Dredging and treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. Physical/chemical treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thermal treatment C. Summary of sediment Records of Decision (1982-1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. D. Contaminant group constituents A-1 A-1 A-12 A-22 B-1 B-1 B-5 B-7 B-12 B-14 B-23 C-1 D-1 iv FIGURES Number 2-1 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-7 3-8 3-9 Partition coefficients and aqueous solubilities of ...................................... various organic chemicals ...................................... Applicable remedial options ............................. Overview of dredged material treatment ................................ Flow chart for screening no action Flow chart for screening CAD .................................... ......................................... Dechlorination process ...................................... Solvent extraction process Aqueous soil washing process .................................... ..................................... Thermal desorption process ........................................... Incineration system Page 2-9 3-2 3-19 3-25 3-28 3-42 3-46 3-54 3-60 3-69 Appendix A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 B-1 Feasibility Study areas for New Bedford Harbor Site . . . Major Feasibility Study components and information flow New Bedford Harbor Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . USEPA’s selected remedy at New Bedford Harbor Site Kepone in the top 2 cm of channel bottom sediment from . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the James River System Kepone concentrations in blue crabs and oysters . . . . Locations of remnant sediment deposits . . . . . . . . Fixation by deep chemical mixing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . for . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2 A-5 A-11 A-14 A-15 A-27 B-6 V TABLES Number 1 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-7 3-8 3-9 3-10 3-11 3-12 3-13 3-14 3-15 3-16 3-17 3-18 3-19 4-1 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7 A-8 A-9 A-10 A-11 .............................. Summary of Remediation Technologies federal Water Quality Criteria for Maximum Allowable Concentrations in Dredged Material .............................. ......................... EPA Sediment Classification Criteria of 1977 ........ Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Sediment Quality Criteria Washington State Department of Ecology Marine Sediment Quality Standards - Chemical Criteria ................................... ............................. Sediment Quality Assessment Methods ........... Water Body and Sediment Information Requirements and Sources .................... Additional Information Sources for Water Body Data ........................................... Absorption Ratings .......... Technology Data Requirements for Treatment of Dredged Sediment ........... Technology Data Requirements for In Situ Treatment of Sediment ............................. Initial Screening by Contaminant Group ............................. Initial Screening by General Parameters ............................................ Parameter Effects ...................................... Initial Screening Worksheet .......................................... Dredge Comparisons ............................ Descriptions of Capped Disposal Projects ................... Remediation Technologies for Contaminated Sediment ............................. Summary of In Situ Chemical Treatment .............................. Factors Affecting Biological Treatment ......................... Factors Affecting Dechlorination Performance ........................................ Dechlorination Systems ....................... Factors Affecting Solvent Extraction Techniques ..................................... Solvent Extraction Systems ................................... Factors Affecting Soil Washing ......................................... Soil Washing Systems .............................. Factors Affecting Thermal Desorption .................................... Thermal Desorption Systems .................. Factors Affecting Solidification/Stabilization Treatment ........................... Factors Affecting Incineration Techniques ........................ Items That Must Be Considered During Costing Identification and Screening of Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies for New Bedford Harbor ...................... ................. Treatment Technologies Retained for Detailed Evaluation Technologies for ABB Environmental Bench Test Program ................. ................. More Promising Nonconventional Treatment Alternatives Potential Biologic Approaches to the Migration of ............................... Kepone in the James River System Comparison of Dredging Modes ................................... Proposed Mitigation Alternatives for Kepone Contamination in Bailey Creek, Bailey Bay, and Gravelly Run Sites ...................... Treatment Cost Estimates for Alternatives on the James River System ........ ............................ Distribution of PCBs in the Hudson River Heavy Metal Content of Selected Upriver Sediments (µg/g) ................ ............................... Remedial Actions for Initial Screening Page xx 1-5 1-6 1-7 1-8 1-10 2-3 2-5 2-10 2-11 2-15 3-4 3-5 3-7 3-8 3-16 3-31 3-34 3-37 3-39 3-44 3-44 3-48 3-49 3-56 3-58 3-61 3-63 3-67 3-70 4-3 A-6 A-8 A-10 A-17 A-20 A-22 A-23 A-24 A-26 A-26 A-29 vi TABLES A-12 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 B-8 B-9 B-10 B-11 B-12 B-13 B-14 B-15 B-16 B-17 B-18 B-19 B-20 B-21 B-22 B-23 C-1 D-1 (continued) A-32 B-2 B-3 B-10 B-13 B-15 B-16 B-19 B-19 B-20 B-24 B-26 B-26 B-27 B-28 B-29 B-30 B-31 B-31 B-33 B-34 B-35 B-35 B-36 C-1 D-1 .......................... Cost Comparisons for Remedial Alternatives Typical Specification for a Treatability Study .......................... ...................................... List of Treatability Studies ................................. Elements of the DAMOS Program ...................................... PCB (1248) Biodegradation .............................. Bench-Scale Data on NCBC (Gulfport) .............................. DOD/USATHAMA Treatability Results Comparison of Untreated/Treated Soil in a Pilot-Scale Test at a .................................. Minnesota Wood Treating Site . Comparison of PCP-Contaminated Untreated/Treated Soil at Site Demonstration ........................... Results of Bench-Scale Treatability Testing ........................... Incineration of Sediment Explosives Levels Swanson River Tests: Operating Conditions Tests 1 through 3 ............. Swanson River Tests: Operating Conditions Tests 4 through 6 ............. ............................ McCall Site Tests: Operating Conditions .............................. McCall Site Tests: Metals Partitioning ....................................... Waste Feed Soil Analysis .............................................. Metals Analysis Leach Test Results ............................................ Emission Data ............................................... ..................... Laboratory X*TRAX* Synthetic Soil Matrix (SSM-I) ................. Laboratory X*TRAX* Non-PCB Soil, Sludge, and Mixture Pilot X*TRAX* using PCB-Contaminated Soils ......................... Comparison of Lab and Pilot X*TRAX* Tests Using PCB-contaminated Soils . . . Pilot X*TRAX* TSCA Testing - Vent Emission ......................... Summary of FY82-FY90 Records of Decision Documenting Sediment Contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Examples of Constituents Within Waste Groups vii ABBREVIATIONS AOC ARARs ARCS ARCS ATSDR ATTIC BCF BDAT BOD BTX CAA CAD CDF CERCLA CERI CFR cm CO2 COD COLIS CRP cu yd CWA dia area of contamination applicable alternative assessment Agency or relevant and appropriate AND SYMBOLS requirements remedial contracts and remediation strategy of contaminated sediments for Toxic Substances Treatment factor achievable demand xylene and Disease Registry Information Center Alternative Technology bioconcentration best demonstrated biochemical benzene, technology oxygen toluene, Clean Air Act contained confined aquatic disposal disposal facility Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Comprehensive Center for Environmental Research Information Code of Federal Regulations centimeter carbon dioxide chemical Computer community cubic yard Clean Water Act diameter oxygen demand System On-Line Information relations plan viii ABBREVIATIONS DMSO DRE EIS EP EP EPA ERCS FEMA FIFRA FPXRF GLNPO GLWQA GPR H2O H2O2 HCI HNU hr HRS HSP HSWA IAG in kg KOH dimethyl destruction environmental extraction equilibrium sulfoxide AND SYMBOLS (continued) and removal efficiency impact statement procedure partitioning Protection Agency United States Environmental emergency response cleanup services Management Fungicide, Agency and Rodenticide Act Federal Emergency Federal Insecticide, field-portable X-ray fluorescence Program Office Agreement Great Lakes National Great Lakes Water Quality ground penetrating water hydrogen hydrochloric [manufacturer hour hazard ranking system health and safety plan Hazardous interagency inch kilogram potassium hydroxide peroxide acid radar of] a device for measuring organic vapor concentrations and Solid Waste Amendments agreement of 1984 ABBREVIATIONS KPEG L lb LDRs m mg mm MPRSA NAAQS NaOH NEPA NOAA NOx NPL O3 OERR ORD OSWER OTTRS OVA PAH PCB PCDD PCDF PCP a dehalogenation liter pound land disposal meter milligram millimeter Marine Protection National sodium National National Ambient hydroxide Environmental restrictions process AND SYMBOLS (continued) Research and Sanctuaries Air Quality Standards Act Policy Act Administration Oceanic and Atmospheric oxides of nitrogen National ozone Office of Emergency and Remedial Response Priorities List Office of Research and Development Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Office of Technology organic polycyclic vapor analyzer aromatic hydrocarbon Transfer Response Support and Regulatory polychlorinated polychlorinated polychlorinated pentachlorophenol biphenyl dibenzodioxin dibenzofuran X ABBREVIATIONS PEG PNA POHC POTW ppb ppm QA/QC QAPP RAC RCRA RI/FS ROD RM RREL SAP SARA SDWA sec SFLN SO2 svoc SWDA SWMU TCDD TCDF polyethylene polynuclear principal publicly glycol aromatic AND SYMBOLS (continued) hydrocarbon constituent works organic hazardous owned treatment parts per billion parts per million quality quality assurance/quality assurance control project plan remedial action contractor Resource Conservation and Recovery study Act remedial investigation/feasibility record of decision remedial manager Risk Reduction sampling Engineering plan Laboratory and analysis Super-fund Amendments Safe Drinking second sulfolane sulfur dioxide semivolatile Water Act and Reauthorization Act organic compound Solid Waste Disposal Act solid waste management tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin tetrachlorodibenzofuran unit xi ABBREVIATIONS TCL TCLP TDS TOC TOX tpd TSCA TSS µ ucs µg COE USCG USEPA voc WQC XRF target compound Toxicity list AND SYMBOLS (continued) Characteristic solids Leaching Procedure total dissolved total organic carbon total organic ton per day Toxic Substances total suspended micron unconfined microgram United States Army Corps of Engineers United States Coast Guard United States Environmental volatile organic compound criteria Protection Agency compressive strength Control Act solids halogen water quality X-ray fluorescence xii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This guide was developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Sediment Oversight Technical Committee with assistance from the Office of Research and Development’s Risk Reduction and Engineering Laboratory (RREL). The Sediment Oversight Technical Committee, chaired by Dr. Elizabeth Southerland of the Office of Science and Technology, has representation from a number of Program Offices in Headquarters and all EPA Regions. The project was supervised by Richard Griffiths and Mike Borst at RREL. Technical support for developing the document Inc. (FWEI) under EPA contract number 68-C9-0033. Comments by the following reviewers, was provided by Foster Wheeler Enviresponse, aided greatly in the guide’s development: Daniel Averett Beverly Baker Douglas Beltman Karl E. Bremer Peter Chapman David C. Cowgill Steve Garbaciak Donald Heller Jonathan G. Herrmann Stephen Johnson Michael Kravitz Dave Petrovski Dennis Timberlake Anne Weinert Howard Zar - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Section - EPA, OW/OST, Contaminated Sediment Section - EPA, Region V, Office of Superfund Technical Support Unit - EPA, Region V, RCRA Permitting Branch - E.V.S. Consultants - EPA, GLNPO, Remedial Programs - EPA, GLNPO, Remedial Programs - EPA, Region V, Office of RCRA Ohio Permitting Section - EPA, ORD/RREL, Physical/Chemical Systems Branch - EPA, Region V, PCB Control Section - EPA, OW/OST, Contaminated Sediment Section - EPA, Region V, Office of RCRA Michigan Permitting Section - EPA, ORD/RREL, Physical/Chemical Systems Branch - EPA, Region V - EPA, Region V, In Place Pollutant Task Force xiii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION This guide helps remedial managers select appropriate or innovative sediments options, preferably already tested at bench, remedial techniques pilot, or field levels from conventional with contaminated and/or soils. Sediment is the mixture of assorted of molluscs material that settles to the bottom of a waterbody. from surface wastes, It includes the shells and coverings and other animals, transported soil particles erosion, organic matter from dead and rotting vegetation organic and inorganic materials, and chemicals. and animals, sewage, industrial other Surface waters in the United States receive discharges three major sources: of various liquid and solid wastes from • • • Point sources such as municipal Non-point and industrial runoff, effluents. soil entrainment, and airborne particles. and intentional aquatic sources such as agricultural Other sources such as spills, contaminated dumping. groundwater infiltration, Many of these discharges environment contain toxic/hazardous materials that settle as sediment The contaminated resources and persist in the affects water. human because of their physicochemical properties. sediment health and the environment and causes losses of important such as drinking Regulatory Issues Under the Clean Water Act and Comprehensive Liability Environmental Response, Compensation, and waste Act, the U.S. Coast Guard and EPA are mandated and contaminated sediment. The potentially to ensure safe cleanup of hazardous applicable regulations include: discharges • • Clean Water Act (CWA) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) xiv • • • • • • • Federal Insecticide, Marine Protection, National Fungicide, Research, and Rodenticide and Sanctuaries Act (FIFRA) Act (MPRSA) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Recovery Act (RCRA) Resource Conservation Rivers and Harbors Act Toxic Substances Water Resources Law Control Act (TSCA) Development Act • International • State Law SITE CHARACTERIZATION Site characterization the source and nature contamination and evaluation are necessary to select an appropriate Industrial remedy and identify point sources of of the contaminants. plants and other potential near the site should be identified to aid in identifying the type and level of contaminants. The location Access channels difficulties of the site and its physical may prevent delivery characteristics can affect sediment equipment. dredging activities. navigation may of certain treatment Congested can make dredging impractical. If the waterbody is a source of drinking water, dredging require either extra precautions water supply. to prevent the spread of contaminant or provisions for an alternate Waterbody velocity, information such as depth and width particulate concentration, of waterbody, water current direction and wave height, suspended sediment type and particle size, sediment dredging method and a suitable organic carbon content, remedy. etc., are necessary to select an appropriate Sediment Characterization Sediment of sediment characteristics, particles vary in chemical organic composition hydrated and in physical iron, properties. oxides, The constituents and associated of the waterbody such as clay, matter, manganese such as particle size, pH, oxidation-reduction between sediment particles conditions, and salinity affect the interaction and contaminants. xv Sediment the potential particle size influences migration. the association of the contaminants with the sediment and for contaminant Smaller diameter particles often contain particles remain suspended higher concentrations of time, are source. of contaminants. These small diameter for longer periods easily resuspended in high tides, storms, and floods, and travel further from the contamination Organic carbon content of sediment influences the adsorption capacity of contaminants such as PCBs. Particle technologies others size and organic content significantly affect the selection of a remedy. Many while the cannot effectively remove contaminants fine particles. that are strongly The mineralogy bound to small particles, of the particle also affects have difficulty in processing remedy selection. Contaminant Characterization Contaminants typically found in sediment can be classified as follows: • • • • Polynuclear Pesticides Chlorinated Mononuclear Phthalate Metals Nutrients Miscellaneous, aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) hydrocarbons aromatic hydrocarbons (benzene and its derivatives) • • • esters • such as cyanides and organo-metals. These contaminants direct sinking enter the waterbody adsorption from various sources and contact on the sediment particles. the sediment particles by and subsequent In most aquatic contain becomes systems, the suspended sediment and the upper layer of the sediment water column. or migrate Consequently, bed higher contaminant a reservoir partition concentrations than the overlying sediment The of contaminants coefficient, concern that can redissolve K,,, has proved useful into the water column. octanol/water chemicals solubility, in predicting soil adsorption. in water. Organic the of environmental usually have very low solubilities The lower particles. the greater the tendency of the organic compound to adsorb to the sediment xvi SELECTION OF REMEDIAL OPTIONS Table 1 displays conventional contaminated sediment, techniques and new treatments that, based on RODS dealing with can remove, contain, may be potentially sediment without applicable. No remedial alternative and consequent of contaminants such contaminant or treat contaminated Disturbance selection some disturbance release of contaminants. into the water column. release. The of bottom sediment can cause resuspension to minimize of a remedial option must attempt Removal and Transport The first step in the remedial selection in situ. Most often, sediment process is to determine whether ex situ. to treat the sediment A primary concern is dredged and either contained of contaminated sediments or treated during the removal and transport into previously uncontaminated is the danger of introducing contaminants areas. The choice of dredging depends on the nature of the sediment, the thickness and volume of sediment, the distance the types of contaminants, to next operation of dredging: depends methods affected the depth to bottom, (e.g., disposal sites), and the available machinery. hydraulic, between barges, and pneumatic. the dredging railroads, There are three major categories for dredged material transportation options will be mechanical, The method of transportation and treatment sites. on the distance include: pipelines, The principal of transport and trucks. Selection by both dredge selection and pretreatment and treatment decisions. Pretreatment of the Sediment Most sediment material as pretreatment. transport will require dewatering Dewatering followed by particle content classification of sediment, to remove oversize allows handling and reduces the moisture of the material as a solid, and prepares the sediment Dredged material dewatering is traditionally for a number of treatment and disposal disposal technologies. facilities methods methods accomplished in ponds or confined (CDFs), which are generally rely on seepage, drainage, effective, consolidation, and evaporation. These dewatering Common industrial such and low cost, but slow and require large areas. dewatering lagoons, filtration, the settling and gravity thickening. solids. include centrifugation, Chemicals as flocculating separates magnetic agents are added to accelerate particles of suspended properties Particle classification mass, sediment based on one or more physical such as size, density, characteristics, etc. Particle classification settling technologies include sieves and screens, hydraulic and spiral classifiers, cyclones, basins, and clarifiers. Conventional Options The conventional when removal ineffective, problems, sediment handling methods are removal and disposal. environmental effects, conditions This option is desirable make in-place treatment will not result in adverse and when removal is necessary for other purposes. it can be contained If the sediment presents environmental treated in situ, dredged (e.g., capped in place), left in place (no action), disposal facility (CDFI, or combination and treated or placed in a confined of above techniques. Confined material. disposal facilities KDFsI are engineered structures designed partially to retain dredged They may be constructed surrounded either entirely away from the water, in water near the shore, or completely material produced by water. They are used for disposal of about 30% of the dredged Program. Costs for disposing dredged material by the Corps of Engineers Navigation in CDFs range from $5 to $2O/cu yd. affected by wind and waves. As with any other structure located and constructed in water or near shore, CDFs are CDFs can fairly well isolate Properly contaminated sediment from the environment. Subaqueous sediments capping, also called contained aquatic disposal ICAD), covers contaminated with cleaner sediment with or without lateral walls. CADS are often deposits of sediments cavity which are then capped placed in a depression with cleaner deposits.’ in the bottom of a water body, or in an excavated The no-action will bury and contain when: the pollutant option leaves the contaminated pollutants discharge sediment in place so that natural sedimentation This option is appropriate process effects of or natural biodegradation will take place. source has been halted; the burial, ditution, by human or natural activities; the sediment or biodegradation or environmental is rapid; sediment cleanup will not be remobilized than allowing are more damaging to remain in place. ‘Capping is the controlled, accurate placement of contaminated dredged material at an open-water disposal site, followed by a covering or cap of clean isolating material. Level bottom capping is the placement of a contaminated material on the bottom in a mounded configuration and the subsequent covering of the mound with clean sediment. Contained aquatic disposal is similar to level bottom capping but with the additional provision of some form of lateral confinement (for example, placement in bottom depressions or behind subaqueous berms) to minimize spread of the materials on the bottom. .. . XVIII /n situ treatments involve in place addition and mixing sediment. of biological organisms or in solidification/stabilization ensuring the thorough reagents with contaminated mixing bottom Because of the difficulty required, in situ treatments have not been very popular. Potentially Applicable Options Several remedial options have the potential supporting follows: field data. The remedial options to treat contaminated sediments, but have limited sediments are as that can potentially treat contaminated l l l l l l l Biological treatment Dechlorination Soil washing Solvent extraction Solidification/stabilization Incineration Thermal desorption Many of these process options system that involves multiple treatment are not stand-alone steps to address processes, multiple but may be components contaminant problems. of a Waste preparation dewatering, effectiveness, treatment for these technologies and pH adjustment. include screening to remove oversize debris, particle size separation, Table 1 presents application, feed stream characteristics, in these which if or and cost of these remedial options. are: air emissions The three main waste streams generated and treated; treated solids options that can be captured technique contaminated can either be treated by another or solidified and disposed in a landfill, reused as a fill; water which can usually be treated in a conventional to a publicly owned treatment works (POTWI. treatment system or discharged CONCLUSIONS Although use all its existing sediments document treatment statutory of contaminated authorities ecological sediments is in the early stages of application, coordinated unacceptable EPA will of This in a consistent, harm or posing manner to pursue remediation risks to human health. that are causing offers guidance on the selection of feasible remedial options for various situations. xix TABLE 1. SUMMARY Ramediation Biological 0 REMEDIATION eed stream TECHNOLOGIES Effectiveness Depends on the feed stream characteristics. technology Pesticides, fuels, creosote, PCP, PCBs, some helogenated volatile organics, non-halogenated organics. eliphatics, aromatics, chlorinated aromatics characteristics pH 4.5 to 8.5 Temperature 59 to 167 Moisture content 40 to 80% Nutrients C:N:P 100: 1O:l to loo:1 :0.5 Oxygen - 8 mg/L cost $80 to S 15Olcu yd (slurry phase) $50 to $801~~ yd (solid phase) treatment Physical/chemical KPEG dechlorination treatment Dioxins, PCBs, chlorobenzenes pH >2 Temperature 158 to 302 Water content < 20% Chlorinated organic5 < 5% Oily organic5 <40% Solid content <20% Particle size < 114 in Particle size 0.063-2 mm Efficiencies >98% have been reported for PCBs. PCB removal to less than 1 ppm is routinely achieved. PCB reductions greater than 90% on harbor sediments. 8200 to $5DO/cu yd Solvent extraction PCBs, volatile organics, halogenated solvents, petroleum waste, aromatics, metals Heavy metals, halogenated solvents, aromatics, PCBs, chlorinated phenols, pesticides, gasoline, and oils Inorganics; some success with oily sludges and solvents $200 to $6DO/cu vd Soil washing 90-99% for voletiles, 90% for semivolatiles 40- 5200 to S4OOlcu yd Solidification/stabilization Organic5 <20 - 45 wt% Semivolatiles < 1% Solids > 15% Oil and grease < 10 wt% Phenols c 5% PAHs 20% Greater than 99% for organics. 9475 to $1,35O/cu vd Low temperature dasorption thermal Volatile and semivolatile compounds organic 99% removal svocs. on VOCs and $110 to S47Olcu vd xx SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS DOCUMENT This guide describes containing contaminated a selection process for remediation technologies that can be used at sites the following: sediment. The selection process begins by identifying Site characteristics that may affect remedy selection: physical/geological characteristics of the waterbody and use of the waterbody. Sediment resuspend, tics such characteristics and behavior: the sediment particle’s tendency physical to deposit, characteris­ during and adsorb/absorb as size, These contaminants, characteristics and other pertinent determine the particle’s behavior dredging and treatment. Contaminant interaction characteristics of contaminants and their behavior in sediment: the physicochemical remedy selection, treatment, and and sediments and how this affects in pre-treatment, the role of physical treatment. and chemical characteristics and post- Regulatory contaminated Recovery issues that affect sediment. selection Clean of remedial Water Act, options: the regulations dealing with and The Resource Conservation Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, Toxic Substances tions. Control Act, and interpretations of existing and emerging regula­ The remedial option selection removal systems, and secondary any pretreatment treatment, process continues necessary with the investigation of appropriate sediment options, to process the sediment, streams. the primary treatment if necessary, of residual Using this information, the remedial contami- manager can select the treatment alternative most likely to succeed in remediating 1-1 a specific nated sediment site. This document gives the remedial manager guidance in selecting appropriate options, remedial techniques preferably either from commonly selected conventional options, or from innovative those already tested at bench, pilot, or field levels. This guide covers the methods of selecting remedies for site-specific contaminated sediment in water bodies such as rivers, lakes, streams, ocean characteristics movement, ponds, and harbors. Since some water bodies exhibit deep water, sites. and tidal that could affect remedy selection, discusses oceans as extensions such as wave action, this document of harbors or as disposal USE OF THIS DOCUMENT This document site, sediment, the technologies Sediment is a technical resource for remedial managers providing a brief description of and contaminant characteristics as they might affect remedy selection, in remediating and compares that are most likely to be effective transport, sites with the given characteristics. are also included. removal, and pre- and post-treatment techniques This guide helps a remedial characteristics, of a treatment by providing technologies thereby streamlining manager select a treatment system based on the specific attention site the selection process, and focusing to be effective that on those elements This is accomplished or inappropriate system offering decision the greatest potential tables at the site. trees and comparative potentially help eliminate marginal and that emphasize successful techniques. ASSESSING CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS The remedial manager should become familiar with the extent of contaminated the environmental Overview decision, effects. A good introduction in the United to the extent of sediment States (USEPA, 1987c). contamination sediments and is given in An remedial of Sediment Quality To make a correct sediment the remedial manager should know the state of the art in contaminated issues that affect its treatment. Investigations Unfortunately, treatments, problem are are and the regulatory is not well defined. still in their infancy. the procedures regulating the contaminated sediment into its extent are only in the early stages and some regulations Some issues that will need to be addressed as the remedial process develops between clean and contaminated for defining, testing, sediment, for distinguishing sediment, the legal basis for remedies. contaminated and techniques and implementing 1-2 Since there are few widely turn, no defined performance cleanups include: tested and accepted sediment cleanup techniques, there are, in for standards for remedy selection. side effects Issues confronting from sediment those responsible the damaging environmental criteria, removal and treatment, disposal treatment the remedial cost, the absence of clear performance of dredged methods manager feasibility sediment, little experimental the lack of consensus regarding acceptable data, and the difficulty contaminated the acceptable cost. of finding appropriate for extremely must define large volumes of low-level the extent of cleanup, sediment. cleanup Nevertheless, levels for the site, technical for each remedy, and the acceptable Descriotion of Contaminated Sediment The term “sediment”, for the purposes of this document, encompasses the various materials of molluscs and other that settle to the bottom of any water body. water animals, vegetation cals. transported soil particles industrial It includes the shells and coverings organic from surface erosion, wastes, matter from dead and rotting inorganic materials, and chemi­ and animals, sewage, organic materials, EPA defines sediment as soil, sand, and minerals washed from land into water usually after rain trends tend to separate sediment/soil matrices from sludge. (USEPA, 1988c). Current regulatory Surface waters industrial and municipal in the United States receive discharges operations, carrying agricultural pollutants of various liquid and solid wastes from accidental spills, leaks, dumping of and urban runoffs, waste, and precipitation of sediment contamination: from the atmosphere. In general, there are three sources l Point sources such as municipal Non-point and industrial runoff, effluents. soil entrainment, airborne particles. dumping. l sources such as agricultural l Other sources such as spills, contaminated groundwater infiltration, aquatic Many of these discharges in the environment the environment contain toxic/hazardous materials that settle in sediment sediment and persist for tong periods of time. This contaminated resources may affect human health and water. water, Humans can be in toxic and cause losses of important through dermal such as drinking into drinking exposed to the contaminants the food chain, substances and direct such means as infiltration contact. Animals accumulation can absorb of the benthic community from their surroundings. Contaminated sediment can be lethal to them and affect the food such as mink and man. chains of larger animals, fish, birds, and mammals l-3 The Federal Water Quality 1973. quality exceeds sediment These were adopted criteria involves the maximum quality Administration developed the first sediment quality guidelines in by the EPA and are called the Jensen Criteria. (Table 1-l I. If the concentration is classified This first set of sediment of any of the parameters Very few other seven contaminants allowable exist. value, then the sediment as polluted. guidelines In 1973, (Federal Register early sediment guidelines bioassays, the EPA published 38 (19731, criteria and regulations for managing marine-dredged sediment Other The Ocean Dumping: were developed Final t?egu/8tions and Criteria) (Anon, jointly When coupled with 1973). quality guidelines the disposal by the EPA and the Corps of Engineers. site-specific regulated of dredged sediments. sediment the joint EPA-Corps of Engineers regulations sediment. For example, have been the standard reference for regulating guidelines to evaluate Great are still contaminated Region V of the EPA developed (Table l-2). Lakes Harbor sediments in effect although using this combination These regulations thinking or regulatory regulatory and guidelines direction. they do not necessarily reflect current They also several do not address bioavailability, agencies developed additional a major consideration sediment quality in today’s criteria. trends. Recently, The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has developed implemented implemented (Table l-41. 19893). (Table l-3). interim criteria for some metals, PCBs, and a few pesticides The Washington State Department of Ecology but has not been and has developed Sediment Management Standards for some metals and polynuclear criteria, EPA recommended additional aromatic hydrocarbons approaches (USEPA, In the absence of established It appears that the current directly measure biological effects. regulatory Excellent trend is to define discussions sediment quality using criteria that of these criteria 1989). are provided by Chapman (Chapman, are shown Compendium 19891, Baudo (Baudo, et al., 19901, and Fitchko (Fitchko, in Table 1-5. These methods are described Several of these methods Classification Methods in detail in Sediment (USEPA, 1989jI.’ ’ Final EPA document no. 823-R-92-006 (September, l-4 1992). TABLE l-1. FEDERAL WATER QUALITY ADMINISTRATION FOR MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN DREDGED MATERIAL CRITERIA Parameter Volatile Chemical solids oxygen demand Criteria wt% Idry) 6.0 5.0 0.10 0.15 0.0001 0.005 0.005 Total Kjeldahl nitrogen Oil and grease Mercury Lead Zinc Source: Federal Register 38 (1973) (Anon, 1973). Requlatorv Issues The Clean Water Act and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability and to Act mandate the U.S. Coast Guard and EPA to ensure safe cleanup of hazardous contaminated sediment. Congress has recently sediment authorized legislation waste discharges for EPA to lead an effort Development pollution. survey the extent Several coastal toward of the contaminated pollution measures of nationally problem (Water Resources addressing sediment Act, 1992). have provisions applicable EPA is working However, the development sediment-quality criteria for coastal waters. a coordinated Federal effort to address the problem is still in its infancy. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issues disposal health and marine impact guidelines process and through EPA’s developed permits for dredged material using human by EPA. During the selection programs, of sites, the permitting aspects are management and monitoring environmental near-shore, considered. containment Historically, Contaminated sites. sediment clean may be sent for disposal sediment in aquatic, into or upland sites. Relatively can be discharged unconfined aquatic the ocean has been used to dispose of waste. of sediment waters Over 90% of the material dumped into the (USEPA, 1989f). waste without It was assumed harming their ocean consists that the ocean dredged from U.S. harbors and channels capacity had an inexhaustible has gradually to assimilate resources. That assumption changed to recognize that the ocean’s assimilative capacity l-5 is finite. industrial Pursuant wastes to the Ocean Dumping ended in December Ban Act of 1988, all ocean dumping of sewage sludge and 1991. TABLE 1-2. EPA GUIDELINES FOR CLASSIFICATION GREAT LAKES HARBOR SEDIMENTS OF Copper All concentrations l as mg/kg, dry weight. considers 1 mg/kg as a screening guideline. Present practice Source: USEPA, 1977. l-6 TABLE 1-3. WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES INTERIM CRITERIA FOR IN-WATER DISPOSAL OF DREDGED SEDIMENTS Guideline ppm (dry) 10.00 1 .oo 100.00 100.00 50.00 0.1 100.00 100.00 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.05 Sullivan, et al., 1985 Contaminant Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Zinc Hepachlor Endrin Aldrin Chlordane PCBs Dieldrin Toxaphene Lindane Source: In general, Resource Conservation (TSCAI regulations apply to treatment and Recovery Act IRCRA) or Toxic Substances if it is any of the following: Control Act or disposal of sediment RCRA - ignitable, RCRA - contains TSCA - contains corrosive, any amount reactive, or toxic per 40 CFR 261.20-261.24 substance per 40 CFR 261.30 - Appendix IX of RCRA-listed PCBs in excess of 50 ppm l-7 TABLE 14. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY MARINE SEDIMENT QUALITY STANDARDSCHEMICAL CRITERIA’ mglkg dry weight (mm dty) 57.00 5.10 260.00 390.00 450.00 0.41 6.10 410.00 Chemical Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Silver Zinc Chemical LPAH3 Naphthalene Acenaphthylene Acenaphthene Fluorene Phenanthrene Anthracene 2-Methylnaphthalene Chemical HPAH4 Fluoranthene Pyrene Benzlalanthracene Chrysene Total benzofluoranthenes? Benzo(a)pyrene Indeno(l,2,3-c,dIpyrene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene parameter parameter mglkg organic carbon (ppm carbon)’ 370.00 99.00 66.00 16.00 23.00 100.00 220.00 38.00 parameter mglkg organic carbon (ppm carbon) 960.00 160.00 1 ,ooo.oo 110.00 110.00 230.00 99.00 34.00 12.00 31 .oo 2.30 3.10 1-8 TABLE 14. (Continued) mg/kg organic carbon (ppm carbon) 0.81 0.38 53.00 61 .OO 220.00 4.90 47.00 58.00 15.00 3.90 11.00 12.00 Chemical 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Hexachlorobenzene Dimethyl Diethyl Di-n-butyl phthalate phthalate phthalate parameter Butyl benzyl phthalate Bis(2-ethylhexyllphthalate Di-n-octyl phthalate Dibenzofuran Hexchlorobutadiene N-Nitrosodiphenylamine Total PCBs Chemical Phenol 2-Methylphenol 4-Methylphenol 2,4-Dimethyl phenol parameter pglkg dry weight Ippb dry) 420.00 63.00 670.00 29.00 360.00 57.00 650.00 Pentachlorophenol Benzyl alcohol Benzoic acid ’ Where laboratory analysis indicates a chemical is not detected in a sediment sample, the detection limit shall be reported and shall be at or below the criteria value shown in this table. Where chemical criteria in this table represent the sum of individual compounds or isomers, and a chemical analysis identifies an undetected value for one or more individual compounds or isomers, the detection limit shall be used for calculating the sum of the respective compounds or isomers. ’ The listed chemical parameter criteria represent concentrations in parts per million, “normalized”, or expressed, To normalize to total organic carbon, the dry weight concentration for each on a total organic carbon basis. parameter is divided by the decimal fraction presenting the percent total organic carbon content of the sediment. “low molecular weight polynuclear aromatic a The LPAH criterion represents the sum of the following acenaphthylene, acenaphthene, fluorene, phenanthrene, and naphthalene, hydrocarbon” compounds: anthracene. The LPAH criterion is not the sum of the criteria values for the individual LPAH compounds as listed. “high molecular weight polynuclear aromatic 4 The HPAH criterion represents the sum of the following fluoranthene. pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, total benzofluoranthenes, hydrocarbon” compounds: benzo(a)pyrene, indeno(l,2,3c,d)pyrene, dibenzofa, hjanthracene, and benzo(g,h,i)perylene. The HPAH criterion is not the sum of the criteria values for the individual HPAH compounds as listed. ’ The total benzofluoranthenes criterion represents the sum of the concentrations of the “6”. “J”, and “K” isomers. l-9 TABLE 1-5. Type Method (Chapter) Bulk Sediment Toxicity SpikedSediment Toxicity Interstitial Water Toxicity X SEDIMENT QUALITY ASSESSMENT METHODS N D X C Concept Test organisms are exposed to sediment which may contain unknown quantities potentially toxic chemicals. At the end of a specifkd time period, the response organisms is examined in relation to a specified biological endpoint. of of the test Dose-response relationships are established by exposing test organisms to sediments have been spiked with known amounts of chemicals or mixtures of chemicals. that X Toxicity of interstitial water Is quantified and identification evaluation procedures are applied to identify and quantify chemical components responsible for sediment toxicity. The procedures are implemented in three phases to characterize interstitial water toxicity, identify the suspected toxicant, and confirm toxicant identification. A sediment concentration concentration quality value for a given contaminant is determined by calculating the sediment of the contaminant that would correspond to an interstitial water equivalent to the U.S. EPA water quality criterion for the contaminant. Equilibrium Partitioning X Tissue Residue X Safe sediment concentrations of specific chemicals are established by determining the sediment chemical concentration that will result in acceptable tissue residues. Methods derive unacceptable tissue residues are based on chronic water quality criteria and bioconcentration factors, chronic dose-response experiments, or fiild correlations, and human health risk levels from the consumption of freshwater fish or seafood. X Environmental degradation community structure. is measured by evaluating alterations in freshwater benthic to Freshwater 8enthic Community Structure Marine 8enthic Community Structure Sediment Quality Triad x X Environmentat community degradation structure. is measured by evaluating alterations in marine benthic x x Sediment chemical contamination, sediment toxicity, and benthic infauna community structure are measured on the same sediment. Correspondence between sediment chemistry, toxicity, and biological effects is used to determine sediment concentrations discriminate conditions of minimal, uncertain, and major biological effects. that Apparent Effects Threshold X X An AET is the sediment concentration of a contaminant above which statistically significant biological effects (e.g., amphipod mortality in bioassays, depressions in the abundance of benthic infauna) would always be expected. AET values are empirically derived from paired field data for sediment chemistry and a range of biological effects indicators. Contaminated sediments are assessed in two steps: 1) an initial assessment that is based on macro-zoobenthic community structure and concentrations of contaminants in sediments and biological tissues, and 2) a detailed assessment that is based on a phased sampling of the physical, chemical, and biological aspects of the sediment, including laboratory toxicity bioassayc. approach, Lakes. or “strategy” combining a number of methods for the purpose of International Joint Commission’ X ’ The IJC approach is an example of a sequential assessing contaminated sediment in the Great N Humic type D - Descriptive type C - Combination type Source: Sediment Classification Methods Compendium (USEPA, 1989jl l-10 Movement structure. Compliance contamination is underway to include contaminated sediment in the mainstream of the regulatory in the CERCLA sediment underwater For example, with Other the interaction laws Manual among several regulations (USEPA, 1989b). has been addressed EPA is planning regulations to develop to fifteen controls for businesses, pollution. and is applying Super-fund areas to limit sediment The laws that are potentially applicable to contaminated sediment include the following: . Clean Water Act (CWAI . Comprehensive Act (CERCLA) . Federal Insecticide, . Marine . National . Resource Protection, Fungicide, Research, and Rodenticide and Sanctuaries Act (FIFRA) Act (MPRSAI Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Environmental Conservation Policy Act (NEPA) and Recovery Act (RCRA) . Rivers and Harbors Acts of 1989 . Toxic Substances . Water Resources . International . State Law Law Control Act (TSCA) Acts Development The Clean Water Act (CWAI-­ Five sections of the Clean Water Act are relevant to contaminated Of these, the most significant is Section sediment. 404. They are Sections 1 15, 1 18, 307, 401, 404. Section 115--Section 1 15 of the Clean Water Act provides a powerful, sediment. Unlike legislation that primarily but generally placement unused, tool of dredged for cleaning up contaminated material or provides authorizes to contract cleaning regulates limited authorization up pollutants. to remove it for economic EPA to identify purposes, Section 115 specifically hot spots and It authorizes near shore contaminated with the Corps of Engineers to clean them up. Section provisions, 118--Section 118 is the Great Lakes Amendment to the Clean Water Act. Among other it authorizes the EPA Great Lakes National project on the control Program Office (GLNPOI to carry out a five-year of contaminated sediment in the Great study and demonstration and removal l-l 1 Lakes. The Assessment and Remediation demonstrating of Contaminated methods Sediments (ARCS) Program is underway. pollutants treatment and decisiontechnologies The ARCS program includes for assessing in-place making on remedial action alternatives. demonstrations 1992. The ARCS program selected sediment on a bench- and pilot-scale at five areas of concern in the Great Lakes during 1991 and include Saginaw Bay, Michigan (Lake Huron); Sheboygan the Ashtabula River, Areas singled out for special attention (Lake Michigan); Harbor, Wisconsin Grand Calumet River, Indiana (Lake Michigan); River, New York (Lake Erie). Ohio (Lake Erie); and the Buffalo Section 307--Section into a publicly category pollutants works. owned 307 of the Clean Water Act requires that any source introducing works (POTW) estabfish pretreatment standards standards prevent pollutants treatment for the source the discharge of with the designated that may interfere Several proposals control authority. with, pass through, The pretreatment or otherwise confined authority be incompatible disposal facility to establish with the treatment to POTWs. have been made to discharge control effluents This section of the act allows the designated limits on the pollutants. Section to conduct 401--Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires anyone applying resulting in discharges to U.S. waters obtain certification for a federal permit from the state in any activity which the activity the proposed significant will be conducted. This means that the state water quality agency must certify that standards, and will not cause in any project disposal. disposal of the material will not violate state water quality degradation. water quality States can require design changes or safeguards ensures that states are involved before issuing a permit. The 401 certification in sediment Section material discharges 404--Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates States, and establishes the discharge program of dredged and fill to ensure that such into waters of the United a permit comply with environmental Corps requirements. This program is administered The Corps of Engineers at the federal level has the primary for public hearing, by the U.S. Army responsibility of Engineers and the EPA. for the permit program and is authorized, after notice and opportunity to issue permits for the discharge of the Section 404 program proposed of dredged or fill material. including permits, developing prohibiting EPA has primary roles in several aspects guidelines to evaluate permit environmental discharges applications, approving waters reviewing with unacceptable establishing adverse impacts, scope of authority is and overseeing the state’s assumption of the program, jurisdictional Enforcement of the United States, and interpreting of Section 404 exemptions. shared between EPA and the Corps of Engineers. l-12 The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLAL­ This 1980 federal law addresses to investigate EPA evaluates the problem of hazardous wastes. waste sites. It authorizes the EPA and respond to releases of hazardous them. If listing criteria are exceeded, Several contaminated sediment When contaminated sites are discovered, Priority C). List EPA can place them on the National sites appear on the NPL (see Appendix (NPL) for cleanup. When ranking potential Indirect sites for addition to the NPL, EPA generally to contaminants gives the greatest contaminated weight drinking of toxics to the water. from a for direct human exposure exposure such as through such as eating contaminated a less serious threat. fish or exposure from volatilization water surface is considered Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act IFIFlW-- EPA reviews their toxicity chemicals’ sediment and registers all pesticides sold in the United States. to determine procedure It examines data concerning governing persistence the in and behavior in the environment The EPA testing the need for restrictions examines the chemicals’ use and disposal. and soils. Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSAI-- The Marine Dumping Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries of any material potential Act of 1972, better known as the Ocean the are is to Act, regulates ocean dumping that may adversely affect human health, marine environment, responsible responsible enforce or the economic of the ocean. Oceanic EPA and the Corps of Engineers Administration (NOAA) to administer to monitor Title the Act, the National the effects 3 gives and Atmospheric of ocean dumping, the Secretary and the U.S. Coast Guard is responsible the authority to establish waters, the Act. of Commerce marine sanctuaries. covered authorizes MPRSA applies to the ocean and coastal waters, MPRSA also governs but not to estuarine which are MPRSA by the Clean Water Act. ocean dumping of dredged material. dumping the Corps of Engineers to choose sites for dredged material and to issue permits to dump at those sites. l-13 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPAb- Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, all federal agencies (El% for proposed an opportunity material. actions must prepare effect on an Environmental the environment. and disposal considerations Impact Statement EIS preparation that may have a significant provides dredged to explore the options available for dredging intent is to incorporate environmental to of contaminated NEPA’s into decision-making Review at the federal level. All Corps of Engineers ElSs are submitted and response. the Environmental Branch of the appropriate regional EPA office for review Resource Conservation and Recovery Act WXAI-- RCRA provides and the permitting ous waste hazardous for the classification of hazardous waste, the definition Sediment of solid and liquid waste, classified as nonhazard­ classified as of hazardous and nonhazardous approved approved waste landfills. under Subtitle under Subtitle may be disposed must be disposed in landfills in landfills D of RCRA; sediment C. Liquid wastes, as defined by the Paint Filter Liquid Test (40 CFR 264.314(c)), may not be sent to landfills in the United States. Application containing of RCRA to contaminated sediment is not completely in accordance Technology defined. Dredged sediment listed hazardous facility waste requires treatment the RCRA Minimum with 40 CFR 5268 and disposal Requirements IMTR). Sediment at a permitted exhibiting exhibits 0268; m meeting a hazardous the hazardous disposal waste characteristic waste characteristic, requires treatment to the extent that the residue no longer treatment standards under 40 CFR or meets applicable MTR. in a RCRA facility meeting Under the proposed RCRA-permitted occurred. facility RCRA Subpart S, provisions for corrective action can be applied to any if a release of a hazardous including corrective action substance has occurred or is suspected to have had provisions with RCRA permits since the passage EPA requires of HSWA in 1984. The Rivers and Harbors Act-­ The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 authorizes projects Section related to waterborne 10 of the Act prohibits commerce the Corps of Engineers to build harbors and other and channels open for traffic. water in the and to keep these harbors obstruction or alteration the unauthorized of any navigable l-14 United States. Under the Rivers and Harbors Act, the Corps of Engineers dredging or fill projects in navigable waterways. has the authority to issue permits for all private The law originally confined disposal facility to construct required (CDFI. a local government sponsor to share the costs of constructing the Corps of Engineers maintenance routine. maintains a In the absence of a local sponsor, its authority the CDF as part of its Federal navigation for all aspects related to the integrity effects. The Corps of Engineers is responsible including prevention of the CDF’s design and construction, of adverse environmental Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCAI-- Regulations administration 50 ppm. under TSCA, enacted in 1976, sediment intends require written approval by the regional EPA for disposal of contaminated containing PCBs in concentrations sediment higher than PCB When the Corps of Engineers to dredge an area with containing concentrations above 50 ppm, it must apply to the EPA Regional Administrator the permit or inadequate if the dredging protection and disposal plan presents methods. for a TSCA permit. risk for EPA can withhold landfilled materials any unreasonable for alternate disposal Under TSCA regulations, or sent for disposal in any material with PCB concentrations a RCRA-approved facility. higher than 50 ppm must be incinerated TSCA requirements wherein do not apply to PCB concentrations less than 50 ppm. material’s containing by the EPA waste The TSCA anti-dilution concentration, provisions, PCBs are treated as if they were at the original However, dredged materials methods approved do not apply to EPA actions at CERCLA sites. PCB concentrations Regional greater than 50 ppm may be disposed by alternate It must be demonstrated and appropriate, that disposal Administrator. in an incinerator or chemical landfill is not reasonable protection and that the alternate disposal method will provide adequate to human health and the environment (USEPA, 1990e). Water Resources Development Act of 19903-- Section 312 of this Act authorizes boundaries participation, to effect environmental the Corps of Engineers to dredge outside navigational cleanup. This act requires a non-federal local channel sponsor’s and that sponsor must provide half of the dredging costs and 100 percent of the disposal removed from outside the navigation project. costs for the material 3 WRDA was also reauthorized in 1992. l-15 International Law-­ International regulations addressing dumping wastes into the marine environment of Marine Pollution were written at the 1972 London Dumping Convention and Other Matter. Canada committed Additionally, on The Prevention by Dumping of Wastes the United States and the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 between to avoid pollution of the others’ waters. the two countries State Law-­ In addition to the federally-mandated projects. affecting 401 certification, a state may require additional permits for that of is dredge and disposal pertain state to activities environmental Each state has its own set of laws, regulations, water quality and the quality through the of the environment. Council of Great and procedures A subcommittee Lakes Governors, administrators, pollutant working developing new state in-place programs to ensure consistency among state regulations. l-16 SECTION CHARACTERIZATION 2 CONSIDERATIONS Surface waters of the United States receive discharges Although the compositions from sources containing of these discharges a variety of liquid and solid materials. with certainty, properties and quantities chemicals. are not known many may contain toxic and hazardous may remain in sediment Because of their physicochemical these toxic chemicals for long periods of time. A great deal of monitoring Clean Water Act (CWA). many contaminants of contaminants a significant sediment sediment However, data are available from surveillance concern and monitoring required by the Since these data primarily effluents and water quality. have very low water solubilities, Navigational dredging monitoring the water may not reveal the presence processes under the CWA generate sediment. Several The data are confined current programs to in sediment. and permitting volume of data, but they do not readily characterize channels and proposed disposal sites. quality in navigational monitoring require that will eventually provide sediment In addition, data, such as those under the Great Research, Lakes Water Quality Agreement and Sanctuaries (GLWQA). the CWA and the Marine Protection, Act (MPRSA) oversee aquatic disposal projects and require extensive the contaminants associated with sediment, data collection. disposal These data will help to identify techniques. Monitoring The National and appropriate Status Oceanic and Atmospheric information Administration’s for coastal areas. (NOAA) and Trends Program will provide sediment SITE CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING TREATMENT CHOICES Characterization identify and evaluation of the site are necessary Industrial to select an appropriate remedy and point sources the source and nature of the contaminants. near the site aid in identifying plants and other potential of contamination the type and levels of contaminants. The location Access channels difficulties of the site and its physical may prevent delivery characteristics can affect sediment equipment. dredging activities. navigation may of the proper treatment Congested can make dredging impractical. to prevent If the water body is a source of drinking contaminant spread or an alternate water, dredging water supply. require either extra precautions 2-1 A description water body information of the water is presented body is necessary in Table 2-1. to select a remedial action. Some important information are Additional sources of water-body listed in Table 2-2. This information ing method the water and the most suitable column helps the Project Manager select both the most appropriate remedy. Remedial selection total dissolved also requires definition total dissolved dredg­ of the nature of matter, and such as its turbidity, solids, organic industrial, chemical composition. discharge, feasible. The use of a water body, such as navigation, of these, determines whether recreation, control or municipal is or a combination The waterway institutional of the waterway uses affect the nature of restrictions that may be needed during remediation. SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS AND BEHAVIOR Sediment and in physical manganese reduction particles properties. reach water bodies by various routes. The constituents of sediment They vary in chemical composition hydrated iron, such as clay, organic matter, particle size distribution, oxides, condition, and associated and salinity characteristics (e.g., pH, oxidationparticles and of the water body) all affect the interaction fine-grained sediment often contains of the sediment with the contaminants. For example, more contaminants natural organic matter because of its higher surface-area-to-weight Verschueren capacity (1983) reports that the organic carbon content ratio than coarse-grained of sediment influences material. the adsorption of pyrene, 7-12the of contaminants such as PCBs. Means (1980) reports that the sorption dimethylbenzlalanthracene, organic matter content 3-methylchloranthracene, of sediment. and dibenzanthracene is correlated with Sediment the potential of time, particle size influences migration. in high the association of the contaminants with the sediment and for contaminant resuspend source. Smaller diameter particles remain suspended and floods, of sediment and travel farther in the for longer periods current from the easily tides contamination Transport (undated) properties are discussed in detail in a number of articles that their contaminants distribution in a is not Also, and books by Bennett confined necessarily water body, and Yalin (1977). Although found it is recognized in fine particles, such as a lake, are usually uniform. They often occur in pockets of limited area and in deeper areas of lakes. is affected to a large extent behavior by the benthic organisms the contaminant profile of sediment occurring in the water body. These aspects of the sediment are discussed extensively in Sediments 2-2 TABLE 2-1. Information factor WATER BODY AND SEDIMENT Application Ability of dredges materials. to reach/remove INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS AND SOURCES Sources Depth to contaminated bottom materials (water column), or of water body or water channel (minimum, maximum, mean) contaminated Navigation ing (sonar) chart. Direct measurement. Remote sens- Ability to operate/maneuver dredging equipment. Navigation chart. Table 2-2. Remote sensing (sonar). Accessibility Predicted sediment. Potential Width of water body or water channel (minimum, maximum, mean) or configuration of channel or water body Ability of site for dredging movement of discharged equipment. substances or for capping/CAD to operate/maneuver dredging equipment. Navigation chart. USGS topographic Remote sensing (sonar). chart. Table 2-2. Accessibility Predicted sediment. of site for dredging movement of discharged equipment. substances or Navigation chart. Table 2-2. measurement/observation. Direct Water current direction (surface, subsurface) and velocity Ability of dredging movement equipment to operate. substances or Predicted sediment. Wave height Ability Potential Suspended particulate concentration of discharged to operate/maneuver for capping/CAD dredging equipment. Table 2-2. Adherence of contaminants than settling as sediment. Need for containment. Containment method to particulates rather Table 2-2. Observation (general estimate). selection. 2-3 TABLE 2-1. kontinusd) Information Water factor profile Ability setting Ability of discharged to sediment. of discharged Application material to solubilize while Table 2-2. Sources temperature material to settle while out. settling to Table 2-2. Salinity profile Solubility sediment. Sediment of discharged material treatment options. Table 2-2. Direct measurement observation Seasonal considerations melt, storm, flood) (drought, snow Physical characteristic alterations in the water body that affect ability to operate/maneuver dredging equipment. Prediction of contaminant of dredging of sediment movement. Sediment type and particle size Selection Selection methods. Containment equipment. treatment and disposal Table 2-2. Sampling and analysis. (in-situ nuclear density probe). Remote sensing method selection. to sediment. Table 2-2. Sampling and analysis. Sediment organic carbon content Adhesion of contaminants Eioavailability. Treatment surfactant of oxygen choice. and treatment method Sediment inorganic phosphates, heavy Sediment/water content metals) (nitrates, Availability solution. partition coefficient Assess extent of contamination based on compound distribution between sediment and water. Prediction of contaminant/water interaction. Handbook: Responding to Discharges ardous Substances EPA/540/2-871001. Handbook: Responding to Discharges ardous Substances EPAl540/2-871001. of Sinking Haz- Octanollwater partition coefficient of Sinking Haz- 2-4 TABLE 2-2. Source U.S. Coast Guard District U.S. Geological U.S. National Survey Weather Service Offices ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES FOR WATER BODY DATA Information available data; oceanographic Historical data. spill data; local meteorological Topographic maps; data on the geologic and hydrologic features of the site; topographic data. Meteorological and nautical data. flow patterns for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of Natural Historical water uses of the site; predicted area; navigational charts. Nautical and meteorological data; visual reconnaissance capabilities; modeling of contaminant trajectory. Identification and location of endangered species and habitats. U.S. Department Resources of Interior and State Department and Woods Hole Scripps Institute of Oceanography Oceanographic Institute State Water Departments State Coastal Department Local Municipalities Ephermeris Data on currents, Data concerning Data on currents, waves, and tides. all water systems with a state. waves, and tides. of area; environmental and geologic influences. and Universities Almanac Historical knowledge knowledge of area. Prediction and Nautical of tidal movements and other planetarv 2-5 of Southern Lake Huron (USEPA, 19801, and Sediments: Chemistry and Toxicity of In-Place Pollutants (Baudo, et al., 1990). Particle size and organic textured Organic sediments matter matter content significantly affect the selection of a remedy. Fine such as silt and clay have a much greater affinity including humic material is important for all classes of contaminants. the humic material and it serves remove physically For example, and will attach rock. content, in two respects: greatly increases the affinity of sediments microbial bound for metals and nonpolar populations. organic contaminants, as an energy source for sediment contaminants processing that are strongly Many technologies while others cannot effectively have difficulty selection. to small particles, of the particles confined fine particles. The mineralogy from Lake Michigan than sediment affect technology it is likely that sediment to contaminants by limestones will act differently, by granites differently from Lake Superior confined and volcanic Since this document given to sampling determination on aquatic described Assessment focuses on procedures to select remedial options, sampling minimum attention is and analytical techniques. Reasons for sediment and analysis existing include impacts are of distribution benthic fauna, of specific contaminants, disposal alternatives, sediment contaminant and treatment Sediments alternatives. (SAIC, mobility, Such techniques in Removal and Mitigation Sediment of Contaminated 19851, Procedures far the of Contaminated of Techniques Problems in the Great Lakes (International Sediment Sampling Sediments: Methods (Mudroch, Joint Commission, 19881, Handbook for Evaluating Pollutants forAquatic et al., 19911, Test Methods and Toxicity of In-Place Solid Waste SW-846 (USEPA, 1986c), Classification Chemistry Compendium (Baudo, et al., 19901, Sediment Disposal of Dredged Material (USEPA, 19891, 1992) and Confined (USACE, 1987a). CONTAMINANT CHARACTERISTICS AND THEIR BEHAVIOR IN SEDIMENT Contaminants l typically found in sediment aromatic can be grouped (PAHS) as follows: Polynuclear Pesticides Chlorinated Mononuclear Phthalate Metals Nutrients hydrocarbons l l hydrocarbons aromatic hydrocarbons (benzene and its derivatives] l l esters l l . Miscellaneous such as cyanides and organo-metals 2-6 These contaminants direct sinking, enter the water body from various sources and contact adsorption on the sediment particles. the sediment particles by and subsequent In most aquatic systems, higher contaminant becomes concentrations a reservoir the suspended sediment and the top part of the sediment in the overlying water column. bed contain than dissolved Consequently, sediment of contaminants can also undergo For example, that redissolves and migrates thereby matter into the water column. altering the behavior and Sediment-bound nature contaminants chemicals. various reactions, oxidation of the original of organic in sediment frequently creates conditions (Luand, 1977). oxidized methylated during favorable For example, removal to the release of bound metals into the water as their more soluble species insoluble metal sulfides may release their metals if the sediment Other bound trace metals, especially mercury, becomes can be can and treatment. or converted to other organo-metallic 1981 I. forms by microorganisms. These organo-metals bioaccumulate in fish (Fujita, The octanol/water adsorption. partition coefficient of organic chemicals has proved useful in predicting soil The octanol/water substance partition coefficient, K,,, is the ratio of the equilibrium of two immiscible concentration, such as n­ C, of a dissolved octanol and water: in a two-phase system consisting solvents, The partition without coefficient, theoretically, depends only on temperature and pressure. It is a constant dimensions. Unfortunately, available. Experimental The water K,, values for many of these compounds compounds of environmental are usually concern from are not readily many sources. solubilities available data show that water solubility, equation (Verschueren, 1983): S, and the K,, of an organic compound are correlated by the following K ow = 5.00 - 0.670 log S in micromoles per liter, or where S is the aqueous solubility K ow = 4.5 - 0.75 log s where S is in ppm 2-7 Figure 2-l shows the relationship K, values. between the aqueous solubilities of various organic com­ In of pounds and the corresponding the absence of quantitative knowing Table 2-3 uses these data to give an absorption rating. information, the remedial manager can use Table 2-3 to the advantage of the contaminant of concern. A thorough 1983). either the K,, value or water solubility coefficient discussion of the partition and its use is given in Verschueren (Verschueren, The tendency solubility adsorb. in water: of an organic compound to adsorb onto a sediment the greater the tendency particle is related to its compound to the lower the solubility, of the organic Studies using natural sediment from aqueous from Coyote Creek, California, show that organic compounds sediments. are rapidly adsorbed streams by suspended solids and bottom For inorganic presently available. contaminants, no technique similar to those of the organic contaminants to evaluate is Hence, actual chemical of inorganic analyses and toxicity However, tests must be performed recent work the potential sediment content hazards contaminants. on the development of criteria for metal contaminants of sediment is valuable suggests that measurements the toxicity of divalent of the acid volatile sulfide (AVSI It is in assessing metals bound to sediment. of sediment anticipated contaminants that AVS normalization in anoxic sediment. will provide the basis for development criteria for metal DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR TREATMENT EVALUATION Site, sediment, technology treatability technology’s to evaluate performance. studies. and contaminant-specific One Important physical and chemical data are needed to evaluate collected during the source of these data is the information any pretreatment and posttreatments, Such data can help identify optimize efficiency, a technology and gather cost and preliminary is presented design data. A source of data types required Studies Under CERCLA parameters for in the Guide for Conducting Treatability (USEPA, 1989k3. selected Tables 2-4 and 2-5 present an abbreviated list of characterization technologies. Use of the Datp All treatment the sediment to quickly processes are sensitive to variability in the physical and chemical composition of feed stream. Therefore, knowledge of the characteristics of the sediment can be used stream. identify the options that are most likely to succeed or fail in treating the particular 2-8 6 5 ‘\ 4 “1 PHENYLAcETIC .tPHFwCF ‘, XHLOROF IEI’IZOIC Ad 3 \ ACID L FLUOROfmZ~~~ SALICY LIC 2 2.4D*“,* p- DlCHLORO6&ffZEd~ fENITROTHIOfYE NAPWTHALEf’iE 0 L . l PARATHIONI \. DIPS FTl=IFR 01 CAPTUOIY 0 l 1 \ .METHYL CHLORI’YRIFOS “, PkfOSALONE : -1 -2 -- . . -- -3 2,4,5.2 .-C , 5 .,-pa- LOG fact -4 0 +i : 4.5 - 0.75 LOG S(PP M ) = Kaw +2 +4 +3 LOG ?acr Partition +s *4 +7 *e = Km Figure 2-l. Sourw: Verschusren, coefflcienta and aqueous sotubilltles of various otganlc chemicals. 1933. 2-9 TABLE 2-3. Octanollwater partition coefficient KJ c3 ,3 25 <5 ABSORPTION RATINGS Rating L (low1 M (moderate) H (high1 E (extreme) Based on sediment adsomtion Absorbs Absorbs Absorbs weakly moderately strongly Persistence 95% degradation in 6 months or less 95% degradation 2 yrs or less 95% degradation 10 yrs or less < 95% degradation in 10 yrs or more in in 2-10 TABLE 2-4. Tvw TECHNOLOGY DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR TREATMENT OF DREDGED SEDIMENT Phvdcd Chemicd Csrbonldrrogen: phosphorw Priority ratio pollutant andy*is Determine minrd nutrient reatiremenu Bidogicd Bscrcrid plscc Microbid cwmcrsdon techniques1 toxicirylpmwch rerrs (e.q.. sprcad- inhibition test* Determine Determine biologicd the activity on the of the Isboratorv. and the trcstmcnt process of cbdce Chemical PH Dissdved Chemicd rreersbility materid oxwen oxy~an (DO1 demand (CODI Bidoucd Bidopicd ox”wn demsnd (BOW DetermIne rhe trcstabili~ of the moterid wd fha tr*Nmcnt process of chdce Identify Meaura the indgenorn microflora. activitv in the laboratow bidodcd 2-11 TABLE 24. (continued) TVP PlwdcJ D.,.,,,,,,,. D.,.,,,,,,,. n..,, “dun. for pr.tr”tmcnt. reducdon patw,dd. prMr.*Unmt n-tb. sdfWd .W=r~ly. Clny Mdsture cont.“, Content pardtion CMfficiant D~twmln ,.,.a,~,. adwrpdon conducdvlry chwactcrisdc~ of .ir through of sdl. x.4 Equilibriwn Chemicd Dioxinslfurans. Orplic radionwlidcs Determine median. conctntration of tsrpc, or interfering comtitunts. pr.treatm.nt IYC~S. cxtrrdon concmtrsdon Mad, (totdl concentration D~twmim me&m. De,.,min concwaradon of tq~et or interfcdn~ condtunts. pr.trcs(m+nt needs. extraction mddliry 01 target condcuents. ,w,ttrcatment needs. Totd Cadon or~mic eachawe carbon (TOCI. hunk (CECI acid Dttcrrninl Dewmine adsorption prctreatmcnt potrndd was,. of for charr,erisdcs needs. gcmradng of sdl. extraction toxic mcdun funat low PM capacihl PH Cyanides. Priorih Co”taninant charVnpor SdrlJliry lienry3 Pmrtldon Boiling specific l rltide*. pdlutsnt fluoride* andvscs Determine Detcrmin Aid in wlntion complexity. pra**ur. law pdnt gravlry constant l xtrllcdon medium cafficiwlt 2-12 TABLE 24. (continued) Mmtdx TVW sodmnt/wil Physlcd Chwnicd Det.,,,,,,,. concwwadon of ta,gct comdtunu. r..~.“, reqrirements PH Priority Description pollutant analysis Determine Determine Determine Determine rtawnt prcscnce waste surface rtqtimemcnts of incompatible handIinp area msthads available compounds. (e.g.. for binder crusher. cont~t shredder. and rcmovd eqiApmcntl. Sedimcntl8dl Phrsicd of msterial* leaching Density tesflng Strength test Unconfined compressive Wenpth Evaluate matcrid changes response in response to stress to overburden from cnpl stress brrwesn untreated and treated waste (e.g.. Flcxursl Corn strength index testing Evduatc Evduste materid’s durability stnbiliry of treated and bewang capacity. end wetdry durnbiliryl. Durability wastes (freeze-thaw Chemicd on Evduarc Evaluate chmpcs changes viebility reacdons. in leschin~ in leaching of S/S as functions e.s luncdow IInterfering of pH. of dkdinity. compounda Interfering impede compounds fixedon vary reactiona. with type came of SK.1 Told SVOCs. sdu, organic dl cyanides. carbon. and ~rtase. phemls. VOCs. hdides. wdiun and inorgmic iodates. codAignite Evaluate chemical pro~tss. generate excessive heat. arsenate. w,fi&/sultate. boratea. phosphates. carbohydrate. Evduste Evaluate Mcwurc cflecdvenars effectiveness temperature of S/S of S/S. chmaes (e.g., larhing tests1 Leach Heat testing of hydration during mixina. 2-13 TABLE 2-4. (continued) Trwment *=Mebix T”ln Rrm*t*r hrpoee end comm.n?a sedlmenusd4 Phvdcd Mdaure Ash Ash content cpntent fudon temper.,ure distribution vdue orpstics. semivolatile orwdcs Affecb Determine Prevent Avoid Addidond A!lows Allows Detcrmin fdendty Prevent biphenyls (PCBsI. doxins Determine adorn; Determine treatment: “dent .dum heedng the vdw mount end msterid that heding. must be wnt for dspnd Inorganic or fine or further sdts particles. having treetment. low mcldng points. of uh high.tempereture feedng problems required rla~ginp that may by low pmblem~ wina (es& headno orgadc rcmovd needed devicea problems (90.999S% than 60 from large Pardcle&e Heating Chcmicd Vdsdle WCICS Told Told cNofin. sdfw. l rurgv determinobon determimdon vdue hwerdour meterids. constituents (DREI. of acid of SO, or~~4c DRE ppm PC& (Hp. Trivdent of imrgadc gases. and NO, are regulatedI. IPOHCs). of principd of darrrucdon contrd efficiency for contrd flwrin tatd titrogen sir pdlution required refractory the irxinctatoon special other chrcmirm. sulfate, ten devices contrd sir-pdludon ansck feasibiliry snd Iemissions from Phosphona PdvcHorinarrd (if smpectedl MeIds slagping phosphorus required present.l for compounds. PCS*: sofen, consider- of incineration. if grentcr needs. may is mote *lapging.l toxic. is reqtircd t~stmcnt metals which cause Wdsdle metals in ash. Pb. cd. chromium alkeli Zn. Ag. may Snl may require potnssi~ ffw-Qa and concemr~te be oxi&zed ewecidly to hexa- Presence sdts. 2-14 TABLE 2-5. Treatment technoloav Biological - Aerobic TECHNOLOGY DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR IN SITU TREATMENT OF SEDIMENT Matrix Sediment/ soil Type Physical Chemical/ biological Parameter Permeability of soil Purpose and comments Determine ability to deliver nutrients allow movement of microbes. Determine viability of microbial contaminated zone. to oxygen and to Contaminant concentration and toxicity, SOD, nutrients Permeability Contaminant concentration toxicity of soil population in the - Anaerobic Sediment/ soil Physical Chemical/ biological Determine ability to allow movement of microbes. in the and Determine viability of microbial contaminated zone. Assess the feasibility the S/S agents. population Solidification/ stabilization Sediment/ soil Physical Presence of subsurface barriers (e.g., drums, large objects, debris, geologic formations) Depth to first confining layer of adequately delivering and mixing Determine required depth of treatment. Source: USEPA, 1989k. 2-15 SECTION 3 SELECTION OF REMEDIAL OPTIONS INITIAL SCREENING USING GENERIC SITE CONDITIONS The Federal Water Pollution Environmental sediment, commercial Protection Agency Control Act and CERCLA direct the U.S. Coast Guard and the chemical discharges, with including keeping the to ensure safe cleanup of hazardous In addition, in United States waters. navigable the Corps of Engineers which is charged waterways by removal of sediment, may or may not be contaminated. Certain remedial under investigation confined disposal actions are routinely taken by the Corps of Engineers; options others are currently by EPA. Both the traditional facilities, remediation to cleanup confined aquatic selected by the Corps of Engineers -- such as in situ capping, ocean disposal, etc. -- as well or enforcement disposal, as the soil/sludge may be applicable techniques of sediment. being investigated by EPA under Superfund The first step in the selection process is characterizing the sediment the site and sediment, is contaminated and whether These data it poses a then no enable the remedial manager to decide whether potential action threat to human health or the environment. is required. If the sediment is contaminated If the sediment does not pose a threat, and does pose a threat to human health or the environment, then some action is required. Selecting the Most Effective Options/Identifying Marginal Options/Determining Ineffective Options Section ing whether conventional 1 provides several sediment quality is contaminated. criteria to assist the remedial manager in determin­ For contaminated sediment, applicable, Figure 3-1 displays or not sediment techniques and new treatments (see Appendix a technology. that may be potentially C). Table 2-4 indicates Finally, Appendices based on RODS dealing parameters relevant that are with contaminated needed to properly and treatability sediment evaluate the principal A and B contain case studies studies, respectively. 3-1 Figure 3-1. Applicable remedial 3-2 options. Tables methods. is difficult 3-1 and 3-2 assist the remedial methods manager to screen out less appropriate study. remedial The remaining can then be pursued in detail in the feasibility and high categories At present it in Table 3-2. to assign numeric qualitative values to the low, medium, and quantitative presented When available, manager. technology. innovative values are listed in Table 3-3 to further in the text under the section whether assist the remedial the specific options or to the Additional parameters can be found describing conventional Using Figure 3-1, the remedial manager can determine technologies or some combination are appropriate to the site. Table 3-4 is a worksheet Once completed, assist the remedial manager in evaluating worksheet will indicate the parameters in Tables 3-1 and 3-2. one of four general conditions: A preferred technology choice, indicating that the selected technology conditions. may be appropriate for the site-specific A less than clear-cut adjusted choice, indicating that some parameters must be to fit the technology to the site conditions. An array, indicating technologies that the site conditions are so varied that several the site. may be required to remediate The absence of a choice, indicating is appropriate to the site. that none of the listed technologies The remedial manager can then move toward outlined below. Relevant examples are detailed technology selection. The selection process is in Section 4 of this guide. • Use Tables 1-1 through 1-4 to aid in determining if sediment is contaminated. • • Refer to Figure 3-1 to preliminarily Review Table 2-4 for the screen the treatment principal parameters options. affecting technology performance. • • • Screen less appropriate technologies using Tables 3-1 and 3-2. site. Use Table 3-4 as a worksheet Determine description an appropriate sections for your specific overall treatment system from the technology of the text. 3-3 TABLE 3-l. Contaminant group Orsanics Halogenated volatiles volatiles 0 0 + + 0 0 X X + INITIAL SCREENING BY CONTAMINANT Soil washing Solvent extraction GROUP Solidification/ stabilization Thermal desorotion Biological treatment Dechlorination Incineration 0 X + X + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 X X X X + + + + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 X Nonhalogenated Halogenated semivolatiles Nonhalogenated semivolatiles PCBs Pesticides Dioxins/furans Organic corrosives Organic cyanides lnorganics Nonvolatile Inorganic Inorganic metals corrosives cyanides + 0 0 X + 0 + X X 0 0 X X X X X 0 0 0 X X X + + + X X X X X 0 0 Legend Demonstrated effectiveness: Successful treatability test at some scale completed. Potential effectiveness but not demonstrated: Expert opinion that technology will work. No expected effectiveness Unspecified. Insufficient data available for adequate evaluation. USEPA, 1988b, 199Oc, d, h, i, j, k, I, m 0’ X U Source: 3-4 TABLE 3-2. INITIAL SCREENING BY GENERAL PARAMETERS Parameter’ Clay content Low Medium High Humic content Low Medium High Metals content Low Medium High Particle size Small Medium Large PH Low Medium High Salinity Silt content Low Medium Hiah Biological treatment Dechlorination Soil washing Solvent extraction Solidification/ stabilization Incineration Thermal desorption ; 0 + + + ; X A X ; + ii ii X i X + ; + + + + + + + + 0 X X X 0 X X X X X X + + + i X i X + 0 + X cl 0 + + 0 A 0 + + X X 0 ; 0 + + + 0 ii 0 + + + ; X + X X + + + + ; U + + + 0 + + + + cl X A X ; 3-5 TABLE 3-2. (continued) Parameter’ Solids content Low Medium High Waste composition Homogeneous Heterogeneous Water content Low Medium Hioh Biological treatment + + + Dechlorination 0 + + + + Soil washing Solvent extraction Solidification/ stabilization 0 + + + + Incineration 0 + + + + Thermal desorption ‘Ranges for the selected Leaend Favorable to No effect on May impede Unspecified. parameter are discussed in the technology section. 0’ X U process process expected process Insufficient data available for adequate evaluation. 3-6 TABLE 3-3. PARAMETER EFFECTS Parameter No Biological treatment known effect Dechlorination I”creasef time reaction inant Soil washing Impedes contsmremoval Solvent extraction Affects use and efficiency solvent Solidification/ stabilization No known effect Incineration No known effect Can ciency Thermal desorption effect mmoval effi- Humlc content No apparent effect Increases time reaction Inhibits removal contaminant No apparent effect If >45% affect (wtl bonding csn No effect No known effect Metals content Can be toxic to mi- Increases reagent use of Does soluble not remove metals in- Does removal soluble not inmetals be < l/4- Does not remove metals Volatile can metals Volatile vaporize metals can croorganisms leachable vaporize Peflicle size If non-uniform affect activity can No apparent effect Fines move solution difficult from to rewash Must If ~200 > 114’ bonding mesh can or Fines carried the can process can attack be Fines through can be carried the process affect through PH Most range effective 4.5-0.5 Must be > 2 Affects reagents choice of Affects of solvent choice pH is automatically adjusted May affect bonding If low, acid cause If outside cause 5 to 11 can corrosion effect Salinity Microorganisms must to high centration be adapted salt con- Affects reagent use No apparent effect No known effect No known effect No known Silt content No apparent effect No known effect Affects efficiency Affects ciency effi- May affect bonding Can be carried process efficient increases affect energy if as Can be carried through through If < 15%. higher choice requires use can Most content Can process Most efficient as content Glide content Depends process ontha type Affects reagent use No apparent effect No apparent effect reagent increases Can affect energy if het- Waste tion composi- If heterogeneous can tained affect susactivity Certain aliphatics produce explosive chlorinated may potentially compounds requires use Affects tion waste formulations solu- Affects of solvents If heterogeneous, affect bonding requirements heterogeneous requirements aroge”eo”s Wster content Content 40-8036 activity outside inhibits If > 20% higher No effect Affects of solvent choice No known effect If high, feed energy affects and Affects energy use reagent handling requirements 3-7 TABLE 3-4. INITIAL SCREENING WORKSHEET Parameter Contaminant Clay content Humic Metals Particle PH Salinity Silt content Solids Waste sition Water content compocontent content size Range Biological treatment Dechlorination Soil washing Solvent extraction Solidification/ stabilization Incineration Thermal desorption content 3-a REMOVAL AND TRANSPORT The first step in the remedial selection in situ. Most often, sediment technologies options process is to determine and contained. whether to treat the sediment removal is excavated/dredged, The process of selecting decisions. and transport should be driven by treatment typically and/or disposal This is because from a social, treatment/disposal political, have the higher costs and are more controversial or regulatory perspective. A primary of introducing occurs primarily transport. concern during the removal and transport into previously uncontaminated of contaminated areas. sediments is the danger contaminants Contamination during these steps from the resuspension of sediments during removal and from spills and leaks during Removal of Contaminated Sediment Most contaminated disposal. The choice sediment research and regulatory to dredge depends the thickness emphasis have focused on dredging the types and of of whether on the nature of the sediment, contaminants, operation the depth to bottom, and volume of sediment, the distance to next (e.Q., disposal sites), and the available effects of the no action flooding, machinery. alternative Dredging and transport are appropriate: when the environmental conditions are unacceptable; prohibit when environmental in place; such as wave action, or erosion transport leaving the sediment Dredging or when sediment sediment typically lies in navigation waterways that must be dredged. yd, while yard. costs for all types of materials range from $1 .OO to $25.00/cubit to over $25.00/cubit costs for dredging contaminated range from $5.00 Dredging (contiguous constricted costs depend on the volume to isolated of material removed, the location of the material channel, areas as opposed natural hot spots), the type of waterway (navigation river, etc.), the time restrictions placed on the operation placed on dredging, the type of dredge, and any special equipment, hours of special restrictions operation, etc.1 (e.g., the use of silt curtains, Dredging causes resuspension be limited through of sediment. However, the spread of resuspended obstacle sediment can the use of silt curtains. surface, sometimes Silt curtains create an underwater that extends below the water’s moving to the bottom. Oil booms tie on the surface and block material on top of the water. 3-9 Dredging pneumatic. handling content methods are divided into three major categories: variable mechanical, in the design, a material hydraulic, operation, with and and The water content costs of contaminated of the sediment material. is an important dredging Mechanical produces a water for transof high near that of in situ sediment. The high solid content Although mechanical of bottom reduces the size requirements port, treatment, density range. recovery, and disposal equipment. it generates dredQinQ offers the advantage particularly the higher sediment high resuspension sediment release. sediment, in the fine-grained resuspension can Since the fine-grained contaminant is often highly contaminated, cause increased to the background particles The expected material levels of suspended must be compared can transport from this levels of suspended in the water. Higher velocity The significance currents as large as 10 mm diameter material to greater distances. in the context of any effects resuspended resuspension, must be considered of other activities that may cause similar such as ship traffic and storm events. Mechanical DredQes-- Mechanical conventional excavating dredges include clamshells, dippers, bucket ladder dredges, directly draglines, dislodging and and earthmoving material equipment. They remove bottom sediment Such techniques through at almost in situ density. have been used extensively. Clamshells--A and pier areas. clamshell is a highly precise digging tool efficient range in capacity sediment, in close quarters such as dock They can recover all types any depth, restricted Hinged clamshells from 1 to 20 cu yd. of material except highly consolidated only by the crane lifting on working capacity. and can excavate to practically Clamshell characteristics. dredges operate at 20 to 30 cycles per hour, depending Because they excavate If the sediment a high percentage of solids, depth and sediment they can lower the cost of subsequent facility, effluent lower water. water content dewatering. will be deposited in a confined with will promote rapid settling and reduce the escape of sediment The clamshell is attached by a cable to a crane mounted after it is in position, on a flat-bottomed barge. The anchors can move the barge short distances any longer trips. bucket but must be moved by a tug during After the then The crane operator drops the clamshell the operator closes the bucket, sediment through into the water in the open position. up the sediment. hits bottom, scooping The operator raises the bucket of contaminated the water column and above the water, operated, swings it over a barge or scow, opens the jaws, and dumps the sediment. clamshells can remove sediment with minimal loss of sediment. 3-10 If properly Modifications conventional to the conventional clamshell, seal when dredging material known bucket as a closed-bucket closes. clamshell, use welded plates and rubber gaskets to improve the are routinely used in contaminated sediment Closed-bucket clamshells projects by the Corps of Engineers in the Great Lakes, and reduce the amount of resuspended by 30 to 70 percent (McLellan, 1989). DraQlineS--Draglines differences being the control employ the same basic equipment the excavating as the clamshell dredge, the major cable arrangement, bucket, and the method of operation. and by The dragline bucket is loaded by being pulled by a drag cable through toward the crane. Dragline dredges generally 1976). the material being excavated dredges operated offer a longer reach than clamshell the same crane (Merritt, resuspension Dragfines have limited production and bucket leakage. rates and a high degree of sediment caused by agitation Bucket Ladder Dredges--A supports a continuous bucket ladder dredge is composed of a submersible As the buckets ladder which rotate around chain of buckets that rotate around two pivots. the bottom of the ladder, they scoop up the material to be dredged and transport into a storage area on the dredge. it back up the ladder used to be discharged Bucket ladder dredges are most commonly Although production abroad in mining operations than for other mechanical such as sand and gravel production. dredges, the bucket ladder rates are higher turbidity due to generates considerable Therefore, mechanical for dredging agitation of sediments materials and leakage out of the buckets. or contaminated sediments it is not recommended of hazardous (Hand, et al., 1978). Conventional and front-end are normally Barthmovinp Eauioment--Conventional earthmoving equipment such as backhoes Backhoes loaders have limited applications used for trench and other subsurface (Merritt, in the removal of contaminated excavation sediments. and are capable of reaching 40 ft or more 1981 I. Backhoes as is the vertical can be barge-mounted below the level of the machine or operated from land, although 1976 and Church, the lateral reach is limited, reach, by the boom length. Loaders are normally operation vertically, practical. used to excavate loose or soft materials in a narrow vertical range of and a few feet above and below grade. to the materials Operations being excavated, Loaders must be in close proximity, and shore-based and barge-mounted both horizontally operatrons are not in shallow water may be practical if sediments are sufficiently loose or soft. DiQoers--The compacted material. dipper is a powered It operates with shovel designed a violent digging for digging action, out rock and other very hard, and tends to drop small particles. rate of between 30 Dipper capacities range from 8 to 12 cu yd. Dippers usually achieve a production 3-11 to 60 cycles sediment within per hour. a working They are well suited to excavation of soft rock and highly allows extensive consolidated releases, depth of 50 ft. Since this technique sediment is limited. contaminant its application to most contaminated Hydraulic Dredges-­ Hydraulic and transport Standard Economic dredges are usually barge-mounted systems that use centrifugal barge-mounted solids pumps to remove or submersible. by wet weight. the sediment/water dredging mixture. Pumps may be either produces slurries hydraulic operating commonly of 10 to 20% depths range between 50 and 60 ft. Hydraulic mechanical susceptible hand-held dredges generally exhibit higher production liquid rates and lower resuspension However, than dredges. They are also capable of removing with weeds. contaminants. they are to dafTXIQe by debris and clogging dredges, plain suction Hydraulic dredges include portable dredges, dredges, and hopper dredges. dredges, cutterhead dredges, dustpan Portable Hvdraulic Dredges--Portable roadways hydraulic dredges are defined as dredge vessels that can Dredging capabilities range from rates average are be moved easily over existing 10 to 50 ft. between particularly without major dismantling. Vessel draft is generally less than 5 ft (many less than 2 ft). on model, Production 50 to 500 cu yd/hr depending size, and site conditions. These dredges useful for projects in isolated water bodies, such as lakes and inland rivers, because they Their shallow drafts make them effective in shallow than 2 ft. water. an be easily moved to sites over land. Portable dredges cannot operate in waves higher than 1 ft or in water shallower Hand-Held available equipment water. Underwater Hvdraulic Dredaa--Hand-held hydraulic dredges are assembled using readily designed for other applications. hand-held dredges are normally rate of 250 cu yd/hr. in water bodies Hand-held They can be operated either underwater operated by divers, which hand-held or above- can operate to depths of 1,000 ft with an excavation from above the water materials high-flow surface Above-water dredges can be operated sufficiently firm bottom or less than 4 ft deep with dredges cannot to allow wading velocities. by workmen. be operated in strong currents Plain Suction solely on the suction head is attached Dredges--Plain suction dredges are the simplest form of hydraulic pump to dislodge and transport is controlled vertically dredges, relying The dredge by the created by a centrifugal sediments. to the end of a ladder and its position 3-12 and horizontally movement of relatively cohesive of cables attached free-flowing to the ladder. Plain suction dredges are most effective and unconsolidated in the removal Hard and sediments such as sands, gravels, material. materials such as clays or firm native bottom soils are not readily removed dislodging devices are employed. applications. Production by plain suction, can cu as no mechanical be achieved yd/hr. Slurries of 10 to 15 percent solids by weight rates average between 1,000 and 10,000 in appropriate Vessel draft is on the order of 5 to 6 ft. Hopper dredm--A amidships. vessel. hopper dredge is a self-propelled ship with excavating equipment mounted Two hinged suction pipes, called drag arms, extend down and back from the sides of the up sediment cu yd/hr, that at Intakes at the lower ends of these pipes scrape along the bottom scooping up into open hoppers on board. Product is then drawn rates range from 500 to 2,000 The vessel can operate sediment depths up to 60 ft. ft. Vessel drafts range from 12 to 31 ft. in waves up to 7 site. When the hoppers are full the hopper dredge takes the accumulated trafficked environments, to a disposal Hopper dredges are used in heavily high for stationary dredges. or in open water mobility, where waves are too Their advantages are self-containment, and seaworthiness. Hopper dredges have a number of drawbacks. leaving ship’s behind large amounts propeller increases of uncollected, The intake head is inefficient sediment. The turbulence and imprecise, created by the to overflow as a This resuspended resuspension. The on-board hoppers are often allowed means of eliminating procedure excess water, adding more turbidity for contaminated sediment. and contaminant to the water column. is inappropriate Cutterhead Dredaes--The configuration and principle of operation of the cutterhead dredges are device similar to those of the plain suction for dislodging material; dredge with the exception of the addition of a mechanical this device is called a cutterhead. allowing The cutterhead is located at the intake of the suction pipe and rotates to dislodge sediment, the suction pipe. Slurries up 10 to 20 percent sediment to be removed by suction through are typically cu yd/hr. achieved. Production 3 solids by weight rates vary according and 5 ft. Cutterhead to pump size and can be as large as 2,500 dredges are capable of reaching in removing materials Vessel draft is between up to 50 ft below the water surface. very hard and cohesive sediments. They are highly efficient all types of materials, including Dustoan Dredoes--The suction dislodge dredge. sediments. The dustpan dustpan dredge is also similar in configuration has a widely flared head containing and operation to the plain which high-pressure granular waterjets The dustpan dredge works best in free-flowing Slurries material and is not suited are typically for use in fine-grained clay sediments. of 10 to 20 percent 3-13 solids by weight achieved. diameter Production rates range between velocity. 200 and 15,000 cu ydlhr, depending 5 and 14 ft. on the discharge pipe and the discharge Vessel draft varies between Pneumatic Oredges-- Pneumatic Pneumatic dredges use compressed air and/or hydrostatic pressure to remove sediments. dredges are commonly barge-mounted. They produce slurries of higher solid concentrations of bottom materials. Common pneumatic (developed dredges in Japan). than hydraulic include airlift dredges and cause less resuspension dredges, the “Pneuma” (developed in Italy) and the “Oozer” Pneumatic dredges have been used extensively Pneumatic in Europe and Japan; they have only limited availability of 7.5 ft of water -- deeper than for in the United States. mechanical or hydraulic dredges also require a minimum properly. dredges -- to function Airlift Compressed controlled currents Dredges--Airlift air is introduced dredges used compressed air to dislodge and transport sediments. and into the bottom crane. of an open vertical pipe that is usually supported by a barge-mounted As the air is released, it expands and rises, creating upward which carry both water and sediment the hydrostatic capacity. up the pipe. The applied air pressure must be sufficient depths. Higher air pressures through and flow rates result head which can ratio to overcome pressure at operating in higher transport be vibrated can typically Air can also be introduced dislodge more cohesive a special transport or rotated to further be achieved sediments. Slurries of 1:3 solid/water Airlift with airlift dredges (Hand, et al., 19871. 3 and 6 ft. Airlift dredges are usually operated in underwater mining from barges with drafts between dredges are used primarily applications of sand and gravel and are well-suited materials, to deep dredging for excavating loose granular can be primarily sand. Any depth for which sufficient pipe and air pressure can be provided dredged by this method. Pneuma Drednes--The contact positive with the sediments displacement. Pneuma dredge is a pump which being dredged. is lowered by a crane to be in direct air and operates by The pump is driven by compressed three cylindrical The body of the pump contains vessels, each with an intake opening on the bottom and air port and a discharge atmosphere through air hoses and valves. outlet on top. The air ports can be opened to the hose. The three discharge outlets join in a single discharge When operating, opened, creating (at atmospheric cylinder the pump is lowered a pressure differential pressure) and inducing into the sediment with its intakes buried. (at hydrostatic and water An air port valve is between the sediment flow of sediment pressure) and the cylinder When the into the cylinder. is nearly full, compressed air is introduced into the cylinder, 3-14 closing a check valve at the intake opening and forcing operate in parallel, by an air distributor the slurry through each one-third the discharge outlet in the discharge hose. The three cylinders and are controlled cycle ahead and behind the other two cylinders vessel (Richardson, et al., 19821. located on the control Pneuma dredges are most applicable suspended to loosely packed sediment. Pneuma dredges are normally Vessel from a crane cable and pulled into the sediments 5 and 6 ft. Production rates range between being dredged by a second cable. 60 and 300 cu yd/hr. draft is between Oozer significant Dredoes--The Oozer dredge is a pump that is similar in concept to the Pneuma; differences are as follows: l l The pump body consists A vacuum between is applied the sediment of two cylinders. to increase the differential pressure and flow to the cylinders and the cylinders. mounted at the end of a ladder. motion, alternating speeds. mouth. near the suction mouth The pump is usually The dredge tracks in a cutterhead-swing-type Sediment Underwater for monitoring l l thickness television detectors are attached close to the suction are attached cameras and a turbidimeter turbidity. by a hood attached hard soils. on the suction mouth. Suspended Cutters oil can be collected can be attached for dislodging The Oozer dredge is capable of operating 70 percent of sediments solids (near in situ densities) low (Barnard, 1978). at depths up to 60 ft and pumping slurries of 30 to at rates of 500 to 800 cu yd/hr, while keeping resuspension Comparison of Dredge Advantages/Disadvantages-­ The three types of dredges discussed in which operating Discharges they operate most efficiently, 3-5 compares above vary in capabilities rates, according to the types of sites rates, and to their production these major sediment resuspension Handbook: depths. Table characteristics. Responding of Sinking Hazardous Substances of Selected Dredges (USEPA, 1987b), Field Studies of Sediment Resuspension et al., 19891, Literature Review and Technical Characteristics Evaluation (McLellan, of Sediment Resuspension During Dredging (Herbich, et al., 1991) and Contaminated 3-l 5 TABLE 3-5. DREDGE COMPARISONS Production (cu yd/hr) 30 - 700 rate Max use depth (ft) 30 - 100 Type Mechanical Functional advantages Functional drawbacks Handles small volumes of sediment; good in confined areas or near structures; good for har­ bors and interior waterways; good for removal of bottom debris and non-consolidated sediment; provides high solids content; widely available. Handles moderate to high volumes of water and sediment; good for lakes and inland rivers; can operate at shallow depths; provides low solids content; moderate resuspension of sedi­ ment. Good for nonconsolidated solids; use in interior waterways; provides low solids content low resuspension of sediment. Low production rates; cannot excavate highly consolidated sediment or solid rock (specialized types can overcome this drawback); higher resuspension of sediment. Moderate production rates; cannot operate in rough, open water; susceptible to debris damage; adds substantial amounts of water to material. Hydraulic 10 - 10,000 50 - 70 Pneumatic Moderate production rates; may obstruct traffic; do not operate well in shallow (< 10 ft) depths. 60 - 800 up to 150 Source: USEPA, 1987b. 3-16 Dredged Material illustrate - Control, Treatment, and Disposal Practices (Cullinane, et al., 1990) discuss and dredge types, capacities, and capabilities. TransDortina the Sediment The method dredging and treatment of transportation sites. Selection for dredged of transport material options depends on the distance between the will be affected by both dredge selection is towards spill and and and pretreatment leak prevention. and treatment decisions. The primary emphasis during transport the loading pipelines and unloading During transport, spills occur during of sediments special care should transportation be taken during these operations; for moving dredged materials also leak sometimes. The principal methods include the following: Pipelines: Commonly used to transport dredged materials over relatively as long short distanc­ land es (up to 3 mi for navigation reclamation and fill operations). dredging; as 15 mi for commercial Barges or scows: dredged material The most widely over long distances. used method of transporting large quantities of They use controls fugitive to prevent the spread of procedures contamination: decontamination of equipment; emissions control; for loading and unloading; route and navigation precautions against hazards. Railroads: Normally used when distances is essential. to disposal sites exceed 50 mi. Control of dust during transport Trucks: Appropriate when the distance to the disposal site lies between control 15 and 50 mi. materials via Federal, state, and local regulations truck. trucking. The high water content the movement sediment of hazardous adds weight of contaminated and cost to Hopper dredge. dredges: Mobile dredges that transport sediment dewatered during filling of the Clean excess water can overflow is routinely the hopper, leaving space for additional materials. sediment. Equipment used to dredge contaminated A more thorough Contaminated discussion of contaminant Treatment 3-17 control during dredging and transport (Cullinane, is given in Dredged Material - Control, and Disposal Practices et al., 1990). Selectinzr a Comoatible Dredae and Transoort Svstem Two additional distance example, readily, would factors to consider when selecting site and compatibility with dewatered produces appropriate with dredge and transport treatment system are For to the disposal/treatment if the technology then mechanical probably disposal/ processes. is more effective dredging, which material, and if the material does not drain slurry than hydraulic dredging, by a drier sediment be selected. The drier, mechanically dredged material would then be transported barge and/or truck, rather than by pipe. PRECONDlTlONlNG/PRETREATlNG THE SEDIMENT Several technologies may be able to treat contaminated sediment partially. However, sediment. it is More by now the unlikely that a single treatment often, treatment particle scheme will totally remediate a particular For example, oversize most sediment material). contaminated stages are required. (which will require dewatering The remedial manager followed must classification removes accommodate oversized separated three components, any of which water. may or may not be contaminated: the sediment, options materials, sediment and the separated component, In addition to discussing the treatment for the it is necessary to address dewatering, and water effluent contaminated treatment. sediment. Figure 3-2 summarizes the major activities that are undertaken in treating Dewaterina Techniaues Dewatering handling generated is normally required to reduce the moisture the sediment contains for further content treatment of sediment, enhancing the characteristics, during and preparing generally and disposal. The water dewatering low levels of contaminants and require treatment. rely on seepage, but slow. dewatering Dredged material dewatering drainage, Common lagoons, consolidation, industrial filtration, is traditionally accomplished in ponds or CDFs, which effective include and and evaporation. of dewatering thickening. This is generally slurries economical, methods and gravity or sludges centrifugation, Some of these are appropriate of sediment, required. to dewater sediment. Method selection depends on the volume land space available, A good solid content on dewatering Substances of the waste stream, techniques (USEPA, is given and the degree of dewatering in Handbook: Responding to compendium Hazardous Discharges depending of Sinking on location 1987b). Sediments vary in percent solid, and dredging technology. Mechanical 3-l 8 and pneumatic dredges remove sediment emissions emissions emissions t . Removal and Transport P , . -+ Dewatering l Particle Classification - spillage Water residue for treatment and disposa\ Oversized be treated material to or disposed air emissions 1 Preconditioning - pti adjuslment - particle size separation - metals extraction b Principal Treatment 1 water and other residues for treatment and disposal * TzEY separation residues for treatment and disposal Figure 3-2. Overview of dredged material treatment. 3-19 at or near in situ solid concentrations, are more likely to require dewatering. percent solid achieved while hydraulic Variations dredges remove sediments in a liquid slurry and can influence the in clay and organic matter content technologies. by the various dewatering Centrifugatian-- Centrifugal Solids dewatering uses the force developed by fast rotation of a cylindrical force. drum or bowl. Centrifuges and liquids separate by density differences compact and are therefore under the influence of centrifugal are relatively a product particles sizes, well suited to areas with space limitations. solids, but removal are unsuitable efficiencies They can achieve reduced for composed of 10 to 35 percent Centrifuges are drastically less than 10 micron. for streams containing tars, small particle their application and low density particles, sediment. large objects, or fibrous materials thereby possibly limiting They are not as effective as filtration or dewatering to contaminated IagoonsKDFs, have high operating to include costs, energy use, and maintenance. capital and $85,00O/yr operating Costs for centrifugation have been reported (USEPA, $500,000 expenses at a 50 Ib/hr (dry) throughput 1986d). Dewatering LagoonslCDFs-- Industrial to 20 micron, dewatering lagoons can remove is used. sediment from gravel size to fine silt measuring Particles settle according gravity. 10 to if flocculation velocity, They correspond closely to CDFs. their own settling which varies according temporary storage to the particle diameter and specific for dredged materials. They These or IagoonsKDFs vacuum-assisted solids also provide can use a gravity underdrainage system to remove water. Vacuum-assisted lagoons This system can achieve up to 40 percent may prOd?lCe a dry cake in a shorter by content time. after 10 to 15 days. Vacuum-assisted systems reportedly retention dewatering increase the rate of dewatering about 50 percent. Dewatering construction time. lagoons have high capital costs. Settled solids accumulate solids They require a large land area and involve where they a long stored. on the bottom basins the capacity are temporarily As the volume of accumulated and efficiency. increases, of the basin decreases, removed reducing its effectiveness Accumulated solids must be periodically and treated. 3-20 Filtration-­ Filtration dewatered is a physical process in which liquid is forced through Filtration depends dewaters fine-grained a permeable sediment the particle medium, retaining solids on the membrane. Effectiveness over a wide range of size, and the solids solids concentrations. concentration on the type of filter, in the influent. Three commonly pressure filtration. solid streams with used types of filter systems are belt press filtration, vacuum filtration, and Belt presses process slurries from 1 to 40 percent solids by weight, 12 to 50 percent solids by weight. They can process up to 25 t/hr. and capture and generate Vacuum filters can process streams of 10 to 20 percent solids by weight, material. Because information on the use of filtration 85 to 99 percent of the solids is limited, it is difficult in dewatered for dewatering sediment to predict its effectiveness municipal wastewater in such applications. Typical ranges of solids concentrations (USEPA, 1987b): treatment sludges are as follows Belt press filtration Vacuum - 15 to 45 percent - 12 to 40 percent rotary filtration Pressure filtration - 30 to 50 percent Gravity Thickening-­ Gravity or clarifier. thickening concentrates solids in a tank similar to a conventional sedimentation tank They concentrate dredged material slurries of any grain size, at nearly any flow ranging from about 2 to 15 percent. to reduce the hydraulic Thickened rate, and produce a solids concentration dewatered thickening thickeners using other material is then further stages. Therefore, Gravity gravity methods load on other exceeds process is not cost effective when the solids concentration application dredging 6 percent. have very limited potential is very low in hydraulic to contaminated operation. sediments, only in rare cases when solids content Particle Classification Particle classification such as differences separates sediment mass, particles based on one or more physical characteristics, etc. cyclones, Particle settling properties, classification basins, and oversize in size, density, magnetic technologies clarifiers. include sieves and screens, hydraulic Particle classification separates and spiral classifiers, according sediments 3-21 to grain size or removes material that is incompatible contaminated such with subsequent processes. Classification by grain size is important in managing sediment dredged material matter. when contaminants adsorb onto or are held in fine-grained size or less can be of with minimal or as clay and organic The small grain solids of a specific coarser sediments can be disposed treated while the relatively treatment. non-contaminated, no additional Grizzlies are vibrating of oversized subsequent material. solids or fixed separation They improve units, reliable for the removal and efficiency maintenance of the reliability separation technologies and reduce costs of downstream equipment. Moving screens provide large capacity throughput and high efficiency. with less They can be arranged to permit progressively area requirements. in. dia. Vibrating finer separation screens separate particles from l/8 to 6 These screen­ to handle High speed models range from 4 to 325 mesh. are best suited are costly. to dry materials; ing techniques wet materials modifications Stationary moving screens differ from moving screens in that they have no application to parts. One stationary at hazardous screen that has potential waste solids separation They operate operating screen area. sites is the wedge-bar screen. easily with Wedge-bar little maintenance, and require only a small than the moving contain a the screens are less efficient materials since the oversized amount that are discharged considerable moving of fines. They may be operated solid preceding screen to provide more efficient separation than either process alone. Hydraulic They classifiers remove and classify sand and gravel from slurries. solids ranging in size from 3/8 in. to 105 They are not suited for than 74 micron. to 250 to 300 can remove and classify micron (150 mesh) to 74 micron (200 mesh). removal of particles larger than capabilities 1 .O in., or smaller are generally limited Their solids-handling tlhr. 3-22 Spiral classifiers wash, dewater, use rotating and classify screws mounted in an inclined up to 3/8 vessel to in. dia. sand and gravel Maintenance requirements are minimal, and operation is easy to learn. Hydrocyclones ly in situations 2000 micron are widely used to separate solids from water, especial­ They remove particles hydrocyclones in the 10 to with limited space. range. In general, do not effectively separate slurries with a solids concentration greater than 30 percent. Conventional wastewater micron content with clarifiers treatment. are used in domestic sewage and industrial They can remove particles and produce down to 10 to 20 sludge with a solids the use of flocculants, of 4 to 12 percent. They are best suited for small to moderate They cannot remove solids with a diameter with space scale cleanup operations. less than 10 micron. limitations. Clarifiers are not suitable for locations A good compendium of Sinking Hazardous of screening techniques is given in Handbook: Responding to Discharges Substances (U.S. EPA, 1987bl. REMEDIAL OPTIONS COMMONLY APPLIED TO SEDIMENT No remedial disturbance contaminants alternative can remove, contain, or treat contaminated Disturbing sediment sediment without some of and consequent release of contaminants. causes resuspension release. in the water column. The remedial option must minimize the contaminant The conventional sediment handling methods are removal effects; ineffective; problems, placed and disposal. This option is desirable: when it will not result in adverse environmental etc. make in-place If the sediment treatment presents or capping environmental when conditions or when removal such as currents, is necessary for wave action, other purposes. it can be contained in a CDF, or some (e.g. capped combination of these in place), left in place, treated in situ, dredged and treated, these technologies. An excellent discussion of contaminant control and treatment using techniques is given in Review of Removal, Sediment Containment, and Treatment Technologies for Remediation Elizabeth J.; of Contaminated in the Great Lakes (Averett, Paper EL-90-24, Daniel E.; Perry, Bret D.; Torrey, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways and Miller, Jan A., 19901, Miscellaneous Experiment 3-23 Station, Vicksburg, methods Mississippi. of dredged A companion material disposal document stressing management Strategy strategies for Disposal and of conventional is given in Management WSACE, 1985). Dredged Material: Contsminanr Testing and Controls No Action No action sedimentation discharge remobilized than allowing consists of leaving the contaminated pollutants. burial sediment in place with the hope that natural when the pollutant will not be will bury or contain The no-action or dilution option is appropriate are rapid, source has been halted, processes sediment by human or natural activities, the sediment and environmental effects of cleanup are more damaging to remain in place. This option relies on natural processes such as the input with in-place contaminated of the should of the of uncontaminated material through no action sediments dispersion, from the drainage basin and their integration mixing, burial, and biological degradation. spread. The greatest advantages A monitoring program option are low cost and the low risk of contaminant to insure that the rates of contaminant Some guidance be established contaminants in Figure 3-3. release and the area of influence option is presented are not accelerating. on the no-action graphically Subaaueous Ca~~inq Current (CAD), which interest has focused on subaqueous (covering) lateral containment, of contaminated called contained sediments it is technically aquatic with disposal less uses underwater sediments sediments with capping or without cleaner, contaminated contaminated dictate walls. location, Although conflicting feasible to cap may is in-place, at their original be moved uses such as navigation site of deposition. that contaminated if: sediments from their original Capping appropriate l The no action alternative Point source discharges does not provide have been halted. effects sufficient protection. l l The costs and environmental Suitable Hydrologic Bottom capping materials of movmgltreating contaminated sediment are too great. l are available. l conditions will not disturb the site. the cap. l will support l The area is amenable to dredging. 3-24 I c 1 No Figure 3-3. Flow Chart for Screening No Action 3-25 If dredging depression methods clamshell, is necessary it may be possible simply to deposit sediments in it. diffuser, in the bottom The preferred direct operations of a natural deposition with a on or to dig a hole in the bottom are by hydraulic pipeline with and place the sediment a submerged or without scow. placement or release from a bottom-dump The success of capping is dependent the following: Selecting selection hydraulic underwater material the dredge equipment and operation methods hole, - Subaquatic placement is controlled either through careful or of the dredging equipment. Although mechanical may be used to dredge and place contaminated each case should and disposal be evaluated sediments into the based on sediment and capping dredging characteristics site considerations. While mechanical and placement can result in the deposition of a highly consolidated into the overlying pipelines mass of materials, water column as are outfitted there is a certain amount of sediment resuspension the materials with diffuser fall through discharge the water column. heads provide Hydraulic which minimum discharge velocities, contaminants. and, therefore, rapid settling of the discharge solids and their associated Transportation to avoid transported of the contaminated sediment handling material steps. to the disposal If possible, site - It is advantageous the sediment should be multiple in the same device from which it will be discharged. Choice of the disposal and capping depth, site - The effects contours, of the water etc.) can affect body at the site the placement needs to for (such as currents, accuracy water bottom and the integrity of the mound. Bed slope (e.g., slope sloughing1 release. be considered sediments impacts. specific to prevent site failure and contaminant because of the momentum There is a tendency placement to flow generated during and slope siteet Basic current information conditions. However, should be collected at disposal sites to identify at several sites, Bokuniewicz, in the receiving based on observations influence al., (19781, concluded that the principal of currents water is to displace the point of impact of the descending by a calculated amount. jet of material away from the bottom currents placement, observed at a Great They stated that even strong to accurate Lakes site need not be a serious impediment in significantly greater dispersion nor do they result of currents at during placement. and little Long-term information effects the site may still need to be investigated, transport of sediment from disposal mounds. 3-26 is available on the Water velocity which results from wind- driven currents to transport movement decreases with depth. particles High velocity currents are theoretically but discrete sufficient particle discrete is frequently as large as 10 mm in diameter, of cohesive masked by the effects forces among particles. Aside from the effect of water depth on currents, short-term bottom influence on disposal. there appears to be little additional of the spreading surge above the The initial thickness has been shown to be a function of water depth. Selection of capping material - Compatibility and integrity, of the capping material with the sediment, to fall quickly of the procedure. and directly over the its thickness and its capability material to be capped, all affect the efficiency Placement techniques for the contaminated on the techniques the sediment material and cap - The accuracy used for placement. could resuspend of place­ is ment is directly bottom column, dropped affecting dependent If the material from a scow, the efficiency and travel in the water might require for careful impacts. of the capping operation. a submerged Site conditions which more direct placement, placement of hydraulically such as with diffuser, allows dredged material while limiting water column Effectiveness its integrity of monitoring methods - Monitoring the cap is essential to ensure that has not been compromised by water body and other effects. A sufficient and operationally literature. dredging, number of completed feasible. capping projects have proven that the concept some features of capping clamshell projects is technically in the for Table 3-6 describes reported Note that 70 feet deep sites were most often chosen; and scows used for placement. manager must evaluate Thickness dredges were selected of the caps ranged from 1 to 13 feet. method, However, the remedial the capping site, dredge, placement and cap thickness based on the characteristics for screening CAD. of the specific site and dredged material. Figure 3-4 presents a flow chart Confined Disposal Facilitv (CDF): Wand. near-shore. and in-water CDFs are engineered structures designed to retain dredged material. produced The Corps of Engineers program (USEPA, use CDFs to hold about 30% of the dredged material 1989g3. completely They can be constructed surrounded by water. entirely by the navigation partially away from the water, in water near the shore, or in CDFs in the United States Costs for disposing 3-27 dredged material Figure 34. Flow Chart for Screening CAD. 3-28 range from $5.00 to $2O.OO/cu yd. A thorough techniques, {Parametrix and costs - undated) is given in St8nd8rdS Dispossl discussion of CDF siting considerations, Dispose1 of COnt8min8ted (USACE, 1987a). construction Sediments for Confined and Confined of Dredged Material The primary potentially volatilization lost goal of CDF design through is containment and solids retention. through Contaminants are via leachate the bottom of the CDF, seepage the CDF dikes, The walls for In the Great stones to the air, and uptake by plants and animals living or feeding area can be made from most types of soil materials in the CDF. 1987a). a diked disposal (USACE, Lakes, the dikes that form the CDF walls are usually made of limestone to protect the core of the dike from waves. and adjoining in water, covered by boulder-size Inside the dikes the typical and decantation of turbid, CDF has a large cell for supernatant water. As disposal of material, with any structure waves. cells for retention near shore and in water CDFs are subject to movement from wind and landfills. CDFs are almost always constructed inherent as permeable dikes -- not as sealed, impermeable Some facilities Water loss is therefore prevent seepage through permeability, in the structure. have tried fabric and plastic liners to linings can reduce Clay or the dike walls, with little success. particle migration Sand, soil, or sediment and sediment into the dike interstices seal. can also act as a seal. bentonite-cement contaminant slurries are the most effective contaminant Caps are the most effective way to minimize loss from CDFs through volatilization and plant and animal uptake. Upland disposal fluctuations. sites are located away from the water body and outside the influence of tidal They usually require overland transport loss occur during dredging, through process. the media. of the dredged material. The primary opportunities and rehandling, to settle and during containment and compact in a natural for contaminant by migration dewatering during transport Upland sites allow sediment Near-shore Sediment transported anaerobic tidal disposal facilities are located at sea level and within Near-shore the area water body influence. receive dredged sediment long-term may lie above or below the water table. directly conditions. sites usually from a nearby site. Sediment can be deposited Contaminants migrate principally Near-shore water-column through to a depth that promotes the confinement media, groundwater, advantages such as accurate movements, transport and surface distances, runoff. reduced disposal sites have several during smaller contamination emplacement, emplacement, and easier monitoring. Siting CDFs is becoming major ports and harbors, more difficult in acquiring because of the lack of suitable permits, 3-29 transportation space in the midst of the potential for problems expenses, contaminant migration into groundwater and surface drainage of contaminated water, and plant and animal uptake of contaminants, CDFs offer located an attractive, cost effective method of dredged sediment material disposal. If properly fairly well. and constructed, they can isolate contaminated from the environment Some treatments can be effected in the CDF, such as biodegradation. 3-30 Project* Location (date) Du wamish Waterway Seattle, WA (1984) Rotterdam Harbor, The Netherlands (1981-1983) l Contaminated Volume of matarial yd’1,100 Dredging method Clamshell material Placamant mathod scow Volume, yd’ WpeJ 3,600 (sand) Capping material Thicknaoa of cap. ft l-3 Placamant method Sprinkling scow from Positioning method Surveying instruments Sita characteristics Existing subaqueous depression - 70 ft deep Phase I: Botlek Harbor Excavated to -98 ft deep Phase II: 1st Petroleum Harbor Excavated to - 80 ft deep 1.200.000 Trailing suction hopper Pumpout-sub­ merged diffuser -(clay) 2-3 Scow, then leveled over site Surveying instruments 620,000 Matchbox tion suc­ Pipeline submerged diffuser -(clay) 2-3 Scow, then leveled over site Automated dredge and suction head positioning equipment Surveyed grid and winch/ anchor wires Hiroshima Bay, Japan (1979-1980) Contaminated bottom sediment overlaid in situ with capping material -70 ft deep N/A N/A N/A -(sand w/shell) 1.6 Conveyor to gravity-fed submerged tremie; suction/ pumpout thru submerged spreader bar Scow, hopper dredge New York Bight (19801 Generally flat bottom -80-90 ft deep Stamford-New Haven, North Generally flat bottom - 65 ft deep 860,000 (mounded to 6 ft thick) 34,000 (mounded 36 ft thick) Clamshell scows 1.800.000 (majority fine sand) 65,400 (sand) Average 3-4 Maximum 5-9 Buoy, real-time navigation electronics Buoy, Loran-C coupled positioning system Central Long Island Sound Disposal Area (1979) Clamshell scows up to 7-10 Hopper dredge 3-31 TABLE 3-6. (continued) Project* Locetion Idatel l Contaminated Volume of material ydl’ Dredging method material Placement method Volume, (tvpel yd” Capping material Thickness cap. ft of Placement method Paitioning method Site charactsristia Central Long Island Sound Disposal Area (1979) Stamford-New Haven, South Generally flat bottom -70 ft deep Norwalk Generally flat bottom - 65 ft deep Mill-Quinnipiac Generally flat bottom - 65 ft deep 50,000 (mounded 46 ft thick) Clemshell scows 100,000 (cohesive up to 13 silt) scow Buoy, Loran-C coupled posi­ tioning system Central Long Island Sound Disposal Area (continued) (1981) (1982-1983) 92,000 (multiple mounds up to 8-12 ft thick) Clamshell scows 370,060 (silt and sand) Up to 6-7 scow Buoy 40,000 Clamshell scows 1,300.000 (silt) Multiple broad area placement. Estimated final average 6-10. Incomplete coverage scow Buoy (1983) Cap Site No. 1 Generally flat 60 ft deep Cap Site No. 2 Generally flat - 56 ft deep 33,000 (mounded 3 ft thick\ 40,000 (low mound, 2 ft thick) Clamshell scows 78,000 (silt) scow Buoy, Loran-C (1983) Clamshell scows 40,000 (sand) Irregular maximum 4.5, areas as scow Buoy. Loran-C little as 0.6 l l l All volumes are approximate, usually based on estimate in-scow measurements. unknown or not required. Data sources are found in the primary document WSACE, 1987). USACE, 1987b. Dash entries indicate volume of capping either Source: 3-32 TREATMENTS POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE TO SEDIMENT Several remedial options supporting field data. have the potential selected to treat contaminated sediments, but have limited The options for discussion in this guide are as follows: ln situ treatment Biological treatment Dechlorination Soil washing Solvent extraction treatment Solidification/stabilization Incineration Thermal desorption The remedial options applicability stand-alone and limitations, processes, discussed in this guide are presented data, and costs. in terms of the process description, options are not steps to performance Many of these process multiple but may be components problems. of a system that involves treatment address multiple are shown contaminant The type of remedial actions in Appendix C. selected for 103 CERCLA sites in Table 3-7, and are summarized In Situ Treatments ln situ sediment chemical treatment treatments include capping, solidification/stabilization, Capping, as discussed biological treatment, has is methods, and ground freezing. earlier in this section, of in situ treatment been the focus of considerable that these methods are most effective The primary secondary eliminate research in recent years. The major advantage sediments. the need to remove contaminated ln situ treatment methods to low flow streams where the flow can be diverted of chemical and the difficulty Ground and biologicat of ensuring freezing treatment while the treatment methods takes place. for disadvantages are the possibility contamination complete mixing of the treatment and remove reagents with contaminated the contaminated sediments. sediments. can be used to isolate The high cost of implementing it will greatly limit the use of this method. 3-33 TABLE 3-7. REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT Remediation Biological treatment technology Number of sediment CERClA sites selecting the technology Biodegradation Landfarming Physical/chemical treatment 7 1 KPEG dechlorination Solvent extraction 2 2 6 19 Soil washing Solidification/stabilization Thermal treatment Incineration Thermal Vitrification Containment Off-site disposal desorption 26 3 1 14 18 2 11 On-site disposal On-site storage No action SolidificationlStabilization- In situ solidification/stabilization treatments immobilize sediment and contaminants by treating to reduce them with reagents to solidify contaminant mobility, or fix them. These fixatives Another neutralize or bind the pollutants usually via leaching. method covers sediment with barriers or sorbents to reduce transfer of the pollutants to water and biota. Several problems placement, remove/detoxify subaqueous erosion, associated with in siru solidification/stabilization monitoring requirements, the inability are inaccuracies of the in reagent to for long-term procedure contaminants, and the difficulty in adjusting solidification treatments, mixtures/agents their effectiveness, settings. Little is known about the costs of large-scale 3-34 or their possible of contaminated tolerated toxic by-products. sediment. It would This technique not be feasible or dredging). has not yet been proven or accepted in any area where the solidified for treatment be mass cannot (e.g., future construction Biological Treatment- Biological clean up inorganics. in the formation treatment can effectively treat a wide range of organic contaminants, (for example, degradation but it does not resulting making Partial degradation products of trichloroethene, of vinyl chloride) may be more soluble or toxic than the original contaminants these limited in application. oxygen deficiency, The degradation process can be impeded by high organic concentrations, An excellent discussion of biological (Baud0 et al., on the Great lack of nutrients, and low temperature. Chemistry and Toxicity Sediments degradation 1990) can be found in Sediments: Remediation of In-Place Pollutants with Special Emphasis and Biological of Contaminated Lakes (Jafvert, et al., 1991). Aerobic The aerobic biological treatment has effectively and nutrients possible treated soils contaminated to survive. Nitrogen with organic materials. and phosphorous are the organisms nutrient require oxygen sources. most common potassium, Other nutrients include iron, trace metals, magnesium, calcium, sodium, sulfur, and manganese. supply of oxygen. and oxygen Aerobic biodegradation requires that the sediment in areas where have a continuous Hence, this is not feasible for bottom sediments demands are high. organic concentrations Anaerobic biological treatment uses organisms that survive in an oxygen-deficient degradation of halogenated organics environment. atoms The primary mechanism by reductive in anaerobic is removal of chlorine of nitrates dehalogenation. of oxygen, ambient A redox potential are required. conditions of -250 mv or less, presence Most in situ 1989fI. sediment Anaerobic and sulfates but the absence contaminants aerobic, is anaerobic; degradation it can degrade is slower than under (USEPA, and applies to fewer compounds. Some compounds, both aerobic and anaerobic juxtaposition. such as PCBs, can be most effectively treated in a system that provides conditions. Fortunately, nature provides both processes -- often in close 3-35 Chamical Treatment- /n situ chemical are most applicable treatment is an area of emerging sediments new technologies. The in situ methods that precipitation, oxidation, to treating contaminated Several potential the problems include neutralization, and chemical dechlorination. methods. chemical treatment treatment where problems are associated with the use of these chemical methods. All in situ Table 3-8 summarizes methods reagents is limited specific to each of these treatment impacts, whether have the potential for secondary it be as a direct result of toxic Consequently, in situ or or as a result of potentially to situations toxic degradation products. where the contaminated for the duration area can be contained Another during treatment stream flow can be diverted is the problem of treatment. reagents problem with all in situ mixed without with the methods of ensuring that the treatment are completely contaminated diversion material. Because of the above-mentioned problems, chemical treatment stream have limited application. Ground Freezing-­ Ground freezing order to cut off water technique involves portable for containing placing has been successfully and support loads. used for years in construction It has recently of dams and tunnels in come into consideration in sediments. and cooling as a potential The process them from a and facilitating the removal of contaminants at close intervals refrigeration unit. probes in the sediments Ice crystals refrigeration grow until they coalesce and form a wall of frozen sediment. 1.5 feet in would The process diameter. preclude is extremely slow because each probe can freeze only a small zone about because of high enerQy requirements. for large volumes of contaminated This method is also costly the use of ground freezing These limitations sediments (USEPA, 1985a). 3-36 TABLE 3-8. Treatmant Neutralization method Waste types amenable Acids and bases l SUMMARY OF IN SITU CHEMICAL reagents TREATMENT Potential a Toxicity to p&sensitive placed on the spill problems benthos if not properly Treatment Weak acids and bases a To neutralize acids: calcium carbonate, sodium carbonate, or sodium bicarbonate; limestone or greenstone may be applied as active cover material. Precipitation Inorganic cations and anions a Sulfide precipitation is most promising since metal sulfides are the least soluble metal compounds likely to form over a broad pH range. Calcium sulfide, iron sulfide, or sodium sulfide may be used. a Use of ferric sulfate under aerobic conditions may result in the formation of hydrous iron oxides which can scavenge heavy metals from water and may coat the gills of bottom feeders. a Potential for formation of Hr.5 gas; likelihood increase as the reactivity of sulfide and metals decrease. a Effective only under reduced conditions, oxidation to more soluble sulfide species could occur under aerobic conditions. Oxidation Wide range of organics; highly chlorinated compounds and nitroaromatics are not well suited a Oxygen and/or ozone and hydrogen peroxide. l Oxidation products. can result in more mobile degradation l Both ozone and hydrogen peroxide may react with organics in the water column or sediments which are not target compounds, thereby reducing effectiveness. may s Compounds which are sorbed to sediments be difficult to oxidize. a Ozone will decompose back to oxygen rapidly in the presence of organics; stability of hydrogen peroxide is not well known. Chemical dechlorination Highly chlorinated organics (e.g., PCB, dioxins) Polyethylene glycol and potassium hydroxide a Treatment system can tolerate some water but limits have not been established. l Degradation is temperature dependent and may proceed slowly at ambient temperatures. Source: USEPA, 1985. 3-37 EX SITU TREATMENT Bioloaical Treatment Process Description--Biological anisms. This technology treatment is the bio-oxidation of organic matter by microorg­ and other treatments uses bacteria, fungi, or enzymes to break down PCBs, pesticides, compounds. Biological Slurry-phase and solid-phase organic constituents are effective into less toxic or innocuous and sediment. on soils, sludges, treatment processes can generate residue streams that Products of biodegradation may may require additional (e.g., wastewater and air emissions). be more soluble and toxic than the original materials. Slurry Phase Biological Treatment-­ Process Descriotion--The contaminated and contact conditions term “slurry phase treatment” describes the biological treatment of soil or sludge in a large, mobile bioreactor. of microorganisms with the hazardous While the system maintains it also creates intimate mixing compounds, the environmental to treat required for optimal microbial degradation. such as pesticides, the presence Slurry phase treatment PCP, PC&, has the potential a wide range of contaminants volatile washing treatment organics. However, fuels, creosote, and some halogenated metabolism. Soil of heavy metals can inhibit microbial and metal extraction, by coupling using weak acids and chelating reactors agents, can be combined with biological two separate slurry-phase in series. A typical mechanically environmental conditions. soil slurry feedstock contains about 50 percent solids by weight. and to maintain The slurry the appropriate optimum is agitated in a reactor vessel to keep the solids suspended Nutrients, oxygen, conditions. The toxicity and acid or alkali are added to maintain may inhibit microbial metabolism. of heavy metals and chlorides Aoolicabilitv activity moisture of organisms 140-80%) and Limitationq--Slurry responsible phase reactors operate from 59O to 167OF. Control of the destruction is resolved by maintaining adequate with for contaminant pH in the range of 4.5 to 8.5, the dissolved 8 mu/L), and nutrients [C:N:P = 1OO:lO:l oxygen content to 100:1:0.5) at near saturation (Table 3-9). air (approximately ganisms, correct matrix, Microor­ the added initially to seed the bioreactor, The residence may be supplemented time in the bioreactor continuously to maintain biomass concentration. the physical and chemical varies with the soil or sludge of the nature of the contaminant, and the biodegradability 3-38 TABLE 3-9. Factor Contaminant solubility FACTORS AFFECTING SLURRY-PHASE Effect BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT Typical range --- Low solubility components difficult to biodegrade more Heavy metals, highly chlorinated organics, some pesticides, inorganic salts Moisture content Can be toxic to microorganisms A moisture content of greater than 80% affects bacterial activity and availability of oxygen. A moisture content below 40% severely inhibits bacterial activity. Affects activity (C-N-PI Lack of oxygen if lacking nutrients is rate limiting. 40-80% Nutrients Oxygen Particle size PH Temperature Variable waste composition C:N:P 100:10:1-100:1:0.5 -8 mg/L -_ If nonuniform, can affect contact with microorganisms Inhibits range. biological activity outside 4.5-8.5 59O-167OF _- Larger, more diverse microbial population present in this range. Inconsistent biodegradation caused by variation in biological activity. Insufficient population results in low biodegradation rates. Microbial population -- 3-39 contaminants and typically ranqe from hours to days. Once the contaminants treatment have biodegraded, before disposal. the treated slurry is dewatered. The residual water may require further Performance technology pesticide pesticides Data--Several firms market slurry-phase and creosote its full-scale biological wastes, treatment systems. The MoTec sludges, and has treated wastewaters. pentachlorophenol Ecova applied oil field and refinery bioremediation slurry-phase to soil containing and diesel fuel, and its pilot-scale system to soil contaminated with PAHs (USEPA, 1988b). in PCP ECOVA’s application concentrations to treat PCP-contaminated wastes has resulted in a 99 percent reduction treatability over a period of 24 days. and creosote Biotrol conducted studies on soils contaminated Inc., AR, Coleman Inc., Arkansas, after with oil, pentachlorophenol, Evans Site, FL, and MacGillis 98 days of treatment, solids (ERM, 1990). from wood preserving sites (Arkwood, At Arkwood, and Gibbs Site, MN) (USEPA, 1989h). the PCP and PAHs were not detected in TCLP leachate from biologically Detox Industries, 2,000 Inc. applied its pilot-scale treatment to PC&. treated Approximately to below 4 ppm slurry 0.75 tons of sludge containing - a 99.8 percent biodegradation achieved ppm PCBs were reduced within Remediation Technologies, four months, removal (USEPA, 19896). Inc.‘s (ReTec) full-scale system was used to treat wood preserving sludges at a site in Tennessee. The system greater than 99 percent removal efficiency for PCP and PAHs (USEPA, 1990~1. m--Cost for slurry-phase treatment ranges from $80 to $150 per cu yd (USEPA, 1989e). Solid-Phase Biological Treatment-­ Process Descriotion--This practices to enhance the microbial above-grade degradation process treats soils using conventional of contaminants. The system soil management bed uses a treatment water. lined with cleanup sand over a high-density over the prepared bed. the transport liner. A drainage system collects such as nitrogen through Contaminated are added, Wastes are material is distributed Nutrients of oxygen and phosphorous system. take place. and the soil tilled to facilitate typically the migration reactions mixed to a depth of 6 to 12 inches, where the biochemical Solid-phase waste treatment. refinery treatment Its success is one of the oldest and most widely has been demonstrated throughout used technologies the United States, for hazardous especially at petroleum sites treated under RCRA, and at wood preserver sites with creosote-contaminated 1989). sludges and soils (Torpy, 3-40 Apolicabilitv contaminated halogenated and Limitations--This fuels, creosote, technology can treat soils, sludges, volatile and sediments non- with pesticides, PCP, PCBs, some halogenated aromatics, chlorinated organics, organics such as gasoline, aliphatics, aromatic organic compounds. Process residuals water, which for most biological in a conventional treatment systems include system, the treated solids, process may be treated water treatment and possible air emissions. Performance (contaminant) adequate etc. is left. Data--Theoretically, However, biological organisms will digest organics until no food source of appropriate on microbial microorganisms, activity, efficiencies depend on the presence contaminant effects concentrations of essential nutrients, population Ecova has used solid-phase at a wood preserver site (Josyln biodegradation at full-scale to treat soil containing WA). PCP and PAHs Manufacturing and Supply Co., Redmond, Q&-Cost for the solid-phase treatment ranges from $50 to $80 per cu yd (Torpy, 1989). Dechlorination Process Descriotion--The specific types of aromatic KPEG dechlorination process is potentially effective in detoxifying organic contaminants, particularly dioxins and PCBs. The process heats and polyethylene glycol mixes contaminated soils, sludges, or liquids with an alkali metal-hydroxide-based reagent in a batch reactor. Figure 3-5 presents a schematic flow diagram of a typical KPEG process. The mixture contains potassium of contaminated medium and reagent forms a homogeneous (KOH or NaOH) and polyethylene (DMSO) or sulfolane slurry. The reagent or sodium hydroxide such as dimethyl glycol (PEG). The addition the efficiency the slurry’s chloride of other reagents, of the process. halogenated compounds. type, sulfoxide (SFLN) may improve When simultaneously decompose heated to between into less toxic 212OF to 302OF and mixed, glycol-ethers and water-soluble contaminants Residence time in the reactor ranges from 0.5 to 2 hours -- depending concentration, water content, humic and clay content, in a condenser. and reagent. on the contaminant removal of its initial and the required Additional This treatment efficiency. sediment Water is vaporized in the reactor and collected treatment may be required to desorb both reaction by-products sediment and water in successive washing churns the may dehalogenated cycles. The residual wastewater 3-41 I , E?;Z!Zl A Emissions Condenser l Treated emissions ACM I Removal and transport W&f /\ /h ’ A b Waste preparatbn - Screened soil I Reactor + Reagent recycle b Separator r , SOY + + Washer I + Sdl b t&water Water 1 Soil Treatment in conventIonal systems 4 Water I -r source: Adaptedfrom McCoy I OversIze rS+9Cb I - Reuee - Stablllzationkolidiiietion - Other treatment Figure 3-5. and Associates, 1989. Dechlorination process. 3-42 require treatment tion, or incineration before disposal. Further post-dechlorination options include biodegradation, precipita­ (USEPA, 1989~). In considering 3-3 to determine combination conceptual might apply: with treatment development of a treatment system, the remedial manager can refer to Figure the sediment. 3-101, In the system components affecting needed to pre-treat, the technology’s treat, and post-treat performance (Table process, the factors an overall steps system can be developed. For the dechlorination the following l Removal and transport. This step can generate a water stream that can be combined treatment. with the process water residue for further 0 Waste preparation dewatering, treatment can include screening to remove oversize debris, particle size separation, pre- and pH adjustment. to remove metals. At this point, the remedial manager may consider This is a case where another step. technology such as soil washing additional and may be used as a pretreatment Each of the pretreatment steps generates residue streams that should be combined disposal. with other process streams for final treatment 0 The principal sediment captured treatment includes mixing, reacting, separating, washing, and dewatering the to remove the contaminant. and treated. or treated treatment The treated further system, The air emissions generated during treatment can be it may in a for soil can be reused if it is clean, or if contaminated land disposal. materials Water can usually be treated be solidified conventional disposal. before and oversize can be disposed or solidified Applicabilitv halogenated aromatic and Limitations--Dechlorination compounds such as dioxins, techniques are primarily used to treat and destroy If additional contami­ PCBs, and chlorobenzenes. nants are present, other options should be considered. The reaction time needed in the dechlorination concentrations, is retarded water content, humicklay content, organics process depends on contaminant and the presence of other reactive type and initial materials. It by the presence of aliphatic and inorganics such as metals. It cannot process highly concentrated ed organics contaminants. A water content less than 20 percent, a pH above 2, and chlorinat­ concentrations < 5 percent facilitate the process. 3-43 TABLE 3-10. Factor Aliphatic metals organics, FACTORS AFFECTING DECI-ILORINATION Effect PERFORMANCE I Range -- inorganics, Proves most effective halides (PCB, dioxins, chlorobenzenes) Requires increased produce H, gas with aromatic chlorophenols, can Aluminum and other alkaline reactive metals Chlorinated organics use of reagent; reagent -- Requires use of excessive Increases reaction Increases reaction Uses excessive I water content time time <5% _-< 20% I >2 I Clay and sandy soils Humic content Moisture PH content reagent with higher when pH < 2; Process not effective I oretreat to raise DH USEPA, 1988b. Source: TABLE 3-11. VendorlSitt Galson Remtdiation (GRC) Corporation DECHLORINATION SYSTEMS description dehalogenation 80 cu yd. at two PCBDesigned to Technology Successful full-scale glycolate contaminated waste oil sites. Full-scale reactor batch capacity: treat 160-200 cu ydlday. Treatment contingent 1990h). P.W.C. Guam costs: $200 to $5OO/cu yd. Actual costs upon site-specific characteristics (USEPA, Mobile glycolate dehalogenation unit field tested on soils contaminated with Aroclor 1260 (concentrations from 300 ppm to 2,200 ppm treated to levels below 2 ppm within 5 hours). 3-44 Performance Data--With efficiencies greater than 98 percent reported, factors limit PCB removal to less than of KPEG chemical low pH, high Treatability Factors process are 1 ppm has been routinely dechlorination: humic content, tests achieved. Several the effectiveness highly concentrated contaminants (greater than ?I%), high water content, materials such as aluminum. and the presence of other alkaline-reactive the effectiveness will determine performance in Table 3-11. of the KPEG process for specific site conditions. affecting shown are listed in Table 3-10. Two applications of the dechlorination w--Costs for the dechlorination technology range from $200 to $5OO/cu yd (USEPA, 1990h). Extraction Technoloaitg Solvent Extraction-­ Process Descrbtion--Solvent contaminants from soil, sludge, extraction and sediment, does not destroy thereby reducing wastes. It separates the hazardous of the hazardous from the sediment extraction process. waste with This the volume that must be treated. organic solvents. This volume reduction technique leaches contaminants solvent Figure 3-6 shows a schematic in treating semivolatile solvents, diagram of a typical organic compounds and petroleum process has been effective organic compounds for inorganic processes. washing, methanol, (SVOCs) such as PCBs, volatile It is not generally effective other fVOCs), halogenated It is often wastes. contaminants. Solvent extraction selected as a pre-treatment as solvents, Suitable technique and therefore include for use with differs kerosene, uses organic or water furfural, with chemicals additives. from soil hexane, which ethanol, uses water isopropanol, fluids, solvents dimethyl formamide, dimethyl sulfoxide, ethylene Success diamine, and in extracting freon and supercritical organic which pollutants solvent, such as carbon dioxide, strongly of solvents, propane, and butane. Treatability depends on the nature of the solvent. tests can determine contaminants. Most of or combination is best suited for the site-specific processes require multiple extraction cycles to achieve high removal efficiencies. and reuse of the solvent. Its toxicity A key advantage an extraction process is the recovery must also be considered. Solvent separated solvent-free contaminants extraction generates three main product streams: concentrated contaminants, solvent/water, contaminants additional and treated sediment. for post-treatment. treatment The extract Depending retains a smaller volume of concentrated on the presence of metals or other inorganic may be necessary. The of the sediment by another technique 3-45 Emissions control A A Treated emtssbns Recycled &vent + Water \ waato mparttlon - wars & 0 rt]tct removal - partlclt classiticadion - dwaterlng - pH adjustment f\ b Solvent with organic contaminants Water Concentrated organic contaminants I treatment systems OversIze rejects Figure 3-6. Sounx Adapted hum USEPA, 19QOl Solvent extraction process. 3-46 separated water must be analyzed to determine whether treatment is necessary before discharge (USEPA, 19901). Using Figure 3-2 as a guide to identify overall affecting remediation technology using solvent performance, extraction, the components and referring of a possible treatment system for to Table 3-12 to determine the factors system. the remedial manager can develop a conceptual major components: treatment The system may contain the following l Removal and transport. with other water residue This step generates streams a water side stream that needs to be combined water treatment system for and sent to a conventional treatment. 0 Waste preparation optimize system includes performance. the pretreatment For solvent steps needed to condition extraction, this can include and pH adjustment. the feed stream to removal of oversize material and debris, particle classification, requires additional to the principal or post-treated equipment, dewatering, Each of these steps and generates streams of solids and liquids that can be recycled down-stream, treatment, for disposal. combined with other residue streams being treated 0 The extraction Additional stage may be most efficient if metals are removed prior to organics organics streams are generated extraction. The solids, water, and concentrated in these steps. solids stream may be clean enough to be reused as fill, or if still contaminated for land disposal. incineration. The organics stream will need further treatment may be solidified methods or using biological System components will vary depending on the waste composition, site specific contaminants, and the waste matrix. ADDlicabilitv volatile organics, (such as benzene, and Limitations--Solvent solvents extraction techniques are suitable for treatment petroleum waste], of PCBs, halogenated toluene, (such as TCE, trichloroethane, phenols). and aromatics cresol, chlorinated Pumpable percent feed streams with less than 40 percent (wt) oily organics and greater than 20 up to greater (wt) solids are favorable. fCF Systems and the B.E.S.T.TM process can treat materials dewatering). Particles with a diameter 20 percent solids; most others require more thorough 3-47 than l/4 in. must be screened because the equipment The process does not efficiently extract inorganics is incapable of handling and metals. large diameter particles. extraction In many cases, multiple cycles are needed to achieve high removal efficiencies. TABLE 3-12. Factor Complex Metals Particle size pH of waste waste mixtures FACTOR: ; AFFECTING SOLVENT EXTRACTION Effect TECHNIQUES Range --15% Volatile Source: organic concentrations USEPA, 1999b. -- a Infrared processing systems use electrical resistance heating elements or indirect fuel- fired radiant chamber through U-tubes to generate thermal radiation. belt and exposed chamber. Waste is fed into the combustion heat. Exhaust gases pass by a conveyor a secondary to the radiant combustion 3-67 Offgases paniculates from the incinerator are treated acids. by the air pollution control equipment to remove and capture and neutralize The remedial manager needs detailed information on the physical and chemical characteristics size, and cost; handling. physical may of the waste matrix to assess the matrix impact on incinerator waste preparation, handling, and feeding; air pollution control type, its performance, type and size; and residuals such as type of matrix, value. Key physical form, handling parameters properties, include particle the feed’s physical size, moisture characteristics content, and heating Key chemical Dredged material require particle size reduction and concentration sulfur, of organic prior to feeding compounds incinerators. parameters include the type halogens, such as PCBs and dioxins, inorganics (metals), and phosphorous. Heavy metals such as arsenic, combustion. volatilized lead, mercury, cadmium, and chromium are not destroyed by As a result, some will be present in the ash while others (such as arsenic, and released into the flue gas. mercury1 are Incinerator generates three major waste streams: solids from the incinerator and flue gas system, gaseous emissions from the incinerator, incinerator venturi flue gases are often treated before discharge metals, and water from the scrubber system (Figure 3-9). The systems by scrubber a stack. such as electrostatic system solids precipitators may contain or high scrubbers through Scrubber concentrations of volatile ash, and treated solids from the incinerator with heavy metals. combustion chamber. The ash and treated toxicity solids may be contaminated If these residues fail leachate and disposed caustics, may tests, they can be further treated by a process such as stabilization/solidification landfill. Liquid waste from the scrubber metal- and inorganic system of onsite or in an approved chlorides, volatile may contain metals, trace organics, chemical precipitation, particulates. The liquid wastes filtration, require neutralization, adsorption reverse osmosis, settling, evaporation, or carbon before discharge. Figure 3-9 helps determine factors limiting the technology’s the potential performance. incineration system components; manager Table 3-l 9 gives can construct a From these the remedial conceptual overall treatment system. A system might consist of the following oversize components: 0 Removal reduction and transport equipment. equipment, with the attendant debris removal and size 3-68 I + Treated emlsslons Emlsslons control Slack Removal and trtKKipOrt cp Waste preparation I Overslze debris I’ lrealed solids Water + Water treatment v Slze reduction I Overslze 1 debris 1 I 1 t Residue handling * I Treated SolIda + - Land disposal - Sdldiflcatlon/ stablllzallon - Other treatment Figure 3-9. Incineration system. 3-69 Form acid gases. Metals content Moisture content Particle size annot be processed (oversized debris); for destruction. Halogens (Cl compounds) Can contribute to refractory attack, and ~8% dry weight 0 Waste preparation on the requirements the necessary moisture includbs screening to remove oversize type for sediments, debris and dewatering. various equipment Depending of the incinerator Blending is used to obtain feed size and feed size. is sometimes required to achieve a uniform content. l Incineration, and residual with its ash, water, air emissions, and treated solids residual streams. or may require The ash treatment The solids stream may be able to be land filled directly, The water stream can be fed to a conventional before disposal. water treatment system. flue gases must be treated in an air pollution The treated solids can generally control device before release to the environment, be reused or landfilled. 3-70 Aoolicability halogenated corrosives. volatiles, and Limitations--Incineration semivolatiles, techniques have been applied to halogenated organic cyanides, and non- PCBs, pesticides, dioxins/furans, and organic It is not effective on heavy metals and is expensive. Favorable feed stream characteristics the system, heating low moisture content include a particle size large enough not to pass through of water, materials organics, which have a good sulfur, or elevated to prevent costly vaporization metals, elevated value, absence of volatile compounds. levels of halogenated levels phosphorus Performance Factors affecting Data--Incinerators typically achieve greater than 99% destruction for organics. the technology’s performance are listed in Table 3-18. Rotary kiln incineration (Cornhusker Shreveport, contaminated transportable polychlorinated an abandoned Army Ammunition Louisiana) with by International Technology Corporation has been used at two sites Army Ammunition lagoon Plant, Plant, Grand Island, Nebraska, and Louisiana of Defense etc.). by the Department (TNT, DNT, (DOD) to decontaminate Inc. with owns organic sediments a and explosives system (PCBs). Roy F. Weston, contaminated 8,500 and operates compounds incineration biphenyls (TIS) to treat solids In Beardstown, Illinois, tons of PCB-contaminated soil from salvage yard was successfully treated by this unit. O.H. Materials waste (Johnson, Shirco Infrared used a Shirco Infrared unit at the Peak Oil site in Florida to treat 7,000 EPA conducted two evaluations operating of the infrared conditions, tons of by et al., 1989). Systems. system developed In both cases, at standard PCBs were reduced to less Economic waste analysis suggests excavation, feed than 1 ppm in the ash, with a ORE for air emissions greater than 99.99%. a cost range from $180/tori preparation, as $800/tori to $240/tori ($245 to $325/cu yd), excluding ash disposal costs, and vendor profit. (USEPA, 1989h). Total costs including these elements may be as high A circulating fluidired bed incinerator developed by Ogden Environmental Services, Inc. has treated PCB-contaminated sediments from the Swanson River Oil Field, Alaska in field demonstrations. (&--The cost of fluidized bed incinerator depends on the technology, the type of waste ($475/cu yd), for treated and the size of the site. On the average, the costs can vary from $350/tori yd) for a very small site (USEPA, 199Oj3. a large site to $1 ,OOO/ton ($1,35O/cu 3-71 POST-TREATMENT OF RESIDUAL STREAMS Water Treatment Water removed from contaminated colloidal contaminants before disposal. ion exchange, sediments may require treatment techniques precipitation, to remove dissolved and Some treatment neutralization, include activated flocculation, carbon adsorp­ and can tion, biological treatment, ultrafiltration, methods ozonationlultraviolet radiation. Since standard, well established wastewater treatment further be applied to the separated water component, they will not be addressed Remedial Action in this document. A good reference to water treatment 1985b). is Handbook: at Waste Disposal Sites (USEPA, Air Emissions Control The remedial manager can assume that most, if not all, treatment that must be captured treatment and treated. The potential for noxious emissions technologies produce vapors removal and during sediment cannot be overlooked. Dredging techniques reactions and transporting contaminated gases. sediment, dewatering or pretreating and particle the sediment classification can result method, in can release entrained between the treatment Preconditioning agents and the contaminants. technologies, methods, Each principal treatment with This and the possible exception of the extraction treatment, can generate gases during processing. incineration, applies to biological thermal desorption. dechlorination solidification/stabilization, more deeply into the details As the remedial system, manager delves of the selected technology or treatment each point in the process that could release or generate toxic gases control measures taken to capture, treat, or destroy the emissions. must be identified and appropriate Solids Treatment Solids streams from the treatment meet established washing cleanup levels. process or system must be analyzed to soil washing to ensure that they technologies. Soil This applies most importantly phase separation techniques technologies are usually and are not intended require additional must ascertain to destroy treatment contaminants. before disposal. The solids residues If the contaminants from these processes will probably are PCBs, the remedial manager that all TSCA 3-72 regulations exceeding are satisfied. 50 ppm. TSCA regulations apply to contaminants having PCB concentrations The solids residues from biological and thermal treatment, desorption dechlorination, will usually solvent extraction, levels if the solidification/stabilization, proper technology incineration, meet cleanup is selected, and operates at optimum conditions. If cleanup levels are not achieved, may or heavy metals are present in the waste, a second treatment be needed before disposal. such as solidification/stabilization DisDosal Generally, residual solids and sludges from treatment are disposed in landfills. A landfill is a waste disposal facility where waste materials are placed in or on a controlled land area and are covered sanitary and in the manner that isolates them from the environment. hazardous. Highly contaminated criteria. There are two types of landfills: landfills wastes must be disposed of in hazardous of hazardous materials is becoming which are designed difficult and 50 to meet regulatory expensive ppm cannot Landfilling regulatory increasingly due to growing be accepted control. Under TSCA, PCB-contaminated has EPA approval for disposal materials exceeding of PCBs. unless than landfill 3-73 SECTION 4 COMBINING COMPONENTS INTO A TREATMENT SYSTEM In order to assist the remedial of an adequate as follows: treatment system, manager in using this guide to select appropriate have been developed. components are four generic scenarios These scenarios • A site and contamination that facilitate the section process, and provide a reasonable choice of system components. • A site and contamination technology • that require to constitute that provide pretreatment the preferred of feedstock system. or adjustment of components A site and contamination need for additional this guide. a poor application or a technology for this guide, indicating the information, treatment, or choice beyond those in • A site and contamination that are outside the scope of this guide, indicating the need for research into other technologies. DEVELOPING TREATMENT SYSTEMS USING GENERIC EXAMPLES The four scenarios and Tables are as follows: that have been chosen as examples to illustrate use of the guide’s Figures • Scenario #1: A deep, open water body with high concentrations and a sediment A shallow, with high clay content. slow moving water body with of complex organic contamination, • Scenario #2: Pentachlorophenol contamination • and a sandy sediment. waves, and tides. Contaminants are PCBs and Scenario #3: A harbor with high traffic, metals in a sandy/silty sediment. • Scenario #4: A wide, deep river. size matrix. Contaminants are pesticides and nonvolatile metals in a silty, small particle 4-1 Scenario #1 From Figure 3-1, determine the appropriate principal treatment method. If the material is to be treated in situ, the remedial manager can consult the text for the available, If dredging is chosen, selection of a treatment system begins. recommended methods. From the “Materials most appropriate selection advantage Handling Considerations” discussion, and using Table 3-4, determine the dredge for the site. Since this site is a deep, open water body, an appropriate type, used in lakes and inland of sediment, conditions with rivers. Hydraulic dredges dredge is the hydraulic of processing also have the The remedial dredge. high volumes moderate resuspension. manager is cautioned that other site-specific may favor the use of a different Next a transport site, and the current method must be selected based on the distance to the treatment or disposal costs of transport. From Table 3-1, a technology group. can be selected based on the specifics that the technologies of the site contaminant as follows: For this site, it can be determined should be categorized High probability Incineration Marginal success Not Likely to be effective Dechlorination Solidification/stabilization Biological Solvent extraction Thermal desorption Refining these selections soil washing, and biological substantially solvent extraction, using Table 3-2, it can be seen that the clay content further eliminates and thermal desorption, choice. Referring leaving incineration to the costing as the preferred choice, worksheet, choice. Table 4-1, the treatment as a secondary higher cost of incineration makes biological treatment the favored The remedial manager can now consult the section of this document treatment sediment conditioning the possibility if the site conditions for successful requirements are favorable, treatment. operating or determine Treatability parameters. that deals with biological the what needs to be done to condition studies will aid in determining biological sediment and optimum The remedial manager should anticipate choice. Then the selection studies. process that treatability - selecting studies may prove an inappropriate another technology becomes iterative and again performing treatability 4-2 TABLE 4-1. COSTING WORKSHEET Cost range lcu vdl $1-525 TBD Site-specific costs System Dredging Transport component Preconditioning/pretreatment Dewatering Particle classification Treatment CDF CAD Biological In situ Ex situ - solid phase Ex situ - slurry phase Dechlorination Solvent Extraction TBD TBD $5.00-$20.00 TBD TBD $50-$80 $200-$600 $lOO-$300 S200-$600 $200-$400 Soil washing Solidification/stabilization In situ Ex situ Incineration Low temperature desorption thermal TBD $30-s 165 $475-S 1,350 $11 O-$470 Posttreatment Water treatment Air emissions control Solids treatment Disposal TBD TBD TBD TBD 4-3 Having screened a likely technology, treatment established technology, techniques cleanup the remedial manager can consult pre-treatment and arrange a treatment process system designed and postto meet principal out” train” for the chosen technology goals. Although the screening has presented a favorable the remedial manager should be aware that certain technologies, pre-treatment or post-treatment although “screened may be appropriate approach. phases of an overall system -the “treatment This technique of treatments and designing, is intended to be a screening conditions. process to indicate a preferred treatment The real work of verifying the screened or series selection, to address site-specific installing, and operating the final solution is really just beginning. Scenario #2 As before, consult Figure 3-l to determine an appropriate principal treatment. Since the site water body is shallow preferred operation in interior waterways and slow moving, depths. a pneumatic dredge is chosen for its rate is also a The fact that and in shallow Its low resuspension plus since a fast moving pneumatic water body would quickly traffic entrain and spread contamination. requiring another selection. dredges can obstruct may be a drawback, Now select a transport land transport is probable. system. It is likely that we are close to shore, so a direct pumping to The major contaminant that this compound at this site is pentachlorophenol. semi-volatile. Reference Appendix to Table D of the guide indicates 3-l suggests that the is a halogenated technologies can be categorized as follows: Hiah orobabilitv Soil washing Incineration of success Marginal success Not likelv to be effective Solidification/stabilization Biological Dechlorination Solvent extraction Thermal desorption 4-4 Table 3-2 provides text’s technology no further refining of the selected technology. and incineration, However, referring to the descriptions for both soil washing it can be seen that sandy sediment can be processed well by both. though technically Again, reference to the cost work sheet, Table 4-1, indicates is far more costly, technology leaving soil washing parameters, as the preferred dewatering, pre- that incineration, technology treatment description choice. superior, After verification of optimum operating and post-treatment in the text. considerations can be made, based on the soil washing technology Scenario #3 The selection tides. preferred Reference process continues for the harbor water body site with high traffic, handling section indicates that a mechanical areas. waves dredge and is to the guide’s materials since it can operate well in harbors, in rough water, and in confined In selecting metals component while dechlorination, none is recommended but not acceptable marginal choices an appropriate will contain treatment technology from Table 3-1, it can be assumed that the metals. Referring to Table 3-1, it is seen that, volatile and non-volatile and incineration Biological manager solvent extraction, are the preferred choices for PCB treatment, treatment is therefore is marginally left with acceptable choosing for PCBs, for metals treatment. for metals. The remedial among three However, the - soil washing, solidification/stabilization, the technology and thermal of choice. desorption. concentration of PCBs may well determine TSCA provisions that satisfies may apply to the site, or the EPA Regional Administrator environmental and treatment protection considerations, may select an alternative human health and issues Two good sources of information for Superfund on PCB regulatory studies are: Guidance on Remedial Actions Decontamination Sites with PC6 Contamination Assessment of Selected KJSEPA 1990a31 and PCB Sediment Alternative - Technical/Economic Treatments (USEPA 1986al). to Table 3-2, the soil washing cannot, as although manager stand-alone the preferred and thermal technologies, option desorption treat options all become questionable the contaminants. In such Referring because they Solidification/stabilization, cases, the remedial sequence to satisfy is also not a “strong” candidate. is faced with selecting several technologies arranged in a treatment the site conditions, or researching technologies not covered in this guide. can be used to separate PCBs, fines, and using For example, metals. in the given scenario, soil washing The PCB component can then be treated, 4-5 depending on the level of contamination, dechlorination or incineration. The separated fines and metal components could use tests solidification/stabilization. can determine Once the treatment conditions. train components are initially selected, treatability preferred operating Reference to the text for each technology needed to optimize the technology’s will determine performance. the pre-treatment and post-treatment techniques Scenario #4 Again, from Table 3-4 select an appropriate method. dredge type. Then select an appropriate transport From Table 3-l several technologies media. review the potentially effective treatment technologies, remembering that and may be needed to prepare, treat, and post-treat the site specific contaminants The selection Note that no clear cut choice as a preferred treatment is indicated. categories are as follows: Hiah Probabilitv None of success Marainal success Not likelv to be effective Biological Dechlorination Solvent Extraction Incineration Thermal desorption Soil Washing Solidification/ stabilization Refining particle remedial consider these selections the two using Table 3-2, it can be seen that the high silt content selections having a marginally successful rating. and small size eliminate manager with This leaves the must now Little no choices from the listed technologies. The remedial manager if any pre-treatment can be done to make the sediment to more treatable are suitable more amenable to treatment. conditions. can be done to change silt and small particles none of the technologies discussed This is a case in which matrix. in this document to the contaminant/media The remedial manager is left no choice but to exit the document outside this text. and begin review of other technologies ESTIMATING SYSTEM COSTS Cost ranges for each component advised highly support of the treatment system are given in Table 4-l. years. system Caution is in using these costs out of context variable dependent utilities, on the volumes and materials since they are based on varying of sediment required. 4-6 to be processed, Also, costs are efficiencies, and equipment, REFERENCES ABB Environmental Journal. 1990. Spring/Summer. Vol. 4, Nos. 1 and 2. Allen, D. C. and A. J. Ikalainen. 1988. Selection and Evaluation of Treatment Technologies for the New Bedford Harbor (MA) Superfund Project. In: Proceedings of the 9th National Conference, HMCRI, Silver Spring, Maryland. Allen, James P. 1991. Mineral Processing of Mines, Salt Lake City, UT. Anderson, M. L. 1980. Anon. Atlantic 1973. Thesis, University Pretreatment of Contaminated Sediments. In Progress. Bureau Microfilms International. No. GAX80-25646. Ann Arbor, Michigan. “Ocean Dumping: Final Regulations and Criteria.” U.S. Federal Register 38 (198). Research Corp. Engineering Army’s lnstallation/Restoration C0027. and Development Support of General Decon Technology for the U.S. Program. Prepared for USATHAMA. Contract No. DAAK-11-80- Averett, D. E., B. D. Perry, and E. J. Torrey. 1989. Review of Removal, Containment, and Treatment of Contaminated Sediment in the Great Lakes. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL. Environmental Laboratory, Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Technologies for Remediation Barnard, W. 1978. Prediction and Control of Dredged Material Dispersion Around Dredging and Open- Water Pipeline Disposal Operations. T.R. DS-78-13, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Baudo, R., Giesy, J.P., Muntau, H. 1990. Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, MI. Bennett, J. P. Undated. Geological Survey. Simulation Sediments: Chemistry and Toxicity of In-Place Pollutants. Lewis and Transport-Related Properties. Circular No. 969:64-68, U.S. Boem, P. D., and D.L. Fiest. 1983. “Dredged Material Disposal in the Ocean.” 2. John Wiley and Sons, New York. pp. 151-169. Wastes in the Ocean. Vol. Bokumiewicz, H.J., et al., 1978. Field Study of the Mechanics of the Placement of Dredged Materialat OpenWater Sites. Technical Report D-78-7, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Brossman, M. W., K. M. Mackenthun, J. A. Kohler, and C. R. Terrel. 1978. Kepone-Contaminated Hopewell/James River Areas. EPA/540/5/78/004. Brown, Mark. 1988. Upper Hudson River Site, Toxic Sediments -Approaches Quality Mitigation Feasibility for the to Management. Criteria. PTI Sciences. Envi­ Chapman, P.M. 1989. Current Approaches to Developing Sediment ronmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 8, pp 589-599. Church, H. 1981. Excavation Handbook. McGraw-Hill 0730-7268/89. Book Co., New York, NY. R-l Culinane, M.J., Averett, D.E., et al. 1990. Contaminated Dredged Material Disposal Practices. Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, NJ. - Control, Treatment, and Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Disposal Alternatives for PCB-Contaminated Sediments from Indiana Harbor, Indiana, Volumes 1 and 2, Miscellaneous Paper EL-87-9, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. ERM-Southwest, Fleming, Inc. 1990. Feasibility Study Report on Arkwood, Inc. Site, Omaha, Arkansas. An Evaluation Paper EL-91-11, Elizabeth C., Averette, Daniel E., Channel, Michael G., and Perry, Bret D. 1991. of Solidification/Stabilization Technology for Buffalo River Sediment, Miscellaneous U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 1983. Environmental Pollution. Fisher, J. B., R. L. Petty, and W. Lick. Fitchko, Series 6, 5:121-132. Co., Inc., J. 1989. Criteria for Contaminated Northbrook, IL. Soil/Sediment Cleanup. Pudvan Publishing Foster Wheeler Enviresponse, Inc. 1989. Cleaning Excavated Soil Using Extraction Agents. EPA/600/2-89/034. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. Fujita, M., and K. Iwashima. Japanese Archipelago. Hallett, 1981. Estimation of Organic and Total Mercury in Seawater Environmental Science and Technology. 57:929-932. Around the Douglas J., Kelvin R. Campbell, and Wayland R. Sawin of ELI Eco Technologies, Inc. 1990. Presentation at the Thermal Gas Phase Reduction of Organic Hazardous Wastes in Aqueous Matrices. USEPA Second Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies: Domestic and International. EPA/540/2-90/010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Develop­ ment, Cincinnati, Ohio. Hand, T.D., A.W. Ford, P.G. Malone, D.W. Thompson, and R.b. Mercer. 1978. A Feasibility Study of Response Techniques for Discharges of Hazardous Chemicals that Sink. CG-D-56-78, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station. Prepared for: U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C. Hazardous Materials Control Research. Institute. 1988. Superfund ‘88 - Proceedings Conference, Washington, DC. HMCRI, Silver Spring, Maryland. Helz, G. R. and R. J. Hugget. Herbich, 1987. Pennsylvania Academy of Science Publication. of the 9th National pp. 270-297. John B., and Brahme, Shashikant B. 1991. Literature Review and Technical Evaluation of Sediment Resuspension During Dredging. Contract Report HL-91-1. Prepared by Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas for the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. R. J. and M. E. Bender. 1980. Kepone in the James River. Technology. Volume 14/8:918-923. Environmental Science and Huggett, Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute (HMCRI). 1989. Superfund ‘89 - Proceedings National Conference, Washington, DC. HMCRI, Silver Spring, Maryland. of the 10th R-2 International Joint Commission, Great Lakes Regional Office. 1988a. Options for the Remediation of Contaminated Sediments in the Great Lakes. Report from Sediment Subcommittee and its Remedial Options Work Group, Windsor, Ontario. International Joint Commission, Great Lakes Regional Office. Contaminated Sediment Problems in the Great Lakes. Assessment Work Group, Windsor, Ontario. Jafvert, 1988b. Procedures for the Assessment of Report from Sediment Subcommittee and its CT., and Rogers, J.E. 1991. 8iological Remediation of Contaminated Sediments with Special Emphasis on the Great Lakes. EPA/600/9-91 /OOl . Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA. 1989. Thermal Treatment Technologies for Hazardous Waste Remediation. Johnson, N., and M. Cosmos. Pollution Engineering. Klein. 1982. James River Dredging Demonstration Corps of Engineers, Norfolk, Virginia. A. F. and F. J. Roethel. Pollution Control. January. in Sediments Contaminated with Kepone. U.S. Army Lechich, 1988. Marine Disposal P. 93 - 99. of Stabilized Metal Processing Waste. J. Water Luand, J. C. S., and K. Y. Chen. 1977. Migration Polluted SurficiaJ Sediments. Environmental of Trace Metals in Inter-faces of Seawater Science and Technology. 1 1:174-l 81. and 1987. Contaminant Problems and Management Majumdar, S. K., L. W. Hall, Jr., and H. M. Austin. Pennsylvania Academy of Science Publication. Living Chesapeake 8a y Resources. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. Investigation Edward, New York. of Conditions Associated with the Removal Fort Edward Dam. of Fort Means, J. C., S. G. Wood, J. J. Hassett, and W. L. Banwart. 1980. Sorption of Polynuclear Hydrocarbons by Sediments and Soils. Science and Technology. 14:1524-l 528. Meritt, McCoy F. 1976. Standard Inc. Handbook 1989. for Civil Engineers. The Hazardous McGraw-Hill Aromatic Book Co., New York, NY. Volume 7, Issue 6. and Associates, Waste Consultant. McLellan, T.N., Hairs, R.N., Hayes, Donald F., and Raymond, Gene 1. 1989. Field Studies of Sediment Technical Report HL-89-9, U.S. Army Engineer Resuspension Characteristics of Selected Dredges. Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Mudroch, Alena, and Macknight, Scott D. 1991. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. National Handbook of Techniques for Aquatic Sediment Sampling. Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments - Assessment Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 89-62967. Report from Committee Sediments. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 1983. Feasibility Study - Hudson River PC8 Site, New York. 01-2V84.0. Contract No. 68-01-6699. and Remediation. on Contaminated Marine NUS Corporation. Assignment USEPA Work R-3 Parametrix, Inc. undated. Standards for Confined Documentation, Bellevue, Washington. Richardson, T. et al. 1982. Pump. T.R. HL-82-8, Roethel, Disposal of Contaminated Sediments. Development Pumping Performance and Turbidity Generation of Model 600/100 Pneuma U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Residues F. J. et al. 1990. Mobility of Dioxins and Furans Associated with Stabilized Incineration in the Marine Environment. Proc. of the 16’h Annual RREL Hazardous Waste Symposium. Science Applications International Corporation (SAICI. 1985. Removal and Mitigation of Contaminated Sediments. Prepared under Contract 68-03-3113 to U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Waste Engineering Research and Development, McLean, Virginia. Stinson, M. K., and S. Sawyer. 1988. In Situ Treatment of PC&Contaminated Proceedings of the 9th National Conference, Washington, DC. HMCRI, J., J. Ball, E. Brick, S. Hausmann, G. Pilarski, and 8. Sopcich. Subcommittee on Determination of Dredged Material Suitability Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin. Soils. Superfund’ Silver Springs, Maryland. Sullivan, 1985. Report of the Technical for In-Water Disposal. Wisconsin Sullivan, J. and A. Bixby. 1989. A Citizen’s Guide: Cleaning up Contaminated Sediment. provided by the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, Lake Michigan Federation. M. F., H. F. Stroo, and G. Brubaker. Engineering. 1989. Biological Treatment of Hazardous Support Torpy, Waste. Pollution U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Ecological Evaiuation of Proposed Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material into Navigable Water. Interim Guidance for Implementation of Section 404(bI(l) of Public Law 92-500 (Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972). Miscellaneous Paper D-76-l 7. Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. implementation Manual for Section 103 of Public Law 92-532 (Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 19721. Document 1-EZ. Environmental Effects Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1985. Management Strategy for Disposal Contaminant Testing and Controls. Miscellaneous Paper D-85-l. Vicksburg, Mississippi. of Dredged Material: Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987a. Confined Disposal of Dredged Material. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC. EM 111 O-2-5027. U.S. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. 1987b. Environmental Effects of Dredging - Technical Notes. Engineering Considerations for Capping Subaqueous Dredged Material Deposits - Background and Preliminary Planning. USAEWES, Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, Mississippi. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1990. Acushnet River Estuary Engineering Feasibility Study of Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal Alternatives. Report #12. New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project. USEPA. 1977. Guidelines for the Pollutional Classification of Great Lakes Harbor Sediment. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, Chicago, IL. U.S. R-4 USEPA. 1978. Environmental Pathways of Selected Chemicals in Fresh Water Systems. Part 2. Laboratory Studies. EPA/600/7-781074. Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, Georgia. 1980. Sediments of Southern Lake Huron. EPA/600/3-80/080. Wastes. SW-872. Office of Solid USEPA. USEPA. 1982. Guide to Disposal of Chemicelly Stabilized 8nd Solidified Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. 1985a. Removal and Mitigation of Contaminanted Sediments. Applications International Corporation for Hazardous Waste Cincinnati, Ohio. 1985b. Emergency Handbook: Remedial Action at Waste Disposal Sites. and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. Manual. USEPA. Draft Report Prepared by Science Engineering Research Laboratory, USEPA. EPA/625/6-851006. Office of USEPA. 1985c. Remedial Action Costing Procedures and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. EPA/600/8-871049. Office of Emergency USEPA. 1986a. Handbook for St8bilization/Soiidification of Hazardous Hazardous Waste Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. Wastes. EPAi540/2-86/001. Assessment of Selected USEPA. 1986b. PCB Sediment Decontamination - Technical/Economic Alternative Treatments. EPA/600/2-86/112. Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati, OH. USEPA. 1986c. Test Methods for Evaluating and Emergency Response, Washington, Solid Waste. DC. SW-846. Third Edition. Laboratory, Office of Solid Waste USEPA. 1986d. Mobile Treatment Technologies for Superfund Wastes. Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C. EPA/540/2-86/003(f). Office of USEPA. 1987a. A Compendium of Technologies Used in the Treetment of Hazardous EPA/625/8-87/014. Center for Environmental Research Information, Cincinnati, Wastes. Ohio. USEPA. 1987b. Handbook: Responding to Discharges of Sinking H8zardous Substances. EPA/540/2-87/001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, HWERL, Cincinnati, Ohio and Environ­ mental Technology Branch, Washington, DC. EPA/905/9-88/002 and Standards, Washington, USEPA. 1987c. An Overview of Sediment Quality in the United States. (PB88-2513841. Office of Water and Office of Water Regulations USEPA. 1988a. Guidance for Conducting Interim Final. EPA/540/G-89/004. DC. Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. USEPA. 1988b. Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA Soils and Sludges. EPA/540/2-88/004. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. 1988c. Glossary of Environmental Affairs, Washington, DC. Terms and Acronym List. OPA-87-017. Office of Public USEPA. R-5 USEPA. 1989a. Guide to Treatment Technologies for Hazardous Wastes at Superfund Sites. Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology Demonstration, EPA/540/-89/052. DC., and Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio. 1989b. CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual. EPA/540/G-89/009. Office of Emergency and Remedial Emergency Response, Washington, D.C. 1989c. tnnovative Technology: Glycolate and Emergency Response, Cincinnati, Ohio. Dehalogenation. Washington, USEPA. Part 1, EPA/540/G-89/006 and Part 2, Response and Office of Solid Waste and USEPA. Directive 9200.5-2546s. Solid Waste USEPA. 1989d. innovative Technology: ln Situ Vitrification. Emergency Response, Cincinnati, Ohio. 1989e. Innovative Technology: Waste and Emergency Response, Directive 9200.5-251 FS. Solid Waste and USEPA. Slurry-Phase Biodegradation. Cincinnati, Ohio. Directive 9200.5-252FS. Solid USEPA. 1989f. Marine and Estuarine Protection Programs and Activities. Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC. EPA/503/9-89/002. Office of USEPA. 19898. Review of Removal, Containment, and Treatment Technologies for Remediation of Contaminated Sediment in the Great Lakes. Draft Report prepared by Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Corp of Engineers, Vicksburg, Missouri. 1989h. The Superfund Innovative EPA/540/5-89/013. Risk Reduction Washington, DC. Technology Engineering Evaluation Program: Technology Profiles. Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, USEPA. USEPA. 1989i. Superfund Treatabifity Clearinghouse Abstract. Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. 1989j. Sediment Washington, DC. Classification Methods Compendium. EPA/540/2-89JOOl. Office of USEPA. Watershed Protection Division, USEPA. 1989k. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies under CERCLA. Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. EPA/540/2-89/058. Office of USEPA. 1990a. Managing Contaminated Sediments: EPA Decision-Making Processes. EPA/506/6-90/002. Sediment Oversight Technical Committee, Office of Water Standards, Washington, DC. 1990b. Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated National Program Office, Chicago, Illinois. Sediments iARCSl Regulations and USEPA. Work Plan. Great Lakes USEPA. 199Oc. Engineering Bulletin - Slurry Biodegradation. EPA/54012-901016. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC, and Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio. R-6 USEPA. 1990d. Engineering Bulletin - Soi/ Washing Treatment. EPA/540/2-90/017. Office of DC, and Office of Research and Development, Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, Cincinnati, Ohio. 1990e. Guidance Directive 9355.4-01. on Remedial Actions for Superfund Sites with PC0 Contamination. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. Report: DC. FY 1989. EPA/540/8-90/006. Office of Emergency OSWER USEPA. USEPA. 1990f. ROD Annual Response, Washington, and Remedial USEPA. 1990s. The Superfund Innovative Technology Program. Progress and Accomplishments, Fiscal Year 1989. Office of Research and Development and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. 1990h. Reduction Treatment Technology Bulletin - Chemical Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. Dehaiogenation Treatment: APEG. Risk USEPA. USEPA. 199Oi. Treatment Technology Bulletin - Low Temperature Thermal Desorption. Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC, and Office of Research Cincinnati, Ohio. 199Oj. Treatment Technology Bulletin - Mobi/e/Transportable Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. 1990k. Cincinnati, Treatment Ohio. Technology Bulletin - Soil Washing. Incineration. Office of and Development, USEPA. Risk Reduction USEPA. Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, USEPA. 19901. Treatment Edison, NJ. Technology Bulletin - Solvent Extraction. Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, USEPA. 1990m. Second Forum on Innovative EPA/540/2-89/010. 1990n. Treatment Technology Waste and Emergency Response, Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies. USEPA. Bulletin: Low-Temperature Washington, DC. Thermal Desorption. Office of Solid Workshop on Innovative Technologies for Treatment of Contaminated Sediments - June USEPA. 19900. 13- 14, 1990. Summary Report. EPA/600/2-90/054. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. USEPA. 1991. Handbook - Remediation of Contaminated Research and Development, Washington, DC. USEPA. Sediment 1992. Washington, DC, Classification Methods Sediments. EPA/625/6-91/028. Office of Compendium. EPA/823-R-92-006. Office of Water, Verschueren, K. 1983. Handbook of Environmental Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York. Yalin, M. S. 1977. Mechanisms of Sediment Data on Organic Chemicals. Second Edition. Transport. Second Edition, Pergamen Press. R-7 APPENDIX A CASE STUDIES APPENDIX A CASE STUDIES SELECTION AND EVALUATION SUPERFUND PROJECT OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE NEW BEDFORD HARBOR The New Bedford Harbor Superfund Buzzards Bay. Industrial process wastes site is located in southeast containing Massachusetts at the head of PCBs were discharged into the Harbor between ranging from copper, 1940 and late 1970s. below Later studies showed ppm. PCB concentrations in the marine sediments 1 ppm to over 100,000 The sediment also contained heavy metals (cadmium, 1988). and lead) from less than 1 ppm to as high as 5,000 ppm (Allen and Ikalainen, area has been closed to all fishing. Since 1979 the Sediment Characterization The New Bedford Harbor feasibility hot spot, the Acushnet study is divided into three geographical study areas: the The River Estuary, and the lower harbor and upper Buzzards Bay (Figure A-1). 4 acres on the western to 100,000 bank of Acushnet River. hot spot is an area of approximately of sediments The PCB content copper, and ranges in this area varies from 4,000 ppm. ppm while the metals (cadmium, volume of the contaminated lead) from less than 1 to 4,000 between 10,000 to 15,000 The potential sediment cu yd. The Acushnet potential yd. River Estuary area, excluding requiring treatment the hot spot, is approximately 200 acres. to 1,200,000 The cu volume of sediment for this area varies from 600,000 Physical characterization tests showed that sediments from the hot spot and Acushnet River Estuary were predominantly 200 mesh. organic silts and marine clays, 40 to 80 percent of which were finer than of the sediment content was between 1.71 to 14.03 percent with an The organic carbon content The moisture average of 8.94 percent. of the sediment ranged from 30 to 60 percent. A-l Figure A-1. Feasibility Study areas for New Bedford Harbor site. Source: Allen and Ikalainen, 1988. A-2 The lower harbor area’s (approximately PCB content sediments varied from below detection limit 750 acres) sediments to over 100 ppm. 3,000 were less contaminated Metal ppm. concentrations The potential -- the in the ranged from below detection requiring treatment limit to approximately volume of the sediment sediment ranged from 7,000 to 1,500,OOO cu yd. The physical nature of the is predominantly silty sands. Dredaina Method Selection The USACE, at the request of EPA, conducted of dredging and to select disposal alternatives an engineering study to evaluate sediments the feasibility for the contaminated at this site. The technical literature feasibility reviews, approach for the engineering studies, and analytical alternatives feasibility study (EFS) included field data collection, modeling techniques material to assess the disposal. This laboratory and numerical for dredging and to develop conceptual and dredged approach was built around the contaminant Strategy included transport, for Disposal baseline of Dredged Material.” geotechnical testing and controls presented Technical investigations, and engineering hydrodynamics, in the USACE “Management issues addressed sediment by the EFS and mapping, resuspension contaminant releases to surface and groundwater, and cost estimates. dredged material confinement in disposal areas, effluent treatment, The results of the EFS were presented detailed 1990). results of field investigations, laboratory in a series of 12 reports. studies, and engineering Reports analyses 1 to 11 presented (Averett and Otis, In the report, taminated suggested sediments sediment monitoring USACE recommended that a cutterhead ability to minimize dredge be used for removing con­ based on the cutterhead’s sediment resuspension. and filled with USACE also contaminated the CDF and CAD cells that were constructed study. during the pilot-scale USACE also conducted Ikalainen, as follows: l l l a bench-scale solidification/stabilization treatability study (Allen and were tested 19881 using the New Bedford Harbor sediment. Three stabilization technologies Portland Portland cement cement along with Firmex - a proprietary Corporation’s FMS silicate A-3 additive Silicate Technology additive The sediments the study leachability immobilized bench-scale show studied contained two levels of PCBs -- 7,500 reduced reduced PCB leachability significantly, but and 2,167 by factors copper ppm. The results of of 10 to 100. and nickel were The not The that all three processes and zinc were of cadmium -- their leachability treatability was increased by factors on sediment of 3 to 27 and 7 to 41, respectively. samples using distilled-deionized tests were performed water. ABB Environmental completed involved feasibility (formerly E.C. Jordan, study in July Eastern Region/C-E 1989. In this study, Environmental), several under EPA, were the hot spot feasibility with different responsibilities. organizations The attached organization chart (Figure A-2) shows the major study IFS) components and information flow for New Bedford Harbor. In the FS document, After the initial screening, the detailed evaluation, 56 treatment 14 technologies technologies (Table A-l 1 were identified for initial screening. Following (Table A-2) were retained for detailed evaluation. (Table A-3) were retained for bench-scale testing. six technologies Because of the PCB and metal content of the sediment, several permits were needed to perform these bench-scale tests. Although Massachusetts does not regulate PCBs as RCRA hazardous waste, both TSCA and RCRA regulations metal content. permits) elected apply to the New Bedford Harbor sediment the CF Systems Corporation study program. because of the heavy (who lacked TSCA R&D studies were As a result of these requirements, not to participate in this treatability The bench-scale delayed six months while the selected vendors applied for the TSCA permits. Only four technologies: treatment, process), because considered advanced and vitrification solvent extraction, alkali metal dechlorination, 1990). Only solvent advanced extraction biological (B.E.S.T.TM were tested (ABB Journal, technology. was retained as a viable treatment of poor recoveries further biological of reagent Alkali metal dechlorination solids. The vitrification at the pilot-scale. process development sediments. was not retained process was not and sediment because of lack of demonstrated treatment performance The results of the will be necessary study showed that considerable before this technology can be used for treating PCB-contaminated EPA eventually balance of effectiveness, official selected incineration reliability, as the best alternative (for the hot spots) because of the The USEPA’s 1990. The overall availability, cost, and level of PCB destruction. the remedy was signed in April Record of Decision IROD) documenting remedial option process is summarized in Figure A-3. A-4 Hyemaual. Inc. Fooa Chnm Model 11 ! I I j \ , I L! I ABE Envtronmontrl Yvamavnamlc 6 ‘ransoon t.loacI Seulmcnr ! Public Hcattn h Envrmnmcntal Risk Assessment ABE Envtmnmentrl I I I I I US Armv Corns ot j Engmccrr cU.S ACE3 I / I A j Fearlallifv l not h any soot l EstuatvrLowcr S!udrcs Harbor I r ( ABBEnvironmentrl I I Engrnccrrng SIuav i feasrthtv ma of Oreagmg .- t %atmtnt Tecttnoro~ ) Bencn-Scale Evlruatxons ) Drraqed Malerlar I Allemarrves b ; Oisposar I ! I I I ’ b ! U.S. ACE NEOb’fES ABB Envwonmcntal U.S. EPA Sile Pmgram I Figure A-2. Major FeasibMy Study cxmponenls and hformatbn flow for New Bedford Harbor site. Source: ABE Environmental Journal. 1990. A-5 TABLE A-I. IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES - FOR NEW BEDFORD HARBOR to New Bedford Harbor Do not consider Technology Bioloaical 1 2 2 3 5 Advanced biological methods Aerobic biological methods Anaerobic biological methods Composting Land spreading Applicable to sediment matrix Applicable to water matrix Applicable for PCB treatment Applicable for metals T Applicable Sediment Water support Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No X X X X Phvsical 6 Air stripping 7 Soil aeration 8 Carbon adsorption 9 Flocculation/precipitation 10 Evaporation 1 1 Centrifugation 12 Extraction 13 Filtration 14 Solidification 15 Granular media filtration 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 In situ adsorption Ion exchange Molten glass Steam stripping Supercritical extraction Vitrification Particle radiation Microwave plasma Crystallization No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes No No No No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes No No NO X X No Yes Yes No Yes No No No Yes No No No No No Yes Yes No X X X X X X X 25 DialysisKlectrodialysis 26 Distillation 27 Resin adsorption 28 Reverse osmosis 29 Ultrafiltration X A-6 TABLE A-l (continued) Applicable Applicable to sediment matrix Yes No Applicable to water matrix No No Applicable for PCB treatment No No Applicable for metals removal Yes No to New Bedford Harbor Do not consider Technology 30 Acid leaching 31 Catalysis Chemical 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Alkali metal dechlorination Alkaline chlorination Catalytic dehydrochlorination Electrolytic oxidation Hydrolysis Chemical immobilization Neutralization Oxidation/hydrogen peroxide Ozonation Polymerization Ultraviolet photolysis Sediment X Water Support X Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No Yes No No Yes No No No . Yes No Yes No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No Yes No No No No No X X X X X X X X X X X Thermal 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Electric reactors Fluidized bed reactors Fuel blending Industrial boilers Infrared incineration In-situ thermal destruction Liquid injection incineration Molten salt Multiple hearth incineration Plasma arc incineration Pyrolysis processes Rotary kiln incineration Wet air oxidation Supercritical water oxidation Allen and Ikalainen, 1988. Yes Yes No No Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Source: A-7 TABLE A-2. TREATMENT Effectiveness TECHNOLOGIES RETAINED FOR DETAILED EVALUATION Technology 1 Advanced methods 2 Solvent biological Effective for treatment of these compounds PCBs Feasibility for use in these matrices Sediment, conditions aerobic Demonstrated reliability Demonstrated on pilot scale for PCBs Demonstrated on pilot scale for PCBs Data needs Further information on effectiveness, feasibility, and costs. Bench-scale tests to prove feasibility, effectiveness, and cost information. Combine with solvent extraction. extraction PCBs Sediment, limited success in high fines material Aqueous slurries streams or 3 Supercritical extraction PCBs Demonstrated on pilot scale for hazardous wastes. Not suitable for high solids at supercritical conditions Demonstrated on full scale for a variety of soils and sediments Demonstration on pilot scale for soils and sediments Demonstrated on pilot scale for PCBs in soils 4 Solidification PCBs, metals Sediments, ash Bench-scale tests to determine proper applications, effectiveness, costs. Bench-scale tests to determine feasibility, cost data. Bench-scale tests to determine effectiveness and feasibility cost data. Further information costs. on 5 Vitrification PCBs, metals Low moisture sediments, limited volumes Low moisture sediments 6 Alkali metal dechlorination PCBs 7 Fluidized bed reactors PCBs Sediments Demonstrated on full sclae for PCBs in sediments A-8 TABLE A-2 (continued) Effectiveness Technology Effective for treatment of these compounds PCBs Feasibility for use in these matrices Sediments Demonstrated reliability Demonstrated on full scale for PCBs in sediments Demonstrated on full scale for PCBs in sediments Demonstrated for waste streams containing PCBs Demonstrated on full scale with PCBs and other compounds Demonstrated on full scale for metals and particulate removal Demonstrated on full scale for metals and particulate removal Demonstrated for specialized use on specific compounds Data needs 8 Infrared incineration Further information costs. Further information costs. on 9 Rotary kiln incineration PCBs Sediments on 10 Supercritical oxidation water PCBs Slurry of sediment/water Further information on effectiveness, feasibility, and costs. Bench-scale testing evaluate efficiency. Data on costs. to 11 Carbon absorption PCBs Aqueous streams, low suspended solids Aqueous streams, suspended solids high 12 Flocculation/precipitation/ coagulation PCBs, metals Bench-scale testing to determine operating parameters. Data on costs. Bench-scale testing to determine operating parameters. Data on costs. Determine if effective for PCBs. Cost data. 13 Ion exchange Metals Aqueous streams, low suspended solids 14 Resin absorption PCBs, metals Aqueous streams, low suspended solids Source: Allen and Ikalainen, 1988. A-9 II TABLE A-3. TECHNOLOGIES FOR ABB ENVIRONMENTAL BENCH TEST PROGRAM Description IITechnology Solvent extraction (B.E.S.TaTM process) Vendor Resources Conservation Bellevue, Washington Co. B.E.S.T.TM process uses inverse miscibility properties of aliphatic amines (e.g., triethylamine) to separate oils (PCBsI and organic9 from sludges and contaminated soils. KPEG process uses an alkaline reagent consisting of potassium hydroxide in polyethylene glycol (KPEG). KPEG reagent mixed with contaminated material and heated to 150° to dechlorinate PCBs. Battelle process applies an electric current to electrodes inserted in contaminated material which is heated to > 36OOOF. Material converted to molten state; organics (PCBsl are bvrolvzed. Microorganisms from New Bedford harbor are selectively cultivated in a nutrient-rich medium, acclimated to biphenyl, then exposed to PCB-sediments from New Bedford Harbor. Gases (typically carbon dioxide and propane) are heated and compressed to the critical point where they exhibit the diffusivity characteristics of a gas and the solvency of a liquid. Alkali metal dechlorination {KPEG) Galson Research Corporation East Syracuse, New York Vitrification (modified in situ) Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richmand, Washington Advanced treatment biological Radian Corporation, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Supercritical fluid extraction (propane) CF System Corporation Waltham, Massachusetts Source: II-------Allen and Ikalainen. 1988. A-10 ASH SOLIDIFICATIOEI I TREATED ASH STOKEll IN C:Ilt­ ---- -- r-- &WIN: ABB Journal, 19QD. CLEAN WATER TO HARBOR CLEAN AIR COVERING OF ASt-I Figure A-3. U.S. EPA’s selected remedy at New Bedford Harbor site. A-11 KEPONE IN THE JAMES RIVER. HOPEWELL, VIRGINIA information contained at the James River case study was obtained International [National Corporation primarily from the report paper prepared by Science Applications “Kepone and the James River’ (SAIC, 1985) and Robert J. Huggett’s 19891. Research Council, The James River originates in an easterly direction river is unnavigable Richmond navigational flows through in the Allegheny Mountains of Western Virginia and flows generally to Chesapeake Bay. The Between A Richmond and Hopewell (south of Richmond) above Richmond. Beyond the city of Richmond, of industries are located the river is navigable. and Hopewell, channel a large number on either banks of the river. 7-8 m deep is maintained to permit river traffic. The James River in this area by a sandy/silty are diverse and at an average of 200 cu mlsec. Both fresh and salt water This tidal section species inhabit of the river is characterized resources bottom. productive. the river, and fishery Beyond the Richmond-Hopewell area the only major populated Portsmouth, area along the downstream river is at the river’s mouth -- Newport News, Hampton, and Norfolk. Between 1966 and 1975, Allied Life and Science Company manufactured The State of Virginia Department kepone, a pesticide for ant and roach control. of Health closed the kepone manufacturing from kepone poisoning. the HopewelUJames was released In response River Kepone plant in July 1975 after finding that many workers were suffering to requests by the governors Mitigation principally Feasibility Project. of Virginia and Maryland, The study showed EPA initiated that kepone to the environment from four sources: l Atmospheric releases from drying and bagging operations. discharges. discharges. 0 a 0 Routine daily wastewater Releases to sanitary sewers from spills and intentional Bulk liquid and solid discharges to land around Hopewell. The wastewater oysters and sewer discharges elevated were the primary levels of kepone. sources of kepone. Analyses of and fishes from the river showed It was estimated 4.4 to 8.4~10’ that between kg were 1.2 to 1 .7x106 kg of kepone had entered into the environment, found in the river sediments. of kepone had occurred. Because of its highly refractory of which nature, no significant natural degradation A-12 The bottom sediments The main factors currents controlling of the James River were contaminated the concentrations Kepone associates appeared with kepone to varying degrees. and the to be made up of the sediments of the overlying water. with the organic portion of the bottom sediments. sediments in the channel of the river in the greatly. The distributions of the pesticide in the top two cm of bottom in 1977 and 1979 are shown vicinity Analyses by newly continued of the maximum of sediment deposited turbidity in Figure A-4. In 1977 the highest concentrations were found diminished diluted zone. By 1979, surface sediment concentrations depths showed that kepone was becoming away or decomposing. cores at varying material and buried rather than being transported This trend has since then, but in areas where the sedimentation Where the sedimentation 1987). rate is low, kepone is most concentrated of kepone increases with near the surface. rates are high, concentrations is reflected depth (Helz, and Huggett, tissues of crabs and oysters This reduction in the residue concentrations in edible (Figure A-5). The data are interesting the oysters accumulate in view of the fact crabs obtain kepone both from solution and most of their kepone from food whereas suspended particles. Conventional action alternatives Laboratories and nonconventional for the HopewelVJames nonconventional of dredging techniques were considered in the evaluation Battelle Pacific of remedial Northwest evaluated River kepone contamination. techniques reviewed remediation and potential while USACE (Norfolkdistrictl other potential techniques methods disposal sites along the river. The nonconventional reviewed by Battelle were as follows: 0 Dredged material fixation. Four fixation agents were evaluated: considered physical silicate base, organic the agent’s ability to base, sulfur base, and asphalt base. isolate the contaminant and its ability All evaluations to maintain integrity. 0 Elutriate, techniques chlorine adsorption. leachate, and/or the dredged material slurry treatment. Seven treatment were evaluated: dioxide treatment, photochemical ozonation, degradation, catalytic amine photosensitization, reduction, and carbon radiation, l Two in situ treatments were selected: sorbents and polymer films (for laboratory testing). A-13 7 o-2 i 1 ! I 0.1 7 PPm 1 I i 140 I20 IO0 80 60 40 20 DISTANCE UPSTREAM 6 -LO hm Figure A-4. Kepone in the top 2 cm of channel bottom sediment from the James River system. Source: Huggett and Bender, 1980. A-14 Yearly Mean of James River Kepone Residues l--~X-8he Crab a’) (0 ,0.2 -Oysters) - 0.1 76 77 70 79 00 a-1 Year 02 03 84 85 0 Figure A-5. Kepone concentrations in blue crabs and oysters. Source: Majurdar, Hall, Austin, 1987. A-15 l Biological Examination testing. treatment appeared to offer no significant was confined mitigation of kepone in the river. of this technique to literature review and limited laboratory Tables A-4 and A-5 summarize these studies. It was concluded (Norfolk) performed that none of these options was appropriate to remediate this site. USACE three tasks for this project: l Evaluation Investigation of all potential dredging techniques. kepone inflows from Hopewell area 0 of conventional means for checking into the James River system. 0 Preliminary estimates for removing kepone from the lower James River by dredging. Alternate Dredaina Technoloav USACE evaluated After further several dredging technologies of both domestic and Japanese manufacturers. dredged which has been used in the James River. The objectives containment the overboard of the disposal Table study it was decided to test the cutterhead River for decades, and the dustpan dredge currently of this test were to minimize contaminated sediment dredge-induced being used in the Mississippi and achieve maximum turbidity at or near in-place density. During this demonstration, areas were monitored A-6 summarizes for the release of kepone in conjunction of this study. USACE’s with state and federal agencies. data showed the results water monitoring that dissolved operations to ACE, are kepone levels for the cutterhead averaged more than three times the levels during dustpan According operation to USACE, the higher levels, according (11 .7 ppt and 3.2 ppt, respectively). perhaps due to the fact that cutterhead moved by the dustpan both remained disposal disposal areas. within dredge. accepted removed more than five times the amount of material in contaminant and turbidity levels, Although there were elevations limits and the elevations that the dredging and without were short-term be about and confined $3/cu yd. effects. to designated The overboard It was estimated cost would proved to be both economical serious environmental Alternatives for Checkina Kepone Inflows The evaluation development the Gravelly of alternatives for controlling shown kepone flows from the Hopewell area involved the of 18 engineering options in Table A-7. Because of the low levels of kepone in 6 should not be considered only alternatives further. Run area, it was concluded analyses involving that options 1 through Based on in-depth costs and levels of contamination A-16 8, 14, and Approach Spoil fixation Alternative Silicate bases Results High pH solubilizes kepone Estimated costs $1 O-l 5/yd3 Comments Promising to date; the Japanese firm, Takenaka, feels their process can be further refined for kepone and are still making modifications. Only operational large scale inplace fixation technology presently available. Por Rok Epoxy sealant may be production limited; results slightly more consistent; requires greater than or equal to 50% solids. Dowell M 179 - Effective for percolation control. Molten sulfur-effective but serious environmental impacts could result. Sulfur is readily available, has good effectiveness, and requires greater than or equal to 50% solids. Not suffiently developed. Organic bases Yields 1O-fold reduction in kepone levels $1 2.53/ft3 fixed Resists leaching; poor response to elutriate test Sulfur bases Yields 1O-fold reduction in kepone leachate levels Not determined $1 .30/ft3 fixed Elutriate treatment Biological degradation Promising stains of fungi and mold Degradation occurs at exposed surfaces Not determined $0.805/lb for ethylenediamine plusS500/acre application costs yield treatment at $4,00O/acre in treating top 1 inch of soil Amine photosensitization Inappropriate on dredged soils, but potential for use on surface soils. A-17 TABLE A-4 (continued) Approach Elutriate treatment (continued) Alternative UV and ozone Results Good decompensation costs $433,00O/MGD treated on small plant (capital cost) ($0.23/l ,000 gal treated (O&M costs/yr) (For 50 MGD plant, capital costs are $7.9 million and O&M costs are $2.2 million/yr) SO.lO0.20/yd3 preliminary) Not determined Not determined $50.4 million - capital; $262,924 O&M/yd; based on a 50 MGD plant $3.06 x 106, 50 MGD system (capital cost) Comments Ultrox (Westgate) Effective for solutions. Does not include clarification if needed. Gamma radiation Electron beam radiation Adsorption Dechlorinates, byproducts unidentified Can infer from PCB work only Carbon and synthetic resins Temporary filtration/carbon adsorption system Requires further testing. Requires direct testing. Effective, does not destroy; concentrate kepone. Calgon system does not include costs for piping or pumping as required to deliver or dispose of waters, or the cost of the settling impoundment. Final disposal would include incapsulation and backfilling over the entire sand and carbon beds to prevent future leachate contamination. Effective for bulk reduction; does not destroy kepone. Coagulation Removes particulate kepone $10.1 million - capital, $551,650 O&M/yr; based on 50 MGD plant A-18 TABLE A-4 (continued) Approach In-situ processes Alternative Retrievable solvents Results Specific sorbents capable of removal so.90/ft3 costs Comments Effective but requires incineration and regeneration production media not currently commercially available. Requires further study. of Coal Polymer films Initial data suggests advantages no S0.0321ft3 so.o44/ft3 Holding action only needed perforation may render ineffective Intermediate between coal and retrievable sorbents Effectiveness questioned due to requirements. Applicable only to embayments. Effective -- will retard availability but not remove kepone. In all in situ processes, environmental impacts require serious consideration. Activated carbon S0.52/ft3 Source: Brossman, et al., 1978. A-19 TABLE A-5. POTENTIAL BIOLOGIC APPROACHES In situ TO THE MIGRATION OF KEPONE IN THE JAMES RIVER SYSTEM Secondary transport Sediment Not feasible. Organism Higher plants (e.g., water hyacinth) Water Leaf surfaces may accumulate kepone. However, this is not a practical alternative. Not known to metabolize kepone. Sediment Roots not known to accumulate similar compounds. Not feasible (roots normally free floating). Not known to metabolize kepone. The sediments of Bailey Bay which are highly anaerobic and reducing will not permit the growth of fungi which are aerobic. Anaerobes are not likely to be of any value. Water Surface area/volume required is prohibitive. Fungi Because of low kepone concentration in water, the use of possible aerobic fungi which degrade kepone is not feasible. Aerobic fungi would require large shallow ponds for degradation. May be necessary to achieve 100% degradation. Accumulation of kepone by fungi used as biologic filters is possible. Bacteria used as biologic filters is possible. Aerobes necessary achieve 100% degradation. to Not feasible. Bacteria Because of low kepone concentration effective degradation or accumulation may not be possible while the organisms can effectively accumulate kepone many times, quantitatively the amounts removed would be small compared to current environmental levels. Anaerobes show best potential for dechlorination of kepone in Bailey Bay sediments but no species have been identified. Anaerobic digesters show potential for optimization of degradation. A-20 TABLE A-5 (continued) In situ Organism Algae Water Low kepone concentration reduces effectiveness of bioaccumulation while the organism can effectively accumulate kepone many times. Quantitatively the amounts removed would be small compared to current environmental levels. Sediment Not feasible (though algae can accumulate carbohydrates anaerobically). Water Secondary transport Sediment Not feasible. Have shown excellent bioaccumulation of similar compounds. All of the above Because of the many interactions achieve maximal amelioration. The following (1) Anaerobes generalizations possible, it is not possible to predict how all four would relate in order to can be made: so that optimum degradation will be achieved. and sorbent must interact antagonisms (21 Normal organism Source: Brossman, et al., 1978 may decrease the possibilities of ameloriation. A-21 TABLE A-6. COMPARISON OF DREDGING MODES Average value for parameter Cutterhead 12.0 17.1 100.0 21.0 71.1 1,855.O 700.0 Parameter Resuspension Vacuum at head (mg/l above background) Dustpan 32.0 16.8 69.7 18.3 68.4 (inches Hg) Pressure (Ibs/sq in) Velocity Density Output (ftlsecl (Ibs/cu ft) (cu yds/dredging hour) hour) 1,163.0 300.0 Overall production Source: (cu yds/operating Klein, 1982. 17 were selected for final consideration. James River Altemativeq Table A-8 shows the treatment options for the James River. costs developed by Battelle and USACE, for various remedial The kepone levels in organisms and FDA action levels [National concluded in the James River in 1988 were found to be below the EPA 19891 and all fishing restrictions were lifted. It was unwise. Research Council, that any remedial action to remove kepone would be expensive however, restricts normal dredging operations. and environmentally This decision, PCBs IN THE HUDSON RIVER Information Conraminated PC8 Pollution John Mulligan, about the Hudson River site was obtained from Removal and Mitigation of Sediments (SAIC, 19851, a paper by Mark Brown (Brown, Research Council, 19881; John E. Sanders paper and a conversation York with of in fhe Upper Hudson River (National Malcolm Conservation, Pirmie, Albany, NY. 1989); NY and Richard F. Bopp of New Sate Dept. Environmental Albany, A-22 TABLE A-7. PROPOSED MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES KEPONE CONTAMINATION IN BAILEY CREEK, BAILEY BAY. AND GRAVELLY RUN SITES Alternative Number 1 FOR Proposed Action Dam and possible treatment plant at mouth of Gravelly including the 100 year flood level Dam mouth of Gravelly treatment Run exclude spillway Run; treat flows up to and 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 and divert flow to Bailey Creek for rip rap Seal contaminated flood plain areas of Gravelly Run; elevate stream channel, creek bed, construct control structure at mouth Relocate existing channel in Gravelly Run into a concrete channel or closed conduit; cover contaminated flood plain with 3 ft. minimum impervious cover Dredge new channel adjacent to existing channel of Gravelly Run; seal side slopes of new one and cover contaminated flood plain. Place flow control structure at mouth Dredge all contaminated Bailey Bay material in Gravelly Run and place spoil in disposal site 14 in up to and Dam and possible treatment plant at mouth of Bailey Creek: treat flows including the 100 year flood level Seal contaminated cohesive material; flood plain of Bailey Creek with 3 ft. minimum layer of native flow structure downstream to prevent seepage cover and seal Relocate existing channel in Bailey Creek into concrete conduit; contaminated flood plain-3 ft. minimum of impervious cover Dredge new channel in Bailey Creek adjacent to existing channel; seal side slopes of new one and cover contaminated flood plain. Place flow control structure at mouth Dredge all contaminated Bailey Bay material in Bailey Creek and place spoil in disposal site 14 in of upstream flows up to plant; diversion via the James River. This problem in polluted be Reduce flows and treatment needs via impounding and diversion 100 year flow level in Bailey Creek, above old sewage treatment overland pressure conduit to Chappel Creek or gravity conduit to alternative would be combined with another to solve the Kepone stream portion below old treatment plant 13 14 15 Dredge all contaminated material from all of Bailey Bay. The top 15 inches would dredged. Bailey Creek would be impounded and the spoil placed behind the dam Construct a 14,250 ft. levee across Bailey Bay from 1 mile east of City Point to Jordan Point and treat entire discharge from Gravelly Run, Bailey Creek, and Bailey Bay Construct dam near mouth of Bailey Creek; dredge all of Bailey Bay; place spoil behind Bailey Creek dam; construct dam at mouth of Gravelly Run and divert discharge to Bailey Creek; treatment facility at mouth of Bailey Creek to treat all effluent from the disposal area Construct levee from 1 mile east of City Point across Bailey Bay to Jordan Point; use confined area for maintenance dredging of James River; treat effluent from disposal area Construct levee from Jordan Point to east side of Bailey Creek: use confined area for disposal; dredge remainder of Bailey Bay, Bailey Creek, and Gravelly Run; proposed spoil site is number 14, judged to be the best Cover all contaminated areas of Bailey Bay, Bailey Creek, and Gravelly imoervious blanket: allow drainaae oatterns to develoo Run with 16 17 18 A-23 TABLE A-8. TREATMENT COST ESTIMATES FOR ALTERNATIVES ON THE JAMES RIVER costs Method Corks of Enaineers (COE)’ N/A 6.2~10’ 1.8-2.6 x 10’ 12.4 x 10’ 40.3x10° 26.6-53.1 x 10” $ $ $ $ $ $ 1.0 7.2 2.8-3.6 1.01 1.04 1.03-l x x x x x lo* 10’ 10’ lo* lo9 Without Dredging With Dredging Dredging with Oozer Dredge Molten Sulfur Stabilization TJK Fixation with Removal Elutriate Treatment - UV-ozone Elutriate Treatment - temporary filtration/carbon absorption UV-ozone for Sediments Battelle’ In situ Application In situ Application In situ Application N/A - Not applicable. l scheme $ $ $ $ $ .05 x lo@ of Retrievable Sorbents of Coal of Activated Carbon $ $ $ 6.2 x 10’ 2.2 x lo* 3.6 x 10” N/A N/A N/A The areas used by the COE for determined dredging those used by Battelle in determining non-conventional the cost ranking. Brossman, et. al., 1978 for maintaining alternative alternative costs were slightly different than costs. This difference does affect Source: USACE is responsible River is divided the waterborne traffic in the Hudson River. The Hudson Glenn and the into two sections: the upper Hudson which covers the 40-mile stretch reach between Albany Falls and the Federal Dam at Troy, and the lower Hudson -- 150-mile mouth of the river in the upper New York Harbor. between The General Electric Company (GE) owned and operated two capacitor During this period it is estimated manufacturing plants in Glenn Falls for 25 years (ending in 1977). about 500,000 that the plant discharged of Hudson River fish was pounds of PCBs into the Hudson River. Gross contamination Health advisories for fish consumption noted in the early 1970s. ban on fishing various from the lower river, and a complete Extensive sediments sampling by from the upper river have been in effect since the mid-l 970s. indicates that nearly two-thirds section between of the PCB-contaminated authorities in the upper Most of Hudson River are over a 40-mile this sediment large quantities had accumulated Fort Edward and the Federal Dam at Troy. behind the Fort Edward Dam. In 1973 the dam was removed allowing sediments to be transported A-24 down-river. Some of the sediments of the contaminated that had collected These exposed distribution percent along the edges of the river behind the dam became exposed sediments were classified as remnant River. deposits. as the river lowered. Table A-9 shows the contaminated of PCB-contaminated sediment in the Hudson As the data indicates, 26 to 33 of the total PCB mass is in the lower Hudson sediments. Sampling Department results, of the upper Hudson River sediments (NYSDEC) sediment was carried out by the New York State Using the sampling of 50 ppm of Environmental Conservation and other consultants. “hot spots” of PCB-contaminated criterion were identified. PCB concentrations or more were the primary were termed between “cold spots”. to define hot spots. Areas containing within less than 50 ppm of PCBs section of the river of the total Forty “hot spots” were identified These “hot spots” a 40-mile Roger Island and Mechanicsvilie. sediments covering contained 58 percent contaminated centration only 8 percent of the area (13.1 xl 0’ ft?. was 127 ppm. The average PCB con­ within the “hot spots” The mapping Action operations were done in 1978. In 1983 as part of the Superfund I Remedial of Master Plan, the areas were reexamined. was 504,000 This new study showed pounds. The majority that the total amount PCBs in the Hudson River sediment of the PCBs (95 percent) were The study also showed to the lower Hudson found in the top 0.5 m of the sediment and 99.91 percent in the top 1 meter. that the “hot spots” had not moved and did not contribute River. to the PCB’s transport Although PCBs are the major contaminants in the Hudson River sediments, lead, mercury, copper, cadmium, they also contain and nickel. Table elevated levels of toxic heavy metals, for example, A-10 shows originated sources. the heavy metal content Battery of some selected Plant, the Hercules sediments. Chemical These heavy metals most likely lnow CIBA-Geigy) plant, or other from the Marathon Large lead discharges from the Hercules plant occurred at the same time as PCB discharges from the GE plants. Cleanup of the contaminated Agreement, wastewater capacitor GE stopped treatment discharging facilities area began in several phases. PCBs into the River on July manufacturing As a result of the 1976 Settlement 1, 1977. plants They also constructed PCBs in the at the capacitor and replaced with alkyl phthalates. A-25 The Department clean-up floods. operations of Transportation responsible for routine channel maintenance exposed undertook two at Fort Edward to mitigate remnant river bank deposits (Figure A-61 by TABLE A-9. DISTRlBUTlON Location Remnant deposits Upper Hudson River sediments Hot spots Cold areas Subtotal Lower Hudson River sediments TOTAL Source: NUS Corporation, 1983. OF PCBs IN THE HUDSON RIVER PCB mass estimates (pounds) - 140,000 47,000 120,000 290,000 170,000 - 180,000 - 350,000 169,000 506,000 - 659,000 TABLE A-10. Sample Fort Edward Dam Remnant Area 3A Area 4 Area 5 Source: deposits HEAVY METAL CONTENT OF SELECTED UPRIVER SEDIMENTS Lead 234-3630 Cadmium 14-138 Copper 27-l 59 Mercury 0.28-l .28 Arsenic 3.2-22 @g/g1 Zinc 74-2950 <3 to 5600 20-480 40-I 100 Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 6to 110 ~4-12 < 4-93 NYSDEC constructed rip-rap above 1,100 feet of riverbank (at a cost of $75,000). In addition, the slope leading to the river along 2,800 The highly contaminated sediments ft of bank was graded and planted at a cost of $72,000. from area 3A were excavated and encapsulated. During the period 1977-1978, 200,000 cu yd of contaminated sediments landfill. was dredged from The original remedial the Hudson River near the PCB discharged plan called for dredging of 1.5 million plant and placed in a clay-lined cu yd from the Upper Hudson River, removal of contaminated A-26 =EHnAM r rnLA 4 - \ I. - . - /-“, ( /,J’,” L Figure A-6. Locations of remnant sediment deposits. A-21 river bank deposits, and transfer of previously dredged sediment However, to a secure landfill. The cost (prethis RCRA) of this plan was estimated cost estimate to be $40 million. because of the RCRA legislation, is no longer valid and the original plan has been pared down significantly. A broad range of alternatives of contaminated estimated alternatives, sediments was considered deposits. in the feasibility study for the cleanup or isolation these alternatives. evaluation The of and remnant Table A-l 1 summarizes costs for these operations the following are shown in Table A-l 2. Based on the detailed recommendations were made: 0 Containment higher, of those remnant access deposits with an average PCB content A remedial investigation of 50 ppm or would be and restricted to the others. performed would to accurately delineate the areas to be covered. layer of subsoil covered Those areas to be covered The bank areas have a 1-l /2 ft-thick by a 6-in layer of topsoil. erosion. Where needed, The restricted cover would stabilization then be graded and seeded to minimize would be placed along the riverbank to prevent scour. entry. would be fenced and posted to prevent unauthorized remedial action was $1,050,000, The estimated cost for the and for the remedial investigation was $200,000. a Based on the data available action” alternative on PCBs in the Hudson River, a 1984 ROD “no remedial The limited threat to the public health did not justify sediments. The was selected. the large expenditure of money required to remove the contaminated been reopened and a new one is expected 1984 ROD has recently 1992. to be issued in l The following sediments: remediation biodegradation, techniques were proposed for the cleaning dechlorination, up of the dredged incineration, low energy solvent extraction, and stabilization/solidification (using an organic polymer). A-28 TABLE A-l 1. REMEDIAL ACTIONS Remedial Action SEDIMENTS 1. No action, but continue routine dredging required for navigation and treat contaminated water No action, but continue routine dredging with no water treatment No action, no routine dredging CONSIDERED Passed Initial Screening FOR THE INITIAL SCREENING Rationale for Eliminating Yes 2. 3. Yes No Sediment-blocked channels would result in cessation of commercial shipping a. b. C. 4. River sediment dredging a. Bank-to-bank dredging b. Full-scale dredging of 40 hot spots Reduced dredging of portions C. of hot spots Control river flow to reduce PCB migration during high flow periods In-place detoxification a. UV ozonation b. Chemical treatment Bioharvesting C. d. Activated carbon adsorption In-river containment of hot spots a. Earthen dikes or berms b. Spur dikes Bulkheads C. d. Sheet pilings e. Impermeable liner In situ detoxification in combination with control flow of river No Yes Yes No Cost prohibitive; Difficult to implement; Destructive to ecology 5. Cost prohibitive; offers on clear advantage over some less costly alternatives Technologies not proven for inplace treatment 6. No No No No No No No No No No 7. High monitoring and maintenance costs; effectiveness of capping has not been demonstrated for rivers 8. Construction of dams to control flow is cost-prohibitive Cost-prohibitive In-place containment with dredging offers no advantage over dredging alone Cost-prohibitive Cost-prohibitive 9. 10. Dredging (full-scale or partial) together with control of river flow Dredging (full-scale or partial) together with in-place containment Control of river flow and in-place containment Combination of partial dredging, in-place detoxification, in-place containment and control of river flow No No 11. 12. No No A-29 TABLE A-l 1 (continued1 Retionde for Eliminating Remedial Action REMNANT 1. DEPOSITS Passed Initial Screening No action Restricted access Yes Yes Yes Yes -_-- 2. 3. In-place containment a. Placement of impermeable cover b. Construction of protective blanket composed of graded material C. Construction of curtain wall to prevent groundwater infiltration Removal of contaminated materials a. Complete removal b. Partial removal of Areas 3 and 5 C. Complete removal of Areas 3 and 5 Partial removal of deposits together with in-place containment Partial removal of deposits together with restricted access Partial removal of deposits together with detoxification In-place containment restricted access In-place containment in-place detoxification together together with with Yes 4. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No -- 5. 6. 7. a. 9. 10. 11. --- -- Restricted access is combination with in-place detoxification Combination of removal, access, and detoxification restricted Not possible to determine the appropriateness of each method given the existing data base Not possible to determine the appropriateness of each method given the existing data base Not possible to determine the appropriateness of each method given the existing data base 12. Combination of removal, restricted access, and partial in-place containment Combination of removal, partial inplace containment, in-place detoxification, and restricted access No 13. No A-30 TABLE A-l 1 kontinuad1 Remedial Action TREATMENT/DISPOSAL SEDIMENTS 1. OF DREDGED Passed Initial Screening Rationale for Eliminatina Acurex process - dechlorination using a sodium reagent in a nitrogent atmosphere Biological degradation No Process difficult to use; not permitted by EPA for treatment of PCBs in sediments Not proven effective for PCBs 2. 3. No No Goodyear process - uses sodium naphthalide in an inert atmosphere to destroy PCBs Hydrothermal process decomposition of PCBs at 570°F, 2560 psi, in presence of methanol and sodium hydroxide KOHPEG process - destruction of PCBs using polyethylene ~lycols and potassium hydroxide at 170250°F NaPEG process - uses molten sodium metal in polyethylene glycot to effect decomposition PCBX process - uses sodium salts of organic compounds in an amine solution to effect destruction Plasma arc - PCB destruction molecular fraction Pyromagnetics incineration by Process is non-mobile; solvent extraction of sediments is required Developmental 4. No 5. Yes 6. No Process performance is sensitive to presence of impurities Not EPA-approved for treatment of PCB-contaminated sediments; requires solvent extraction Developmental Developmental 7. No a. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. No No Yes Rotary kiln incinerator Thagard high-temperature wall incinerator Wet air oxidation Secure landfill disposal fluid No Yes Yes Non-mobile; cost-prohibitive A-31 TABLE A-12. Remedial Alternative 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 1 1. 12. 13. No remedial action, No remedial action, Dredging COST COMPARISONS -1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ s $ $ $ s $ $ $ FOR REMEDIAL Al CaDital Costs 0 114,000 54,987,ooo 34,048.ooo i 2,894,ooo 6,917,OOO 372,000 2,282,ooo 66.696.000 154,000 9,010,000 7,144,ooo 1,053,000 38,878,ooo 42.622.000 36,853,OOO 289,877,ooo 15,203,OOO 249,787,ooo 109,340,000 ; $ s $ $ $ $ S 1,124,OOO 0 1,124,OOO 3,011,000 3,011,000 1,124,OOO 1,124,OOO I $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,406,OOO 66,696,OOO i ,278,ooo 12,021,000 10,155,000 2,177,ooo 40,002,OOO $ s $ O&M Costs* 3,434,ooo 3,617,OOO 5,32 1,000 5,321,OOO I I $ 1s $ $ Total Costs* 3,434,ooo 3,73 1,000 60,308,000 39,369,OOO water supply not treated water supply treated of 40 hot spots Reduced scale dredging Total removal of all remnant deposits Partial removal of remnant deposits Restricted access to remnant deposits of remnant deposits of remnant deposits 2, 81 4/restrict contaminant access to #3 & 5 $ In-place containment In situ detoxification No action on #l, Partial removal/ of remnant deposits Partial removal/restricted Partial containment/ access of remnant deposits access to remnant deposits restricted 14. Partial containment/in-situ deposits 15. Partial removal/in-situ detoxification detoxification of remnant deposits of remnant 16. Partial detoxification/ deposits 17. 18. 19. 20. Detox. of sediments Secure landfill Incineration restricted access of remnant with KOHPEG 01s 289,877,ooo disposal of sediments of sediments of sediments Wet air oxidation worth *Present Source: over O&M life of alternative. 1963. A-32 NUS Corporation, APPENDIX TREATABILITY B STUDIES APPENDIX TREATABILITY B STUDIES A large number of physical, contaminated technologies techniques solids, chemical, and biological that contain processes hazardous wastes. have been developed wastes. Some to treat of these of air, and water at sites were developed for specific sites and/or specific Others are adaptations that are used to treat process wastes and wastewater streams. When a preliminary at a specific hazardous evaluation shows that one or more of these technologies study is usually required. whether atechnology Treatability might be effective studies -- which waste site, a treatability pilot-scale, can be bench-scale, environmental, document or both -- determine developed can meet the technical, The EPA guidance and cost expectations in the preliminary evaluation. -- Guide for Conducting in detail the various (RAC) responsible Treatability aspects Studies Under CERCLA, interim Final, EPA/540-2-89/058 of a treatability study. Generally, the remedial action the need -- discusses contractor for the site RI/FS, under the guidance of the RPM, also identifies the goals of the treatability study. for treatability studies and for specifying In some cases, the RAC will also specify treatability techniques manufacturer study. studies. In other cases the technology study, the procedures to be evaluated to be followed in conducting equipment the and requires specialized are established for a treatability or technology in such cases the procedures Table B-1 summarizes by the equipment for a treatability developers. a typical specification Various treatability contaminated sediments. studies -- laboratory-, Since sediments bench-, and pilot-scale -- have been conducted with can be considered applicable water slurries of soils, and after dewater­ to soils are also potentially applicable to ing, as wet soils, the remediation sediments. Therefore, technologies several treatability studies conducted with soils have also been included among in Table B-2. these studies. A list of treatability studies conducted are shown No Action James River, VirginiaKepone was produced VA. Kepone-containing between 1966 and 1974 by Allied Chemical Corporation at Hopewell, effluents entered the James River and contaminated the river sediment. B-l TABLE B-1. TYPICAL SPECIFICATION FOR A TREATABILITY STUDY 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Background Site description Waste stream description Remedial technology description Previous treatability studies at the site Test Objectives Approach Task 1 - Work Plan preparation Task 2 - SAP, HSP, and CRP preparation Task 3 - Treatability study execution Task 4 - Data analysis and interpretation Task 5 - Report preparation Task 6 - Residuals management Reporting Requirements Deliverables Monthly reports Schedule Level of Effort Source: USEPA, 1989k Because of the high partition manufacturing to decrease sediment. fishing. coefficient, the majority of kepone was found in the sediment. in the surface sediment of the kepone Kepone began was discontinued significantly. in 1975 and the kepone concentration to the dilution This was attributed and burial by fresh By 1983 kepone concentrations in fish were low enough to lift restrictions on all commercial Studies conducted following stabilizing two options: the sediments to assess the feasibility at an estimated of mitigating the kepone contamination included the dredging cost of $3000 million (excluding disposal costs) and either economi­ by the kepone of with molten sulfur. Therefore, nothing Neither of these options were feasible, cally or environmentally. fact that natural unavailable was done. This no action decision surface was supported making sedimentation However, buried the kepone-contaminated this decision also places a potential sediment to biota. restriction on future dredging the sediment to keep the James River navigable, sediment. since dredging might expose the kepone-contaminated B-2 TABLE B-2. LIST OF TREATABILITY T*l-JhlY No action In Situ Natural Dredging Ocean Capping Treatment biodegradation and Disposal disposable New York Bight CT CT Mud Site Bay Foul Area Disposal Great Lakes James River, VA Site name STUDIES Medium Sediments Contaminanta Kepone Sediments PCBs Sediments Sediments Sediments Sediments Sediments PAHs, Not Not Not Not PCBs stated stated stated stated Stanford, Norwalk, New York Massachusetts Site Dredging Biological nnd Traatmont Tecumseh LA, WI, Motors Superfund Site, WI plants Sediments Sediments/soils PCBs TNT, RDX, nitrocellulose PCBs HMX, and PA Army ammunitions General Phyaical/Chamical Dechlorination Motors, Massena. NY Sludge Naval Construction Battalion Center, Gulfsport, MS; Bengart and Memel Buffalo, NY; Montana Pole, Butte, MT Wide Beach army Superfund depots Site, NY Soils PC&, dioxins, chemicals other Soils Sediments PCBs TNT, DNT, others PCBs PAHs, VOCs, lead, zinc, and PCBs. Ineffective against metals PCBs, grease PAHs, oil and RDX, and Solvent extraction Various and plants New Bedford Harbor Refinery Site, Hermantown, Sediments Sludges Arrowhead MN Grand Calumet River, IN Sediment Soil washing Super-fund Site, MN Soils PCPs, PAHs, petroleum hydrocarbons, copper, chromium, and arsenic PCBs PAHs, copper, chromium, arsenic, zinc PCPS Benzidine, azobenzene, and dichlorobenridine TPHs, nickel, VOCs, copper, and silver Saginaw Wood River, Preserving, Ml CA Sediments Soils and Wood Chemical Preserving, Plant, CA FL Soils Soils Wire Drawing, NJ Soils B-3 T-v Soil washing (continued) Town Pesticide Chemical Sdiiition/Stabilhaibn Hialeah, Gas, sits Mnn Quebec CO Soils Soils Soils Soils PA Soils Medium Total Contaminanta PAHs Formulation, Plant, FL CA Pesticides PCBs, PCBs Oil, grease, VOCs, PCBs, metals, and semivolatile organic8 Not stated cobalt, and Aroclor 1260 Douglassvilla, Marathon Foundry Battery Cove Site Soils Sediments Cadmium, nickel Indiana Harbor Canal, IN Sediment Oil, grease, VOCs, PCBs, and metals Oil, grease, VOCs, PCBs, and metals Buffalo River, NY Sediment Thumal Incineration Trutrnont Loursiana Army Ammunition Plant Sediment TNT, RDS, nitrocellulose PCBs Organic6 material and metals organics, tetryl, and Swanson McCall Shirco Infrared System Peak River Superfund Oil Field, Site, Site. AK Fullerton, Brandon. CA FL Soils/sediment Soils Oil-like Oil Superfund PCBs, other and metals Not stated Low Temperature Desorption Thermal Kettleman Hills Facility, CA Not stated Buffalo Ashtabula River, Buffalo, Ohio NY Sediments Sediments PAHs, oil and grease River, PCBs and other chlorinated hydrocarbons B-4 ln Situ Treatment The stabilization materials cement 1978). into sediments. or quicklime of contaminated A commonly sediments used Japanese can be achieved method by the injection of grouting of clay- for grouting is the injection method mixtures into the bottom sediment via a deep soil mixing (Hand et al., The essential mechanism internal feature of this relatively new technology, on a barge. The shown in Figure B-l, is the injection -- a number of injection blades apparatus that enter pipes mounted into the The ends of these pipes incorporate process begins by lowering inject a cement the or mixing sediments. injecting/mixing lime-based to the required depth. The pipes then simultaneously slurry into the sediments. and relocated. At the end of the process, the mixing blades are reversed and the shafts are removed A number of other types of grout injection continuous apparatus sediments mixing apparatus is also available. and mixing apparatus are available. and lowering Multi-column, of the mixing which lessens the need for raising, relocating, However, the feasibility and reliability of these methods for contaminated has not yet been demonstrated. The use of this in sifu method on a barge restricts of good weather. Also, the injection operation offshore activity to calm waters and periods of sediments. may result in resuspension Natural Biodearadation Anderson of degrading (19801 has shown that bacteria from Saginaw sediments from the Great Lakes. Bay and river sediments The degradation are capable PCB-contaminated rate is enhanced rapid in under aerobic conditions. incubated sediments. The degradation rates of di­ and trichlorobiphenyls are extremely The tetra- and pentachlorobiphenyls Anaerobic conditions are degraded at a slower to degradation. rate than the di- and trichloro compounds. were not conducive B-5 . Cementmg Agent Injector Mixing Machtne / . Soft Ground II- Treated Soil Pan Source: Hand. 1978 Figure 8-l. Fition by deep chemical mixing. Dredaina and Disposal Ocean Disposal-­ Concentrations of polynuclear hydrocarbons (PAHs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBsI were measured in waters of New York Bight prior to, during, and after a dredged material disposal operation. P.D. Boehm compared the PAH profiles in water column with those in the dredged material to evaluat the short-term fractionation and weathering. PAHs associated dissolution movement dredged detectable and microbial with the dredged material were rapidly altered in the water column by processes. The PAH and PCB measurements were sensitive Fifteen indicators minutes of the and fate of the particulate material was dumped, plumes from the dredged material. plume was found after the the residual in near-bottom water and remained for at least 2.5 hours. The study concluded that ocean disposal is a viable option (Boehm et al., 19831. Capping-­ The first field study of controlled amount of capping material capping of contaminated dredged material using a reasonable Site in 1979. 30,000 m3 of was conducted at the Central Long Island Sound Disposal each with approximately In this project two disposal contaminated approximately Harbor. sediments 76,000 mounds were formed underwater, Connecticut. from Stamford, These deposits 33,000 were then capped, one with m3 of silt, and the other with of the study were as follows: m3 of sand dredged from New Haven The conclusions 0 Disposal sediment of contaminated sediments must be tightly controlled to reduce the spread of the use of taut-wire disposal before they are capped. navigation This can be accomplished control. through buoys and/or precision 0 Capping material must be spread over a large area in order to ensure adequate end’s outer limits of the contaminated does not spread as evenly as sand. sediments. This is particularly important capping at the for silt, which 0 Silt develops spread readily. a thickar cap than sand and, hence, requires a greater thickness more material. Silt caps do not is However, is needed because the depth of bioturbation deeper in silt than in sand. B-7 Silt caps recolonize completely different with fauna similar to the surrounding species. Recolonization silt environment, occurred but sand caps with as expected. The of both mounds impact to the surrounding environment was negligible. Caps are resistant unchanged. to erosion. Once stabilized, both the silt and sand caps remain essentially Other successfully completed capping operations are: In Norwalk, Connecticut, a site in shallow water was dredged and contaminated sediment was placed in the dredged depression. This technique Superfund site. The sediment was then covered with the dredged material. sediments environments. at the New Bedford was proposed for disposal of PCB-contaminated This technique is restricted to shallow-water Open-water capping was tested at the New York Mud Dump site. Approximately sediment 522,000 m3 of contaminated persisted was covered by 1.2 million m3 of clean sand in a mound which has This experimental study concluded that a Bottom on the open ocean shelf for seven years. of 1.5 to 2 m stabilizes the disposed cap thickness profiles material for at least seven years. in nature. across the disposal site showed that the cap was continuous Laboratory contaminated additional studies by USACE (USACE, 1990) showed sediment when spread over a confined was recommended The additional that a 35-cm cap effectively aquatic to prevent area (CAD). burrowing isolated an from over long- However, organisms coverage 20 cm of cap thickness having access to the contaminants. the entire CAD area, protecting term stability material ensures effective it against scouring by hydrodynamic forces, and providing for the capped material. These sediments reasonable studies show that capping is a viable technique for safe disposal capping of contaminated with in the marine environment accuracy (National and that the factors 1989). affecting can be predicted Research Council, B-8 Disposal with cleaner of contaminated sediments in the marine (ocean/bay) etc.) is a viable option. environment Most capping through capping are materials (sand, silt, limestone, operations restricted to calm and shallow waters (20-30 m; 65-l 00 ft) but the knowledge in predicting the consequences of extending an extensive and experience gained from these projects are helpful water. such operations monitoring to deeper the In order to ensure the integrity of the capped sediment, was developed program, Disposal Area Monitoring System (DAMOSI, by USACE, New England Division. The DAMOS monitoring operation to post-disposal approach begins with site designation The essential elements and extends through the disposal are shown in monitoring. of the DAMOS program Table B-3 below. The DAMOS program has developed several important parameters necessary a comprehensive data base that confirms the viability of for capping operations: 0 Operational feasibility: navigational control and disposal operating and to spread sufficient procedures are adequate to create mounds of contaminated sediment cap material to effectively cover these mounds. l Minimal dispersion during dispersal: extensive plume tracking studies have demonstrated operation. that most dredged material remains at the bottom during the placement l Long-term stability of disposal mounds: repeated measurements over a ten-year period showed over extended that, following periods of time. initial placement, the capped disposal mounds remain unchanged Sand or silt cap material: capping spreading contaminated techniques all studies to date show that either sand or silt are adequate Silt caps require are different. more material than sand. Also, for the sediment. for sand/silt The economic feasibility of capping depends, to a large extent, on the availability of clean silt and/or sand. l Isolation sufficient of contaminated cap thickness material: and stability, both chemical and biological monitoring leaching show that, given will expose the neither bioactivity nor chemical environment to the contaminated sediment. B-9 TABLE B-3. ELEMENTS OF THE DAMOS PROGRAM Physical Chemical Site designation (characterization) BathymetrylSSCAN Remots Currents/waves Sediment grain size Remots - habitat Benthic - type present Brat - fish habitat Fish - type present Benthic body burden Compounds selected based on waste characterization If >one year - Remots Bulk sediment Analysis Pro-disposal (baseline) Bathymetry/SSCAN Harbor characterization (Density, GS, geotech) Disposal control Waste Characterization Bulk sediment analysis Bioassays, etc. During disposal BathymetrylRemots flume studies Mussels/Daisy BathymetrylSSCAN Rsmots Mussels/daisy BathymetrylRemots (next season, then annually, AuglSep) Mussels Ramots (within Post-disposal 2 weeks) Monitoring Remots (next season, annually, Aug/Sep) If recolonized: Benthic, brat, Body burden then If not recolonized: Bulk sediment analysis B-10 The following instrumentation is required to confirm DAMOS monitoring: Microwave or acoustically assisted positioning of dredged material. Precision bathymetry (sonar) to facilitate monitoring of the volume/ distribution of sediments at the disposal site. term stability These data are used to assess the effectiveness of capping and the long- of the cap. Sediment profile photography in which a remote sensing camera determines This procedure It provides determines method the distribution the small-scale for measuring operations. and characteristics effects biological of physical parameters of near-surface sediments. erosion and bioturbation. in order to evaluate an effective the impacts of disposal and capping Advanced resolution acoustic sub-bottom measurements. profilers, Modern acoustic instruments such as sidescan sonar, high and high-frequency properties plume tracking systems provide information during and after disposal. on the distribution and physical of sediments Specialized instrumentation specific such as Disposal Area In Situ System (DAISY) provide information problems associated with dredged material disposal and capping. resuspension for addressing DAISY measures near-bottom and turbidity. current and wave energy associated the long-term stability with sediment It thus addresses of capped disposal mounds. A nuclear density precision sediment probe coupled REMOTS, with a sediment and sub-bottom penetration profiling device is now used along with the mass balance of bathymetry, deposited to determine in the capped mound. These monitoring completed techniques and disposal procedures were applied in two major, recently Bay (five field studies (the New York Experimental Site (FADS). The objective Mud Dump Site fEMD) and the Massachusetts Foul Area Disposal years) stability project involved m of water. of the EMD study was to assess the long-term sediment effects in the open-she!f of disposal environment. of a sand capped contaminated the short-term (several months) The FADS in 90 of contaminated sediments B-11 At the EMD, the results indicate 2.0 m covered most of the contaminated the subsequent integrity five-year period. that following disposal, a sand cap of approximately unchanged 1 ,5 to during the also material and that this cap was essentially profiles across the disposal the sub-bottom data. Sub-bottom site demonstrated The photography of the cap. REMOTS photography supported revealed that recolonization was restricted of the disposal mound by the aquatic biota took place, but biopenetration of the sand cap. Thus, the isolation of the contaminated of the cap is not to only a few centimeters material was assured. On the flanks of the mound, however, of the sediment did occur. where the thickness so great, some dispersion Disposal of contaminated material at FADS was carried out by scows and hopper dredges at at this site did form proper mounds. REMOTS a water depth of 90 m. Disposal of cohesive sediments camera data showed that disposal of dredged material -- even under tight control -- resulted in a broad, low deposit greater spread evenly of capping over a large area. material The formation of thin and broad deposits to effectively proved that m3 of Hence, amounts are needed. For example, cap 100,000 contaminated material, between 250,000 and 500,000 m3 of capping material may be needed. any projects using this technique. careful consideration should be given before undertaking Dredaina and Treatment Biological-­ Sediment Pennsylvania and soil from lagoons TNT, nitrocellulose, at Army ammunition plants in Louisiana, Wisconsin, and containing and other organic nitro compounds shavings. were treated in two types of composts to composts -- hay-horse feed and sewage sludge-wood Three ratios of sediment/soil were utilized. Six 488-gallon tanks 5-feet in diameter and 4-feet in height were used as composters. Two drums of contaminated at 60°C with continuous These were placed in greenhouses. The composts were incubated sediment from a dredging mound were used. aeration for 6-10 weeks. 14C-labeled tracers rapidly in were used to monitor all sewage affected the progress of degradation. However, breakdown The study showed in the hay-horse that TNT degraded feed compost sludge composts. was adversely by the higher rates of sediment addition. Cleavage of the benzene ring during TNT breakdown did not appear to be significant. B-12 RDX (hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine) during 10 weeks of incubation. was almost completely addition degraded in all composts reduced the rate of was not degraded in Increased rates of sediment significantly RDX breakdown the hay-horse in both composts. HMX (I ,3,5,7-tetranitro-octahydro-octane) feed compost but was reduced by 30-50% sludge compost during 10 weeks of incubation of the nitrocellulose in the sewage within 4 sludge compost. weeks. Leaching In the sewage of explosives 92-97% degraded and heavy metals from the composts are available from Atlantic was minimal. Details of the Explo­ study, including sives/Organics economic information, Research Corp. in Cornposting in May, 1988. Contaminated SOL%, a technical report prepared for USATHAMA Detox Industries, (GM) Massena, are shown Inc. bench-tested PCBcontaminated sludge samples from the General Motors process. Partial results of the study a full-scale study of this New York plant using their proprietary The USEPA approved NY. biological in Table B-4. the GM request to conduct process at the GM site in Massena, TABLE B-4. PCB f 1248) Biodegradation Untreated soil 338 ppm GM Lagoon #l GM Digester 110ppm GM Activated Sludge 63 ppm Treated soil 107 ppm 63 mm 6.5 ppm Percent reduction 68.3 42.7 89.6 Source: USEPA, 19891 B-13 Physical/Chemical Treatment DechlorinationGalson different Buffalo, treated sites: Technical Services conducted Battalion benchand pilot-scale treatability studies at three Naval Construction Center (NCBC) in Gulfport, Soils contaminated {KOH), dimethyl MS; Bengart and Memel in were and times NY; and the Montana with a mixture Pole in Butte, MT. hydroxide with PCBs and/or dioxins polyethylene glycol, of potassium sulfoxide, other chemicals and temperatures to dechlorinate were varied. the PCBs and dioxins. The ratios of reagents to soil, reaction The results of the tests at Montana Pole showed that dioxin levels reduced from 100,000 ppb to less than 1 ppb after 1 hour of reaction time at 150°C. the soil from Gulfport, MS, could be decontaminated The results of the NCBC study showed that the soil with the APEG reagent and by mixing heating at 120°C for 7 hours. The results of the Bengart and Memel study show that PCBs in the soil mixture can be reduced to less than 50 ppm by adding reagent to the soil and heating the soil/reagent at 120°C for 12-24 hours. Buffalo. Kirkville For further Table B-5 shows some of the results of the studies conducted contact the vendor: Timothy Gerates, Galson Research at NCBC and Corp., 6601 details Road, E. Syracuse, NY 13057, 315-463-5160. A more extensive (GRC) of Syracuse study using this technique 19881. PCBcontaminated was carried out by Galson Research Corporation soils from the Wide Beach Super-fund In the bench-scale Site in study (HMCRI, New York State were treated by the KPEG process on bench- and pilot-scale. the soils were heated at 140 to 160°C for 4 to 8 hrs. The PCB concentrations to 620 ppm to less than 10 ppm. 300/toe The bench-scale excluding study estimated excavation. is in progress. were reduced from 490 cost of $1 OOalso produced an approximate study for Wide Beach soil treatment, results. The pilot-scale encouraging Further process evaluation Solvent ExtractionLagoon sediments contaminated by explosives (TNT, DNT, RDX, and others) from several Army by contacting with acetone. This study was con­ The contact is Wayne of the depots and plants were successfully ducted by Environmental Sisk, Aberdeen untreated Acetone Proving decontaminated Science and Engineering, Ground, MD 21010-5401, Inc. for DOD/USATHAMA. (301) 571-2054. content The explosive content sediments varied from 0.1 to 99 percent and moisture agent. Laboratory from 23.8 to 42.8 percent. leaching efficiencies, was used as an extraction tests measured solubility, B-14 TABLE B-5. BENCH SCALE DATA ON NCBC (GULFPORT) Concentration No. Source Compound Process Reagent Loading Temp. “C Time Before After 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Gulfport Gulfport Gulfport Gulfport Gulfport Gulfport Gulfport Gulfport Gulfport Gulfport Gulfport Gulfport Gulfport Gulfport Gulfport Gulfport Gulfport Gulfport Gulfport Gulfport TCDD TCDD TCDD TCDD TCDD TCDD TCDD TCDD TCDD TCDD TCDD TCDD TCDD TCDD TCDD TCDD TCDD TCDD TCDD TCDD Slurry Slurry Slurry Slurry Slurry Slurry Slurry Slurry Slurry In Situ In Situ In Situ In Situ In Situ In Situ In Situ In Situ In Situ In Situ In Situ 9:9:9-P.D.K. l:l:l-P.D.K. 9:9:2-M.D.K. 9:9:2-M.D.K. l:l:l-M.D.K. 9:9:2-M.D.K. 9:9:2-M.D.K. l:l:l-M.D.K. 9:9:2-M.D.K. l:l:l-P.D.K. l:l:l-P.D.K. 9:9:2-P.D.K. 2:2:2:1-M.D.K.W. 2:2:2:1-M.D.K.W. ‘2:2:2:1-M.D.K.W. 2:2:2:1-M.D.K.W. 1:1:1:3-M.D.K.W. 1 :l :1:3-M.S.K.W. 1:1:1:15-M.D.K.W. 1:1:1:15-M.D.K.W. Bench So& Data 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 250 160 150 100 70 70 70 50 25 25 70 70 70 70 20°b 20% 20% 50% 20% 50% on Sertgart 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 100% 70 70 70 70 70 70 4 hours 2 hours 2 hours 2 hours 2 hours 2 hours 0.5 hours 2 hours 2 hours 7 days 1 day 7 days 1 day 2 days 4 days 7 days 7 days 7 days 7 days 7 days & Mamd (BuffdoJ hours hours hours days days days day 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb < 1 ppb < 1 ppb < 1 ppb < 1 ppb < 1 ppb < 1.5 ppb < 15 ppb ~23 ppb <36 ppb 1000 ppb 8.5 ppb <1 wb 3.3 ppb 2.0 ppb 2.5 ppb cl 3.2 2.7 43 14 ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo PC0 PCB PCB PCB PCB PCB PCB Slurry Slurry Slurry In Situ In Situ In Situ In Situ 9:9:2:1-M.D.K.W. 9:9:2:1-M.S.K.W. 1:1:2:2:1-P.T.S.K.W. 2:2:2:1 -M.D.K.W. 2:2:2:1-M.S.K.W. 1: 1:2:2: 1 -P.T. D.K.W. 1:1:2:2:1-P.T.D.K.W. 100 100 150 70 70 150 150 2 2 2 7 7 3 1 77 77 112 77 77 112 83 rvm wm ppm pm wm ppm wm 4.2 6.7 6.7 3.7 4.0 co.1 co.1 ppb ppb ppm ppb ppb ppb ppb Reagent D K M P S T W - DMSO - KOH - MEE - PEG - SFLN - TMH - Water Components Key Toxic Compounds Key - dimethyl sulfoxide - potassium hydroxide - methyl carbitol - methoxyethoxy-ethanol - polyethylene glycol, avg. molecular weight - sutfolane - tetrahydrothiophene 1 .l -dioxide - triethylene glycol methyl ether and highers TCDD - 1,2,3,4-Tetrachlordibenzo-p-dioxin PCB - polychlorinated biphenyls of 400 Loading (%) = 100 x (reagent mass/soil mass) Source: USEPA, 19891 B-15 and settling. Solubility tests evaluated present. water/acetone ratios to determine the effectiveness between optimum operational range for the contaminants to calculate leaching containing Leaching tests determined of countercurrent extraction The the contact time needed to establish equilibrium cylinder. the solvent and sediment. tests were performed sediments in a 1-liter graduated The tests showed that wet, explosivemixture. In general, 10 the can be effectively decontaminated by an acetone/water three to four contact mglkg . However, stages of 30 minutes a fifth contact quality. each were needed to bring the explosive a 50 percent efficiency is required level below to achieve stage with Louisiana-mandated sediment Table B-6 shows the results of some explosives removal tests. TABLE B-6. DODNSATHAMA TREATABILITY RESULTS Sediment Ft. Wingate Navajo AD Louisiana AD Initial explosives concentrations hgkd 1,200 19,000 420,000 Final explosives concentrations b-w/kg) 6.0 7.0 17.0 4-Stage removal efficiency (%I 99.5 99.96 99.996 PCB-contaminated New Bedford Harbor sediment was treated on a pilot-scale, in a SITE demonstration of the CF Systems Supercritical Fluid Extraction Technology (USEPA, 1989h). This technology solids/slurries of the organics demonstrated is only applicable to organic contaminants. It extracts contaminants Typically from with solvents in which the organic contaminants become dissolved. 99 percent was can be removed from the solids in liquid propane and/or butane. concurrently with dredging studies managed by the USACE. This technology The following systems Pit Cleanup test results include, for each test, the number of passes made through CF Unit, the concentration of PCBs before test and PCB levels after test, Test number 2 3 4 Passes 9 3 6 PCB Concentration Before After 360 ppm 288 ppm 2575 ppm 8 pm 82 mm 200 ppm B-16 Extraction sediment, systems efficiencies were high, despite some operating difficulties. The return of treated Full-scale design. commercial as feed, to the next pass caused cross-contamination are designed to eliminate the problems associated in the system. with the pilot-plant The following conclusions were drawn from this series of tests and other data: l Extraction efficiencies ppm. of 90-98 percent were achieved on sediments PCB concentrations containing PCBs between sediment. 350 and 2,575 fell as low as 8 ppm in the treated l In the laboratory, semivolatile organics extraction efficiencies of 99.9 percent were obtained for volatile and in aqueous and semi-solid wastes. l Operating tanks. problems included solids retention corrective in the hardware and foaming in the receiving unit. The vendor developed measures for the full-scale commercial l Projected handling utilization costs for PCB cleanups are approximately at $150 to $450/tan, including sensitive material to the as well as pre- and post-treatment factor and the job size, which costs. These costs are highly may lower costs for large cleanups. Resource which utilizes Conservation Company’s or tertiary (RCC) B.E.S.T.TM process is a solvent amine, usually triethylamine Co. studied extraction process organic to New either a secondary from soils, sludges, (TEA) to extract its applicability is suitable contaminants or sediments. E.C. Jordan Bedford Harbor sediment. of PCBs from contaminated Preliminary sediments. results indicate that this technology for the removal A bench-scale Super-fund study of the 8.E.S.T.TM process Minnesota. was conducted at the Arrowhead Refinery Site in Hermantown, The lagoon sludge and the soil contained a treatability PAHs, VOCs, lead, zinc, and small quantities materials under a subcontract of PCBs. RCC conducted from CH2M Hill. study using these contaminated The results of the study show that RCC’s process successfully organics and solids. separates the contaminated is not wastes into three fractions: applicable fractions. to metals. aqueous, oil-containing The process, however, As a result, lead was found at high concentrations was poor because of problems in both the oil and the solid steps. Distillation was Water recovery in the decantation B-17 therefore necessary, which added to the cost of the process. RCC estimated (comparable the process costs, for this site, to be $289 (sludges) and $300 (soil), respectively to incineration). Soil Washing-­ Soil washing, contaminants a volume reduction process, can concentrate both inorganic and organic are used in a small portion of the original feed. Water and water with other additives to achieve this goal (FWEI, 1989). Biotrol’s Resources’ Soil Treatment System, EPA’s Soil Washing Mobile System, soils. and MTA Remedial Froth Flotation Unit have all been tested on contaminated The Biotrol contaminated treatability process was tested on a pilot hydrocarbons, scale at a Super-fund copper, chromium, site in Minnesota and arsenic. that is with PCP, PAH, petroleum A bench-scale study (Stinson et al., 19881 successfully reduced the concentration soils showed of all the contaminants substantial removal of (Tables B-7 and B-8). TCLP tests for the treated and untreated cost (mobilization, treatment, PCPs. The total treatment site is estimated and disposal) of the process at the Minnesota to be $180/tan. Results 1990mI. of treatability testing with various soil samples are shown in Table B-9 (USEPA, Solidification/Stabilization-­ In this technique special additives. contaminated soils/sediments are mixed with pozzolanic and encapsulates material and some The On curing, the soil/sediment hardens the contaminants. encapsulated contaminants do not leach out and hence do not pose any threat to the environment. The technical solidification/stabilization solidification/stabilization with flyash, portland feasibility of reducing contaminant mobility in Indiana Harbor Canal sediment applications by was investigated processes. in a series of laboratory-scale of selected cement The processes evaluated were Portland cement, portland cement with flyash and/or sodium silicate, portland cement with WEST-P (propri­ of the physical properties stabilized of the by a etary polymer), solidified Firmix with WEST-P, and lime with flyash. showed that sediment Evaluation products from Indiana Harbor Canal can be physically variety of processes. sediment The chemical leach data showed that solidification/stabilization of some contaminants, depending of Indiana Harbor agent(s) and reduced the mobility on the type of setting B-18 TABLE B-7. COMPARISON OF UNTREATED/TREATED SOIL IN A PILOT-SCALE TEST AT MINNESOTA WOOD TREATING SITE Soil contaminant level matka Parameter Feed soil Washed soil Percent reduction Low (Test 1 of 1) Pentachlorophenol Total PAH TPH Arsenic Chromium Copper Pentachlorophenol Total PAH TPH Arsenic Chromium Copper 130 240 3,300 14 17 15 540 290 8,800 28 49 39 12.0 8.6 210.0 5.0 9.0 6.2 56.0 23.0 470.0 7.2 8.5 5.2 91 96 94 64 47 59 90 92 95 74 83 a7 High (Test 1 of 21 PAH - Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons TPH - Total petroleum hydrocarbons Source: USEPA, 1990m TABLE B-8. COMPARISON OF PCP-CONTAMINATED UNTREATED/TREATED SOIL AT SITE DEMONSTRATION Soil contaminant level Pentachloroohenol Washed soil, mQ/kQ Washed soil TCLP leachate, mg/L Low (test 1 of 1) 10 19 59 70 0.23 0.32 0.74 0.92 High (test 1 of 2) Source: USEPA, 1990m B-19 TABLE 6-9. RESULTS OF BENCH-SCALE TREATABILITY TESTING malka Site description Parameter Feed soil Washed soil Percent reduction Wood Preserving (California) Total PAH Arsenic Chromium Copper Zinc Pentachlorophenol Pentachlorophenol Dichlorobenzidine Benzidine Azobenzene TPH voc Copper Nickel Silver Total PAH 4,800 89 63 23 345 380 610 770 1,000 2,400 4,700 2 330 110 25 230 230 27 23 13 108 4.0 25 13 6 7 350 0.01 100 60 4 11 95 70 63 43 69 99 96 98 99 >99 93 >99 70 45 84 95 Wood Preserving (Florida) Chemical Plant (Michigan] Wire Drawing INew Jersey) Town Gas (Quebec) Pesticide Formulation (Colorado) Chlordane Aldrin 4,4-DDT Dieldrin PCB (Aroclor 55 47 25 46 290 1260) 4.7 7.5 5.0 7.0 co.1 91 84 80 85 c99 Chemical Plant (California) Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons Total petroleum hydrocarbons Volatile organic compounds Polychlorinated biphenyls B-20 additive dosages 1987). used. Some additives increased the leachability of some metals (Environmental Laboratory, An evaluation on Buffalo of solidification/stabilization to determine whether technology physical was conducted and chemical on the bench-scale level River sediment properties of the sediment would be improved. were evaluated: durability) Chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc were evaluated. ash. Three binder materials and wet/dry Results were cement, kiln dust, and lime-fly Physical tests (USC, freeze/thaw, and contaminant release tests (serial leach test and TCLP) were conducted. similar to those for the Indiana Harbor tests, in that stabilized of lead, nickel, and zinc were reduced, of copper 1991). and chromium was increased solids could be formed and the mobility The leachability (Fleming, et al., both in the serial leach tests and the TCLP. by the solidification/stabilization process An in situ solidification/stabilization (IWT) and implemented process developed by International Waste Technologies This process was soil by Geo-Con, Inc. is capable of operating below water tables. tested at a Super-fund site in Hialeah, Florida (Stinson et al., 1988). were immobilized. increased weathering $194/tori equipment. treatability TCLP leachate analysis after treatment soil produced showed no leaching The PCBs in the contaminated of PCBs. The bulk density by 8.5 percent. costs of the soil by 21 percent and the volume satisfactory increased The wet/dry are favorable: 4-auger test on treated for 1-auger results. The process machine used in the demonstration binding and $11 O/ton for commercial Since the IM proprietary reagent use varies according waste. to the nature of wastes, studies should be performed for new site-specific The HAZCON solidification soil was contaminated heavy metals. process was tested at the Douglassville, PA Super-fund Site. organics, The with high levels of oil and grease, volatile and semivolatile PCBs, and The comparison 9 months, of physical properties of untreated and treated soil samples 7 days, 28 days, favorable. The physical test results were and 22 months after treatment compressive were generally between wastes very good, with unconfined were recorded, showed increased strength 220 and 1570 psi. Very low permeabilities Durability test results and the porosity of the treated was rated moderate. and freeze/thaw it is possible no change in physical about 20%. strength after the wet/dry cycles. The waste volume By using lesser amount of stabilizer to reduce volume increases B-21 but results strength in lower strengths of the treated soil. (There is an inverse relationship between physical and the waste organic concentration.) The results of the HAZCON post-demonstration were very low; essentially 1 ppm. Lead ieachate organic leaching tests were mixed. and semivolatile The TCLP results were below Volatile and all values of metals, volatile organics, dropped however, by a factor organics 100 ppb. concentrations concentrations, of 200, to below with semivolatile concentrations up to 4 ppm). did not change treatment. Oil and grease were greater in the treated waste than in the untreated waste (from less than 2 ppm The HAZCON study concluded the following: The process can solidify organics. However, contaminated material with high concentrations including volatiles (up to 25 percent) of extractables, organic contaminants, to any significant and base/neutral were not immobilized extent. Heavy metals are immobilized. hundred fold. In many instances, leachate reductions were greater than a The treated waste exhibited properties. high unconfined compressive strengths, low permeabilities, and good weathering Treated soils underwent volumetric increases. The process $120/tan. is economical, with costs expected to range between approximately $90 and Bench-scale Chemical solidification solidification work was also performed by Chemfix Technologies (ACES). They assessed the feasibility and by Associated and Environment Services of using a pozzolanic Battery Site. process as a component in the remediation plan for the Marathon B-22 Although the ChemfixTM process is patented, both the physical sediments and chemical different mixtures of common setting agents can In the case of be used to optimize cadmium-contaminated cement; agent. characteristics of the waste. from Foundry Cove, Chemfix tested: 1) sodium silicate and portland portland cement, and a setting unconfined kPa1, 2) sodium silicate and cement kiln dust; and 3) sodium silicate, The products strength were subjected to EP toxicity testing for metals and 48-hour compressive WCS) tests. UCS results for mixtures 1, 2, and 3 were 34.7 psi (239.2 Only the sodium concentration silicate 20.8 psi (143.4 cement 0.709 mixture kPa), and 17.4 psi (120 kPa), respectively. passed the EP Toxicity maximum testing -- with and portland ma/L or a cadmium of 0.709 ppm (the EP Toxicity parameters; composed is 1 mg/L or 1 ppm). Since cobalt and nickel are not standard bench-scale and lime. studies with three test EP Toxicity mixtures results testing. they were not measured. weight percentages kPa). ACES conducted of waste, of differing pozzolan, UCS 48-hour ranged from 7 to 91 psi (48.3-131 Two of the three mixtures Cobalt and nickel were included cobalt, in the EP Toxicity were found to have cadmium, and nickel levels less than 1 .O mg/L or 1 ppm. Solidification dredging hectares) and off-site (specifically disposal the ChemfixTM process) has been chosen in conjunction as the remedial action for East Foundry with hydraulic Cove Marsh (34 acres or 14 of the Marathon and East Foundry Cove (14 acres or 5.7 hectares). Both areas lie within Battery Site in the lower Hudson River, New York. hydraulic treatment sediment dredging, units, dewatering extruding thorough agitation waste The remedial treatment and mixing, continuous will include the following: pumping through ChemfixTM the treated to a solidification area, and transfer of the solidified to a disposal site. Cost estimates for the solidification of the Foundry Cove site range between $50 and $75/y&. Thermal Treatment IncinerationA bench-scale explosive-contaminated Corporation]. 700°C heating with study was conducted by the Atlantic Army Research Corp., Alexandria, VA using Research at 500- sediments from the Louisiana Ammunition Plant [Atlantic furnace Approximately varying residence 4 g of sediment time. in a crucible was placed in a muffle Table B-l 0 shows (TNT, RDS, tetryl, the results of decontamination at various temperatures. The explosive and nitrocellulose) levels of the sediment B-23 TABLE B-10. INCINERATION OF SEDIMENT EXPLOSIVES LEVELS Concentration Temperature (OC) Time (min.) TNT ba/aI bv drv sediment RDX Tetryl baJaI tiQ/D) COD @Q&) No heat 200 5 30 60 5 30 60 5 30 60 5 30 60 5 30 60 424,000 10,000 1,500 1,350 <2 <2 c2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 159,000 99.99993 1,606.OO 1.68 8,602.OO 615.00 7.40 11 .oo 2.00 15.00 88.00 8.70 1.08 0.0065 99.990 > 99.99992 1,620.OO 1.67 8,603.OO 801 .OO 6.90 17.50 2.00 13.00 88.00 8.60 1.37 0.0093 99.985 >99.99997 Source: HMCRI, 1989 TABLE B-12. SWANSON RIVER TESTS: OPERATING CONDITIONS TESTS 4 THROUGH 6 Test conditions Test 4 Test 5 Test 6 Combustor temperature, “F Residence time, set Soil throughput, lblhr Feed PCB concentration, ppm Flue gas oxygen, dry % CO emissions, ppm HC emissions, ppm SO, emissions, ppm NO, emissions, ppm Carbon dioxide, % HCI emissions, Ib/hr Particulate gr/dSCf at 7% 0, Combustion efficiency, % DRE, % 1,70 1.oo 1.52 8,194.OO 289.00 6.20 8.70 2.00 27.00 82.00 8.80 1.42 0.0120 99.990 > 99.99996 1,693.OO 1.47 9,490.oo 608.00 6.10 10.00 2.00 21 .oo 90.00 8.90 1.57 0.0190 99.990 > 99.99994 1,686.OO 1.53 9,555.oo 625.00 8.10 12.50 2.00 20.00 95.00 8.80 1.21 0.0182 99.990 > 99.99993 Source: HMCRI, 1989 B-26 TABLE B-13. McCOLL SITE TESTS: OPERATING CONDITIONS Test conditions Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Combustor temperature, “F Residence time, set Soil throughput, Ib/hr Carbon tetrachloride, Ib/hr Flue gas oxygen, dry % CO emissions, ppm HC emissions, ppm SO, emissions, ppm NO, emissions, ppm Carbon dioxide, dry % HCI emissions, lbihr Particulate gr/dscf at 7% 0, Combustion efficiency, % DRE, % 1,721.OO 1.54 325.00 0.00 11.00 30.00 5.00 >95% 49.00 9.90 <0.0090 0.0041 99.97 1,726.OO 1.52 170.00 0.00 9.90 30.00 1.00 >95% 58.00 11.90 <0.0085 0.0044 99.97 1,709.oo 1.55 197.00 0.22 11.80 26.00 2.00 > 95% 48.00 9.20 < 0.0098 0.0035 99.97 99.9937 Source: HMCRI, 1989 B-27 TABLE B-14. McCOLL SITE TEST: METALS PARTITIONING Metal Total mg/hr Fly ash fraction Bed ash fraction Flue Qas fraction Test 1 Copper Nickel Cobalt Chromium Barium Manganese Copper Nickel Cobalt Chromium Barium Manganese Copper Nickel Cobalt Chromium Barium Manganese 688 1350 226 3206 6110 15687 1221 1171 204 2932 6435 20741 874 532 150 1630 4157 11682 0.769 0.714 0.765 0.843 0.832 0.761 0.938 0.904 0.903 0.948 0.937 0.958 0.949 0.872 0.941 0.951 0.972 0.968 0.195 0.278 0.218 0.154 0.167 0.238 0.036 0.049 <0.053 0.061 0.061 0.041 0.028 0.107 0.047 0.043 < 0.026 0.032 0.037 0.007 0.018 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.026 0.047 0.041 0.016 0.003 0.001 0.023 0.022 0.012 0.006 0.002 0.001 Test 2 Test 3 Source: HMCRI, 1989 B-28 TABLE B-15. WASTE FEED SOIL ANALYSIS Waste feed Measurement Nanograms PCB (total) lieptachlorobiphenyl Hexachlorobiphenyl Pentachlorobiphenyl Tetrachlorbiphenyl Trichlorobiphenyl Dichlorobiphenyl Ethyl benzene Methylene chloride Toluene Xylene per gram 3480 to 5850 940 to 220 1100 to 1700 200 to 490 400 to 830 570 to 820 120 to 190 40 to 140 80 to 120 130 to 300 260 to 770 Micrograms Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Copper Strontium Lead Vanadium Zinc per gram 2.1 to 3.6 2.0 to 2.9 3.9 to 4.6 20 to 24 44 to 55 50 to 62 4400 to 5000 7 to 11 950 to 1100 Percent Moisture Carbon Sulfur Chlorine Ash Btu value (HHV) 14.2 to 16.6 7.0 to 7.8 1.8 to 2.5 less than 0.1 70 to 75 1640 to 2065 Btu/lb HHV - high heating value B-29 TABLE B-16. METALS ANALYSIS Parameter Solid waste feed bg/@ Ash @g/g1 Stack gas* bg/dscf) Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Phosphorus Selenium Silicon Silver Sodium Strontium Sulfur Thallium Titanium Vanadium Zinc 1625.00 2.15 2.55 505.00 0.168 NA 4.15 37500.00 22.00 0.75 49.00 2050.00 4800.00 ND 850.00 ND ND 8.00 790.00 ND NA 2.00 5550.00 57.00 20500.00 ND 41 .oo 9.00 1030.00 2500.00 3.30 2.60 757.00 0.30 NA 4.10 50000.00 27.00 2.00 64.00 2600.00 6400.00 ND 1050.00 ND ND 10.00 770.00 ND NA 4.00 5600.00 76.00 24000.00 ND 115.00 13.00 1060.00 <210.00 91 .oo 38.00 675.00 0.11 625.00 1920.00 1680.00 270.00 99.99 99.95 99.86 99.87 Source: USEPA, 1990m B-33 TABLE B-20. LABORATORY X*TRAXTM NON-PCB SOIL, SLUDGE, AND MIXTURE (Concentration - mg/kg) Run number Parameter Concentration Feed Product Removal (%I DB0627 Clay soil Total solids (%I Azobenzene 3,3’-Dichlorobenzidine Benzidine 2-Chloroanaline Nitrobenzene Total solids (%I 3,3’-Dichlorobenzidine Azobenzene Benzidine Total solids (%I Azobenzene Toluene 3,3’-Dichlorobenzidine 2-Chloroaniline Benzene Benzidine Aniline Total solids (%I 3,3’-Dichlorobenzidine Azobenzene 94.1 3,190 1,820 842 828 45.6 73.1 958 61 .O 17.8 52.4 47,900 4,470 3,590 2,100 1,870 1,010 267 47.0 1,070 35.7 100 4.9 CO.66 ND ND co.33 100 CO.66 ND ND 100 327 c 0.42 18.4 47.5 <0.21 3.7 43.3 100 CO.66 ND N/A 99.8 s-99.96 --> 98.6 N/A > 99.0 DB0629 Soil/sludge DB0706 Sludge N/A 99.3 > 99.99 99.5 99.7 > 99.99 99.6 83.8 N/A > 99.94 -- DB0710 Sludge Source: USEPA, 1990m B-34 TABLE B-21. PILOT X*TRAXTM USING PCB-CONTAMINATED SOILS Run number Matrix Feed Iwml Product lrwml Removal (96) 0919 0810 1003 0727 0929 Clay Silt clay Clay Sandy Clay 5,000 2,800 1,600 1,480 630 24.0 19.0 4.8 8.7 17.0 99.5 99.3 99.7 99.1 97.3 Source: USEPA, 1990m TABLE B-22. COMPARISON OF LAB AND PILOT X*TRAXn” PCB-CONTAMINATED SOILS TESTS USING Matrix System scale Run ID number Amount (lb) Feed km-n) Product hw-d Sand Lab Pilot Lab Pilot RS0829 RS0727 GR0524 GA081 0 19 4,958 31 4,584 5,100 1,480 962 2,800 9.7 8.7 21 19 Silt/clay Source: USEPA, l990m B-35 TABLE B-23. PILOT X’TRAX” TSCA TESTING - VENT EMISSIONS Run number Total hydrocarbons (DDrn-V b After Before carbon carbon Removal 1%) voc (lb/day) PCB’ (mg/m31 0914 0919 0921 0926 0929 1,320 1,031 530 2,950 2,100 57 72 34 170 180 95.6 93.0 93.3 94.2 91.4 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.07 0.08 < 0.00056 < 0.00055 <0.00051 < 0.00058 c 0.00052 + - OSHA permits 0.50 mg/m3 PCB (1254) for 8-hr exposure. Source: USEPA, 1990m Vapor Extraction System (VESk fluidized bed. It can remove volatile and semivolatile from soil, sludge, total organic The VES uses a low-temperature, organics, including PCBs, PAHs, and PCP, volatile the process treats inorganics, and some pesticides and sediment. contaminants In general, wastes containing inorganic less than 5 percent contaminants and 30 to 90 percent solids. the process, Nonvolatile (such as metals) in the waste feed do not inhibit but are not removed by this process. l American Toxic Disposal, fluidized contact Inc. has developed a VES which feeds contaminated materials into a co-current, heater. bed, where they are mixed with hot gas (about 320°F) from a gas-fired between the waste material and the hot gas volatizes which flows water and Direct contaminants treatment from the waste into the gas stream, out of the dryer to a gas A cyclone system where dust and organic vapors are removed from the gas stream. then remove most of the particulates in the stream. washer, separator and baghouse cyclone separator Vapors from the and chiller section are are cooled in a venturi scrubber, in a vapor-phase two activated counter-current before they are treated clarified carbon adsorption system. The liquid residues Clarified and passed through carbon beds, arranged in series. carbon beds. sludge is centrifuged, and the liquid residue is also passed through B-36 By-products from the VES treatment include as follows: 96 to 98 percent of a solid waste feed organics; a small quantity exits as clean, dry dust; a small quantity of spent adsorbent of baghouse carbon; wastewater of pasty sludge containing that may need further treatment; and small quantities and cyclone dust. a demonstration solids site for this process. and contaminated feed (USEPA, 1989h). with Harbor or river sediments PCBs and other volatile or EPA is currently containing semivolatile locating at least 50 percent organics is the scheduled Pyrolysis-­ Pyrolysis high temperature is a thermal process which destroys organic materials in the absence of oxygen at a so that toxic organic constituents are reduced to elementat gases and water vapor. and an inorganic (ther­ range from pure heating necessary The absence of oxygen allows separation fraction molysis) (salts, metals, to conditions particulates) in which of the waste into a gaseous organic fraction The process conditions less than the as char. only slightly theoretically quantity reaction, (stoichiometric) although of air is supplied. Gases are the principle product generated by the pyrolytic ash can also result (USEPA, 1988b3. Because of lack of oxygen, chlorine, hydrochloric PCBs are not incinerated, solid but they do break down into gaseous hydrogen, waste containing carbon (Sullivan, 1989). acid, and a free-flowing, 0 The pyrolytic incineration process marketed by Midland Ross Corporation is decomposed is a two-step process. In the first step, waste material oxygen at 1000 to 1400°F in the absence of air, or solid fraction. incinerator In the second step, operated at 22OO”F, direct-fired into an organic gaseous fraction and an inorganic the organic fraction where hazardous energy recovery mesh or smaller. is fed into a high-temperature, components are destroyed and clean, decontaminated gases are sent to an device (USEPA, 1988b). Feed material must be predried and screened to 35 99.99999 percent. This process achieves DREs exceeding This technology application is commercially available, and has been used at RCRA facilities. demonstrated. However, its to CERCLA wastes has not been commercially including dredging, transport, treatment, Costs are estimated ISullivan, 1989). at about $900/m3, and redeposition B-37 Wet Air Oxidation (WAOL­ technology by oxidation that breaks down suspended in a high temperature, treatment containing and dissolved high pressure, oxidizable aqueous WA0 is a thermal treatment inorganic environment. for application inorganic of organic incineration. and organic materials WA0 is used primarily to treat biological to concentrated liquid or sludge wastewater streams sludges. organic It has potential and oxidizable to the treatment by waste wastes that are not readily biodegradable. waste streams that are too diluted Highly-chlorinated of catalysts WA0 is particularly well-suited (less than 5 percent organics) to treat economically destruction species, such as PCBs, are too stable for complete without Benchfor PCBs the addition or the use of very high pressure and temperature indicated (USEPA, 1987a). scale testing of WA0 on Indiana Harbor sediments (USEPA, 1989g3. a 52 percent removal efficiencies l The EcoLogic oxidize, process uses hydrogen at elevated temperatures to reduce, rather than to no chlorinated organics. Since there is no free oxygen Since combustion in the reducing atmosphere, dioxin or furan formation to use up reactor handling volume is possible. air is not required, there is no nitrogen and heat, resulting Bench-scale organic waste, in much smaller reactor than in an incinerator tests have shown that a well-mixed subjected combination the same throughput. and chlorinated of hydrogen to 850°C or higher for a period of 1 A field test of this process is scheduled Capital and operating with comparable costs are capacities second, will result in 99.9999% or better destruction. Department at a harbor project for the Canadian predicted (Hallett, of Defence. to be 3 to 10 times lower than incineration 1990). technologies 0 The Taciuk process uses heat to separate in Waukegan to remove organics from sediment. This process has been with chosen to treat the sediments PC&. The process (IL) Harbor, which are heavily contaminated is expected more than 97% of the PCBs from the treated Originally developed to extract oil sediment. The remediation is in progress now at this site. from oil sands and oil shales, the process feeds sediments and light hydrocarbons extracts are extracted in an anaerobic into a preheated zone where water hotter zone environment, A second, PCBs and other heavy hydrocarbons. from the sediments; by incineration The PCBs are not degraded by the process, but in a hazardous 1989). waste they are separated landfill they can then be deposited or any other means (Sullivan, or treated further B-38 APPENDIX SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT C CONTAMINATION (1982-1989) RECORDS OF DECISION TABLE C-1. SUMMARYOF FY82-FY89 RECORDSOF DECISION (RODS) DOCUMENTING SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION Site name Region Contaminants RODS selected remedy Quantity sediments of (cu yd) 1. Baird & McGuire, MA Corp., MA 1 PAHs, pesticides, arsenic PAHS, pesticides, lead Benzene, TCE, PCE, PAHs, arsenic Organics, metals inorganics, Incineration Incineration 1,500 2. Cannon Engineering I 3. Charles George Reclamation Landfill, MA I I Solidification 500 4. Hocomonco Pond, MA On-site Solvent landfilling extraction and on-site disposal 3,000 5. Norwood PCBs, MA MA I I PCE, TCE, PAHs, PCBs, phenols, metals Orgenics, metals Benzene, lead inorganics, 6. Nyanza Chemical, 7. O'Connor, ME Consolidation I NH I PCBs, PAHs, Solvent extraction 23,500 (soil sediment) 19,000 (soil sediment) and on-site 3,000 and and 8. Ottati 9. Re-Solve, & Goss, MA TCE, PCBs, inorganics VOCs, PCBs Incineration I Pit, MA I KPEG dechlorination placement Incineration 10. Rose Disposal Benzene, toluene, Arsenic, lead PCE, TCE, xylenes, PCBs chromium, 11. Saco Tannery 12. South Municipal Waste Pits, Water ME Supply Well, NH I I Solidification Off-site disposal 1,170 PCE, TCE, toluene, PCBs, PAHs, metals (continued) C-l TABLE B-l. Continued Quantity sediments 1,900 of (cu yd) Site name Region Lodge, MA Contaminants Benzene, TCE, PCBs, PAHs, lead Benzene, arsenic vocs Benzene, toluene xylene, phenols, lead PCE, TCE WCs, PcBs, PCBs lead totuene, RODS selected Solidification Incineration solidification Lou teqerature Incineration remedy 13. Sullivans I 14. U.R. Grace, MA 15. American Thermostats, NJ NY II II I of highly of less thermal contaminatad containated desorption soil and soil 300 90 16. Bog Creek Park, 17. Brewster 18. Bridgeport, 19. Burnt Uell NJ Field, NY II II 11 Incineration Incineration Off-site No action Slurry In situ chrunius, Soil Off-site Therm1 phase bioremediation contairmnt 20,ooo disposal Fly Bog, NJ Control, NJ Foundry Division, NY 20. Chemical 21. 22. General II II 11 PAHs, PCBs, WCs PCBs PCBs Ca&niun, silver WCs, Motors/Central NY NJ Hudson River, of Prussia, 23. King II II II washing disposal treatment (sol 1s d sedirant) 24. Lang Property, Landfill, NY NJ metals toluene, arsenic, lead 25. Lipari Benzene, xylems, chromiun, Dioxin WCs, @WlOlS 26. Love Canal, NY NY II II Thermal PCBs, nickel On-site treatment disposal and RCRA cap 10,808 (soil sactimant) 55,oOa soil washing 50,000 (soil sedimt) md md 27. Ludlow 28. Marathon 29. Myers Sand and Gravel, Battery, NJ NY II II Ca&ius, Solidification Dechlorination, Property, SVOCS, dioxins (continued) c-2 TABLE C-l. Continued Ctuantity sediments of (cu yd) Site 30. name South Brmswick Landfill, NJ Region Contaminants RODS selected remedy 11 11 No action No action Metals, arsenic Uater wash extraction 62,600 8,000 31. Spence Farm, NJ 32. Vineland Chemical, NY NJ II II 33. York Oil, VOCs, metals, PCBS Mcs, inorganics, metals PCE, l,l-DCE, l,l,l-TCA Benzene, toluene vinyl chloride, PAHs, PCBs, phenols, lead Benzene, toluene, TCE, xylems, PAHs, phenols, arsenic, chrasius, lead WCs, metals, inorganics PNAs, benzene Pesticides TCE, PCE, metals PCBs, PAHs, inorganics, metals Arsenic, PCBs Organics, PAHs, PCBs, Solidification 34. Amy Creek 35. Bergs 36. Landfill, PA Disposal, DE III III No action Incineration 600 Sand Pit, Douglassville PA III Incineration of ash prior with possible to disposal solidification 37. Drake Chemical, PA III Incineration 252,000 (soil, sediment, and sludge) disposal 118,000 (soil and sediment) 38. Harvey-Knott 39. L.A. Clarke Drun, 8 Sons, DE VA III III Off-site Land farming 40. 41. Laetobm Limestone Pesticide, Road, FBI Dunp, PA UV III III III uv III Anaerobic No action On-site biodegradation 42. Willcreek consolidation and RCRA cap 43. Ordnance uorks Disposal, Incineration 44. Sand, Gravel, and Stone, m III metals No action (continued) c-3 TABLE C-l. Continued Quantity sediments of (cu yd) Site 45. 46. 47. 48. nams Southern Taylor Tyson’s Uest Maryland Borough, Dvrp, PA Ordnance, UV PA Uood Treating, PA PA 10 Region III III III 111 III III Contaminants WCs, PNAs RODS selected remedy Incineration Off-site Off-site Off-site lead No action Ex situ bioremediation 5,600 (soil sediment) and disposal disposal incineration 50 VOCs, organi cs vocs PAHs, phenols Nitroaromatics, vocs, svocs Line, Virginia 49. Vest 50. Uhitmoyer 51. Uildcat 52. A.L. 53. Airco 54. Laborsties, Landfill, Taylor, Carbide, KY KY DE 111 IV IV FL NC IV No action WCs, PCBs, PAHs, metals PCBS PAHs Benzene, arsenic, Ketone, PAHs, chromiun phthalates On-site On-site On-site containment disposal biodegradation, off-site disposal 3,000 and RCRA cap Brown Uood Preserving, 55. Cape Fear Uood Preserving, IV Lou temperature thermal desorption desorption followed by soil washing solidification On-site disposal or 110 9,000 (soil sedimnt) 6,000 (soil sediment) and 56. Celanese, NC FL IV IV 57. Coleman Evans, 58. Flowed, 59. Geiger/C&H 60. Independent MS Oil, Nail, VOCs, PCP, chromius Incineration IV SC SC Reichold, MS IV IV Lead Lead Metals Solidification No action Solidification and 6,200 (soil sediment) 7,300 and 61. Neusom Brothers/Old 62. Sapp Battery, FL IV IV PAHs, PCBs, PCP metals Metals (cent inued) Incineration Solidification c-4 TABLE C-l. Continued Site name Region Farm, KY IV 1V Oil Pits, FL IV Contaminants RODS selected Incineration, No action Removal remedy solidification Quantity sediments of (cu yd) 63. Smith's PAHs, PCBs, lead WCs, organics 5,200 64. Uamchem, SC 65. Uhitehouse Uaste Benzene, phenols, PAHs, Cr Organics, metal and off-site disposal 66. Zellwood, FL Refinery, Sanitation, IN Landfill, OH MN MI IV V V V V Thermal On-site destruction incineration 20,000 350 350 and RCRA cap 67. Arrowhead 68. 69. Burrow VOCs, PAHs, lead Metals, cyanides Solidification On-site Disposal disposal in landfill Envirochem, Schilling VOCs, PCBs, inorganics Benzene, phenol, PAHs, pesticides, arsenic TCE, PCE, PCBs, metals Organics, metals 70. E.H. 71. Fields 72. 73. Industrial Brook, OH Landfi V Thermal Capping On-site treatment and solidification 52,000 Excess IN 11, OH Lake Sandy Jo, Electrical IN VOCs, PAHs, metals Utili, ties, IL VOCs, PCBs Benzene, toluene, TCE, PCBs, phenols, PAHs, chromiun, lead V consolidation 74. LaSalle 7'5. MIDCO I, Incineration Solidif ication and RCRA cap 1,200 76. MIDCO II, IN Benzene, toluene, Solidif TCE, xylenes, PCBs, arsenic, chromiun, lead PAHs ication and RCRA cap 500 77. Moss-American, WI V Slurry phase bioremediation followed by soil uashing (continued) 5,200 c-5 TABLE C-l. Continued Ruafltity sadimtr of Ccu yd) Site nme OH Region V Contaminants WCs, organics, inorganics Benzene, TCE, toluene, PAHs, PCBs, lead WCs, PCBs PCE, TCE, metals, pesticides, dioxirts VDCs, PCBs, chromius PCBs RODS selected Consolidation remedy and RCRA cap 78. New Lyme Landfill, 79. Ninth Avenue Dunp, OH IN V V Harbor, IL V V On-site Off-site disposal disposal and RCRA cap 80. Old Hill, 81. Outboard 82. Pristine, 83. 84. Rarine/Uaukegan LOW tsqerature thermal folloued by incineration On-site consolidation vitrification Off-site disposal on-site desorption with in situ 16,DDD (soil sediment) and OH Schmalz Dunp, VI Seymour Recycling, National, Inc. OH TCE, organics Benzene, toluene, xylems, TCE, phenol, PAHs, PCBs, arsenic, chromius V IL V V VI TX Arsenic Benzene, pesticides PCBs Phenols, chrusim, Benzene, PAHs Organics (continued) arsenic, lead PAHs, metals & lead PAHs Consolidation On-site 85. Smit incineration 1,500 86. United Scrap Lead, OH Corporation, IN Acid uashing disposal 4DD 10,200 87. Velsicol Chemical On-site 88. Uedzeb Enterprises, 89. AT&SF WlOVis), NM Incineration On-site biodegradation 90. 91. Bailey Uaste Disposal, LA VI VI VI Solidification Incineration Backfilling of on-site ponds Bayou Bcmfouca, Reber, LA 92. Cleve C-6 TABLE C-l. Continued Puantity sedimnts of (cu yd) Site nme Region Contaminants RCDs selected remedy 93. Gurlcy Pit, AR VI PCBs, oily metals waste, Stabilizrtion 94. Koppers Texarkana, TX VI Benzene, tolume, xylem, PAHs, PCP, rrsenic Benzene, chrasiu, PAHs, arsenic, led tolusm, Soil washing 95. Hotco, 96. North TX Cavalcade Street, TX AR MO VI VI Contaiment Biodegredation 140,000 (soil sediment) and PAHs, benzene, xylem PCP, PRAS 97. Old Midland Products, VI VII Incineration Off-site disposal in a RCRA landfill 850 4,050 (soil sediment) and 98. Kern--Pest Laboratories, Xylem, pesticides, organochlorine, arsenic TCDD PAHs, phenols, Radim zinc 99. Minker Stout/Romaine Northern Creek, Wsners MD Plant), MT VII VIII On-site Biological On-site disposal No action Off-site In-situ disposal, disposal (temporary) 11,700 (soil sediment) by on-site and 100. Burlington treatment storage followed 101. Denver Radius/Card Property, CD VIII 102. Iron Mountain Mine, CA CA IX IX Metals PCBs, Vocs PCBs, PAHs, arsenic swcury, lead, zinc (continued) 103. MBFI Brakes, 104. Comencement disposal capping, CAD, confined and upland disposal near-shore 1,818,ODD Bay near Shore/Tide Flats, UA X c-7 TABLE C-l. Continued Quantity sediments 5,500 of (cu yd) Site name Region x Farma, UA X Contaminants Lead TCE, PCBs, chromius, lead WCs, PCBs, PAHS, metals ROOs selected remedy 105. Gould, OR Stabilization Stsbilization 106. Queen City 107. Uestern Processing, UA X Remova 1 Source: USEPA, 1990b Note: For an updated version of ROOs involving sediment contamination, contact the Region III Hazardous Uaste Technology Information Center. c-8 APPENDIX CONTAMINANT D GROUP CONSTITUENTS TABLE D-1. Halogonated Vdatiles EXAMPLES OF CONSTITUENTS Semivdatike WITHIN WASTE GROUPS Vdotlle Arsenic Bismuth Lead Mercury Tin Selenium Zinc Othor CategofIo8 Metak Nonhalogenated Bromodichloromethane Bromoform Bromomethane Carbon tetrachloride Chlorodibromomethane Chlorobenzene Chloroethane Chloroform Chloromethane Chloropropane Dibromomethane Cis, 1-3-dichloropropene 1,l -Dichloroethane 1 ,P-Dichloroethane 1 ,1-Dichloroethene 1,2-Dichloroethene 1.2~Dichloropropane fluorotrichloromethane Methylone chloride 1,1,2,2-tetrachlorethane Tetrachloroethene 1 ,l, 1 -Trichloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1,2-Trans-dichloroethene Trans-1,3-dichloropropene 1 ,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane Trichloroethene Vinyl chloride Total chlorinated hydrocarbons Hexachloroethene Dichloromethane Benzoic acid Cresols 2.4dimethylphenol 2.4dinitrophenol 2-methylphenol Qmethylphenol 2-nitrophenol Cnitrophenol Phenol Acenaphthene Acenapthylene Anthracene Benzidine Benzo(a)anthracene Benzolb)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzofghi)perylene Benzyl alcohol Bis(P-ethylhexyl)phthalate Butyl benzyl phthalate Chrysene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Dibenzofuran Diethyl phthalate Dimethyl phthalats Din-bun/l phthalats 4Sdinitro-2-methvlphenol 2.4-dinitrotduene 2,Sdinitrotuelene Asbestos Inorganic Ccrroeivea Hydrochloric acid Nitric acid Hydrofluoric acid Sulfuric acid Sodium hydroxide Calcium hydroxide Calcium carbonate Potassium carbonate PC& PCB PCB PCB PCB PCB PCB PCB PCB (Arochlor)-1016 (Arochlor)-1221 (Arochlor)-1232 (Arochlor)-1242 (Arochlorj-1248 (Arochlor)-1254 (Arochlorj-1280 NOS (not otherwise Ccrrceivee specified) Organic Acetic acid Acetyl chloride Aniline Aromatic sulfonic Cresylic acid Formic acid acids D-l TABLE D-l. Haloganatad Samivdatilaa Nonhaloganatad Samivolatilaa (continued) (continued) Nonmatallic Fluorine Chlorine Nonvdatila Aluminum Antimony Barium Beryllium Bismuth Cadmium Calcium Chromium Copper Cobalt Iron Magnesium Manganese Nickel Potassium Selenium Sodium Vanadium Zinc Matda Toxic Elamanta 2-chlorophenol 2.4dichlorophenol Hexachlorocyclopantadiene p-chloro-m-creaol Pentachlorophenol Tetrachlorophenol 2,4,5-trichlorophenol 2,4,&trichlorophenol Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane Bia(2-chloroethyi)ether Bist2-chloroioapropyi)ether Qbromophenyi phenyi ether Qchloroeniline 2-chloronaphthalene 4chlorophenyl phonytether 1,2-dichlorobenzene 1.3-dichlorobenzene 1 ,Cdichlorobenzene 3,3-dichlorobenzidine Hexechlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene Bis(2chloroethoxy)phthalate Bis(2-chloroethoxyjether 1,2-bia(2-chloroethoxy)ethane Di-n-octyl phthalate 1,2-diphenyihydrazine Fluoranthane Fluorene Indeno(l,2,3-cdlpyrene lsophorone P-methyinapthalene Napthalens t-nitroaniline 3-nitroaniline Cnitroeniline Nitrobenzene n-nitrosodimethyiemine n-nitroaodi-n-propylamine n-nitroaodiphsnylamine Phenanthrene Pyrene Pyridine 2-methylnaphthalene Bis phthalate Phenyi napthalene D-2 TABLE D-l. Nonhaloganatad Volatilea I Paaticidea Aldrin BHC-alpha BHC-beta BHC-delta BHC-gamma Chlordane 4,4,-DDE 4,4’-DDE 4,4’-DDT Dieldrin Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endolsulfan sulfate Endrin Endrin aldshyde Ethion Ethyl parathion Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide Malathion Methylparathion Parathion Toxaphene (continued) I Radioactivaa Radioactive isotopes of iodine, barium, uranium Radium Gamma radioactivity Radon; alpha radioactivity Organic Cyanides Acetone Acrolein Acrylonitrile Benzene P-butanone Carbon disulfide Cyclohsxanone Ethyl acetote Ethyl ether Ethyl benzene 2-hexanone lsobutanol Methanol Methyl isobutyi ketone 4-methyl-2-pentanone n-butyl alcohol Styrene Tolusns Trimethyl benzene Vinyl acetate Xylenes Organonitriles Inorganic Cyanides Cyanide (sodium cyanide) Complex cyanides (e.g., ferricyanide) Oxidizera Chlorates Chromates Reducara Sulfides Phosphides Hydrazine D-3 EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency (WH-585) Washington, DC 20460 Official Business Penaltyfor Private Use $300