National Academies Press: OpenBook

Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation (1989)

Chapter: New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project

« Previous: VI. Case Studies
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 312
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 313
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 314
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 315
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 316
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 317
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 318
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 319
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 320
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 321
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 322
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 323
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 324
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 325
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 326
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 327
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 328
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 329
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 330
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 331
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 332
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 333
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 334
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 335
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 336
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 337
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 338
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 339
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 340
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 341
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 342
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 343
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 344
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 345
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 346
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 347
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 348
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 349
Suggested Citation:"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project." National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1412.
×
Page 350

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

NEW BEDFORD HARBOR SUPERFUND PROJECT Allen J. Ikalainen and Douglas C. Allen E.C. Jordan Company, C.E. Environmental ABSTRACT This case study about the ongoing remedial investiga- tion (RI) and feasibility study (FS) for the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site discusses events and prior studies leading to the current RI/FS. It includes discussion of multiple sampling and analytical programs to describe con- tamination and to develop and calibrate physical-chemical and food-web models to evaluate contaminant movement. Engi- neering feasibility, pilot-scale dredging and disposal stu- dies, bench- and pilot-scale testing of innovative treatment technologies and public health and environmental risk assess- ment are utilized to evaluate the feasibility of a range of alternatives to meet site-specific clean-up objectives. OVERVIEW OF THE SITE New Bedford Harbor, a tidal estuary, is situated between the city of New Bedford on the west and the towns of Fairhaven and Acushnet on the east at the head of Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts. For administra- tive purposes, the site can be divided into three geographic areas, as shown in Figure 1. The northernmost portion of the site extends from the Coggeshall Street Bridge north to Wood Street in Acushnet. The remainder of the site extends south from the Coggeshall Street Bridge through the New Bedford Hurricane Barrier and into Buzzards Bay as far as the southern limit of PCB Closure Zone 3. Geographic boundaries include the shoreline, wetlands, and peripheral upland areas. The New Bedford Wastewater Treatment Plant, the combined sewer sys- tem outfalls , the Aerovox plant, and the Cornell-Dubilier plant, all documented discharge points of PCBs, are within the areas of concern for the site. The New Bedford and Sullivan's Ledge landfills are repo- sitories of PCBs and are being addressed separately from the harbor. The estuary and harbor/bay area within the limits of the New Bed- ford Harbor Superfund Site is over 5,000 acres. Water depths range from 1 ft at the northern limit of the site to over 30 ft at the last shellfish closure line in Buzzards Bay. Freshwater discharge from the Acushnet River to the harbor is 30 ft per second, average annual flow. Significant features of the estuary and harbor include 312

313 · the 50-acre Fairhaven Marsh on the eastern shore of the Acushnet River; o three bridge crossings that form constrictions and define boun- daries for the feasibility study (FS) areas; a very active commercial fishery in both Fairhaven and New Bedford (commercial fish landings in 1987 were the largest of any U.S. port); and the New Bedford hurricane barrier dike, 4,600-ft long with a top elevation of 22 ft and navigation opening 150-ft wide, that forms the lower limit of the harbor. Description of the Problem Selecting and implementing a cost-effective remedial action for New Bedford Harbor requires that the nature and extent of contamination by PCBs and metals be determined and that environmental effects, including impacts on public health, be evaluated. Conducting a remedial inves- tigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) to select the remedial action cur- rently involves five federal agencies or departments and six private consultants or institutions. The following subsections contain discus- sions of the environmental problem. The Environmental Problem Since the initial survey of the New Bedford area in 1974, a much better understanding of the extent of PCB contamination has been gained. The entire area north of the hurricane barrier, an area of 985 acres, is underlain by sediments containing elevated levels of PCBs and heavy metals. PCB concentrations range from a few parts per million (ppm) to over 100,000 ppm. Portions of western Buzzards Bay sediments along the New Bedford shoreline south of the hurricane barrier are also contaminated, with concentrations occasionally exceeding 50 ppm. The water column in New Bedford Harbor has been measured to contain PCBs in the parts per billion (ppb) range well in excess of the U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency's (EPA) 30 parts per trillion (ppt) guideline for protection of saltwater aquatic life from chronic toxic effects. Much of the PCB sampling performed before 1980 was analyzed for Aroclor 1254. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution scientists have presented evidence suggesting that, as a result, PCB contamination is often under- stated by factors of three to five. Sampling and analyses performed since 1980 have included PCB isomers. Sediment copper concentrations were reported in 1977 to range from more than 6,000 ppm near the head of the harbor, to less than 100 ppm at the edge of Buzzards Bay. Other metals are also present at lower concentrations. The direct discharge of PCB-contaminated wastewater from Cornell-Dubilier and Aerovox plants has been significantly reduced, as a result of EPA's amendments to their wastewater discharge permits. However, uncontrolled releases from the tidal mudflats beneath Aerovox's discharge have continued una- bated. Studies have shown that 200 to 700 lbs of PCBs were previously

314 HOT SPOT AEROVOX it. ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION ) NEW BEDFORD NEW BEDfORD. LANDf ILL SULLIVAN S .EDGE ESTUARY \ it. - _. ~ .~ DARTMOUTH ._ i. ~ . ·1 \ i \ - .': Am. aim! TREAT-~4EN] PLANT RtCKETSCNS POINT 1 A_ ! NEW sea90eo · f '~;~GrE'w'ATER _ .t . SMITH NECK : '.'( I SHAUM POINT FIGURE 1 New Bedford Harbor areas subj ect to PCB closures . FAIRHAVE.N CDG~ES HALL PETREL. BRIDGE — LOWER HARBOR / BAY _~ i\ r OR t1£~L ~ ~ aeon `. ~ _ (¢ SCONTICUT NECK \ _'CLARKS ~ ~ ' PotNt ~ \ ~ :- — ~ \ WILBUR POINT LEDGE N)~ \ AL A N D ~ \ 7 YROCK / POINT AREAS SUBJECT TO PC8 CLOSURES: . . ~ WATERS CLOSED TO ALL flSHING i-- -- . 1 WATERS CLOSED TO THE TAKING OF EELS t ~ . . . ~ LOBSTERS, fLOUNDERS, SCUP AND TAUTO~ WATERS CLOSED TO LOBSTERING ONLY 0 1_6000 ~12j-Co flit

315 c discharged per year to Buzzards Bay via the Clark's Point outfall. The magnitude of PCB discharge from the sewer system and treatment plant is being addressed by EPA in its review of New Bedford's application for a waiver from secondary treatment under Section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act, as amended. In addition to these known PCB disposal sites, EPA has investigated at number of other potential sources and disposal sites. Of 30 areas investigated initially, five or fewer sites appear to warrant further investigation. These sites are being addressed by EPA's pre-remedial program. The environmental impacts at the New Bedford Harbor site due to PCB and heavy metal contamination include both human health and effects on fishing in the area. The most probable link of PCBs to human intake is the consumption of contaminated fish and shell fish from the Acushnet River estuary. Widespread contamination of the Acushnet River estuary environs has resulted in the accumulation of PCBs in many marine spe- cies. Although thousands of acres have been closed to the harvesting of shellfish, finfish, and lobsters, residents are known to still har- vest both finfish and shellfish, thus exposing themselves to ingestion of PCBs. In addition, many individuals regularly consumed contaminated fish before the extent of environmental contamination by PCBs was known. The chronic toxicity effects on these people have not been evaluated. The closure of the harbor and sections of Buzzards Bay to fishing has resulted in an estimated capital loss of $250,000 per year to the lobster industry alone. Shellfish and finfish industries, as well as recreational fishing, have also been negatively affected. Figure 1 shows the three closure areas established by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health on September 25, 1979. Area 1 (New Bedford Harbor) is closed to the taking of all finfish, shellfish, and lobsters. Area 2 is closed to the taking of lobster and bottom- feedng fish (eels, soup, flounder, and tautog). Area 3 is closed to the taking of lobster. Responsibility for enforcement of these closures is entrusted to the Massachusetts Office of Environmental Affairs Division of Law Enforcement. Contaminated sediments have also affected proposed harbor development projects, most of which require dredging. Dredging in New Bedford Harbor is restricted by the difficulties encountered in fulfilling state and federal regulatory requirements for the disposal of contaminated dredge spoils. ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATION As previously noted, contamination of New Bedford Harbor sediments has been assessed since 1974. The most recent studies conducted in 1984-1987 have formed the basis for performing physical-chemical and food-web modeling, public health and environmental risk assessments, and identifying specific locations for sediment cleanup. Following are summaries and results of the sampling programs. Section 2.2 describes assessment of public health and environmental

316 risk. Information on the distribution of contamination and the risk assessment help to define clean-up objectives (remedial response objec- tives) described in Section 2.3. Sampling Programs for the Acushnet River Estuary and New Bedford Harbor Acushnet River Estuary The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) New England Division (NED) and Waterways Experiment Station (WES) in Vicksburg, Mississippi, conducted two sampling programs in the Acushnet River estuary. The first was designed to characterize sediment contaminant concentrations throughout the estuary and included · sediment cores on a 250-foot grid north of the Coggeshall Street Bridge (180 locations, Figure 2~; · 30 cores selected for testing at a 3-ft depth, plus other depths as required, that were analyzed for PCBs, metals, oil and grease, and physical tests; · 10 cores selected for the EPA hazardous substances list analyses. In addition, a more concentrated sampling program was conducted in the area of the highest concentrations of PCBs in sediments, the "hot spot." This program consisted of · sediment cores on a 150-ft grid, · 49 cores selected for testing at two depths, · five cores selected for testing at 36- and 48-in depths, and · 13 cores selected for physical testing. Within the harbor/bay area south of the Coggeshall Street Bridge, NUS conducted a sampling program to characterize sediment contaminant levels (Figure 3~. It consisted of · sediment cores on a 500-ft grid between I-195 bridge and the area just south of the hurricane barrier (180 locations); · the top 6 in of each core, selected for PCB analysis; · multiple depth samples selected for PCBs and metals analyses at approximately 30 locations; · multiple depth samples selected for full hazardous substances list at 5 to 10 locations; and · physical testing of selected samples. For purposes of calibration and verification of the physical-chemical and food-web model by Battelle/HydroQual, Battelle New England deve- loped and completed a sampling program consisting of

317 - 2 7 _ i 14 L 15 ~ 1G _ 17 _ 18 _ 19 20 21 22 _ _ 27 30 l 3 23 24 25 26 28 29 _ 1__ .~ . _+_ _ r_~ _.~ J K ~ M ~ , ~ . J al so I ¢ - ~ ·- ~ V V, ~ a) 0 Cal So · - a) ~ U] U V ¢ ~ U o =1 ~ · - as: So V) be be be ~ O · - ~ P4= O to ~ U :^ ~ O So ~ ^ · - lo' I O ¢ So _ UP ad oO . Cal Let ~ Pa O C) ~ ~ ~ ~ O H lo.

~~ #-- ~'j ~ -if: ~ ~ ~ -A *~ ~ —-a A.. ._ ~ ~ ·~ Hi.,-. In ~ ~ - _~ t,— ~e,/~ _ ~ 'a "_ N. ~ I ' ~ ~ ,l~ ~ ;~'2 '_ ' ~ ~ ' =~^ _ _t~ ~ ~5:- i ~ - hi ah !~ or ,~ ,;_ ~ ~ ~ _ _ .,, _~ ! 'I ~ A, _ , , .._ ~——~ ~'~'~ —-errs loci. ~ at= _ - _ .. ~ i,;, . _ phi— ~ _ - at; , , _ ~ . _ _ . . . _ - . ~ _ . , .~'' ,? '' - —At: ~!~ i' Hi_ , - ~cM ~ 4 7 ~P~CXIM4 - ' _~T'CN OF ` A,N'i P' .. --'NT Al.', IOCNrif'C~ ,CN Lute.: iSCALE ~ 0 2~000 ''; ._.\ ,.~ ''' - _~ -- - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .Ir, are ~ ~ 'A e loo 4.000 FEET FIGURE 3 Location map and sampling grid for New Bedford Harbor SOURCE: NUS Corp. . . .. as. .. ... ~ bra rr ~` A TY~ ; ' .~ C ~~ ~ 1— ~ tet~ j ~ `.~tno,,.e

319 . water, sediment, and biota sampling at 25 stations, extending from the Acushnet River estuary to Buzzards Bay, on three occasions, September and December 1984, and June 1985; · a sampling program after a storm event; PCB analysis to measure isomers (chlorination levels) using GC/MS (re-analyses were done to achieve a detection limit in the range of ng/liter using GC/ECD and GC/MS); metals analysis for copper, cadmium, and lead; and support by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution's (WHOI) tide, current, and drifter studies. Type of Sample Sediment Tissue Filtrate Particulate Pore water TOC Grain size POC TSS Number of samples 233 366 300 300 3 233 136 300 300 Concurrent with these sampling programs aimed at providing data for the overall New Bedford FS, EPA's Narragansett Laboratory conducted a sediment toxicity and characterization study to investigate the toxic- ity of New Bedford Harbor sediments on two amphipods, and the effects of contaminants--including PCBs--accumulated in sediments on sheepshead minnow reproduction. Sediment for the bioassay tests was collected at stations in the Acushnet River estuary through the lower harbor to the hurricane bar- rier. Following the bioassay studies and analyses of sediments for PCBs, analyses were also performed for polynuclear aromatic hydrocar- bons (PAHs). Sampling locations and results are shown in Figures 4-6. The most recent sampling in New Bedford harbor was done to provide an environmental baseline on water quality conditions prior to the pilot dredging and disposal study by COE. This sampling, conducted by EPA's Narragansett Laboratory, included physical measurements of cur- rents, tides, temperature, salinity, and suspended solids. Water column samples were composited over two tidal cycles and analyzed for PCBs, cadmium (Cd), copper (Cu), and lead (Pb). Toxicity tests were comprised of mussel (Mytil us edul is) deployment to evaluate growth and survival, sea urchin (Arbacia punctulata) sperm cell fertiliza- tion, red alga (Champia parvula) reproduction, and fish (Cyprino- don variegatus) growth and survival. Results of Assessment of Contamination The accumulated data from the various New Bedford Harbor sampling programs are extensive. Summaries of the data are provided here to

320 i -6~00C 11 ~ I R l S ? ON DER S. A, I O N AEROV: 245000 i~ 245000 A C/JSfI//ET - I I ~1- · i' 240000 i ~ iCOG~ESHALL S 240000- NORTH - 235000 : 195 9~8 ~ ~ HAND 2~5000— RTE,~4 ' 230000 REDFORD ~ 5 o 2000 food 6000 fEEl - 225000 . . ~~ · ::> - )CORNELL-~1 ~ DUG B I LlER; / i. . ' : :\ , W. ."N :,` '...N 1 7 s s ooo 7 6 0 000 ~ 765 000 , , - f ~A /RHA V£W '>~ ti HURRICANE BARR IER 225000- FIGURE 4 EPA Narragansett sediment sampling stations for New Bedford Harbor. SOURCE: U.S. EPA, 1987.

LEGEND - NEW BEDFORD · SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATION · TRISPONt)ER STATION LOCATION REFERENCE: 1%1WORTALITY N PROGENY 3 1 %14ORTALITY IN EGGS ( 0.03 ppm TOTAL PCBe. *) MEAN PCB CONCENTRATION SUMATION CL 1 CL 10. ~6.000 FEET "I :~ . . . ~ ~ -~1 CORNELL-\— ~- DUBILIER ' ~ I;. ., \.. ... FIGURE 5 Toxicity of New Bedford Harbor sediments to the fish Cyprinadon variegates. SOURCE: U. S . EPA, 1987 . 100% MORTALITY RATE IN ADULTS. 83% MORTALITY - EGGS (2,600 ppm TOTAL PC8s.* ) ACUSHNET '' i~ ~ \,. : ~ ~ , _ . ~ · i'-.' ., F.- ,.? '. ~ , . ... . .~ ~ ~ ,. ..-...? .-... · :,.~-, .'...('' W: 88% MORTALITY - EGGS :~_RTE. 6 ~— :.=, · . t' ..~ . ~ ~ — · -~~ .~: ~~ - | /~/ HURRICANE BARRIER ,~ 28% MORTALITY - ADULT 80% MORTALITY IN PROGENY - ( HATCHED FISH ) 85% MORTALITY IN EGGS ~ 220 PPM TOTAL PCB9. ~ ) COGGESHAL ST. FAIRHAVEN ~10 ppm TOTAL PCBs.*) ,.. _~ . . r .. it. ;,~_.

LEGEND NEW BEDFORD -I SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATION · TRISPONDER STATION LOCATION REFERENCE: {13.3% 0.03 ppm TOTAL PC8~.) At, '. ' \- ·\~: ' I. ' ~N I: 1 00°`o ._, it; (2.600 plum TOTAL PCSs..) ~ ,~ a? ,l,; ·,\4 i' 1 ., ACUSHNET ~ , - .~` 92.2°~`o ~ if) ( 220 ppm TOTAL PC8s..) ~ - . . . . ., i, - . % .. .. . ,,/~.. ~ . ~~ OGGE SH A L ST . 32 ppm TOTAL PCB: ~';~- ~ 56 ppm TOTAL PC8s*. ) . ~ ~ ~~ .g ._ A. 46.7O/'o~^ POPES ISLAND\: _RTE. 6 t 17 ppm TOTAL PC8s*.).4 ~ FAIRHAVEN - .' 7 of; ,. .. - .. . - '.'' ~10 ppm TOTAL PC8s*.) ~— , . _ ~ ~ . ~ . . \ lo. '>~1-~-~ - I/ HURRICANE BARRIER . ~ ( 'I : ~ ~ MEAN PCB CONCENTRATION . .~ ..~ ~ SUMATION CL 1 - CL 10. i. ~ |: CORNELL- .~4 ~ DUBILIER' ~ SCALE ~~ 3.000 1 6.000 fEET FIGURE 6 Mortality of the amphipod Ampelisca abdita (Hansen, 1986) in New Bedford Harbor sediments. SOURCE: U.S. EPA, 1987.

323 indicate some general patterns resulting from the evaluation of the data. Sediment PCB Concentrations Figures 7 and 8 show PCB sediment concentrations by regions of the harbor extending from the Acushnet River to the outer harbor and by north-south location. Concentrations of total PCBs in sediments range from over 100,000 ppm in the Acushnet River to less than 10 ppm in outer New Bedford Harbor. Table 1 shows a range of organic compound concentrations in the Acushnet River and lower New Bedford Harbor. Water Column and Biota PCB Concentrations Table 2 shows mean and maximum PCB values by areas designated for assessment of risk (Figure 9~. Ranges of PCBs in biota are shown in Table 3. Risk Assessment As part of the FS, E.C. Jordan is conducting the risk assessment for the New Bedford Harbor site. The risk assessment serves to estab- lish the actual and/or potential threat to public health and welfare and the environment. It is based on the sampling data contained in the New Bedford Harbor data base, various site investigation reports, the Greater New Bedford Health Effects Study, and ongoing studies being conducted for this site. The risk assessment evaluates both the public health and environ- mental risks associated with exposure to contaminants from the New Bedford Harbor area under baseline (existing) and future potential conditions. The results of the risk assessment will be used to deter- mine the need for and extent of remediation. It serves as the public health and environmental evaluation of the no-action remedial alter- native for the site, and will be used in the effectiveness evaluation of each remedial alternative. The risks to human health and environmental ecosystems were deter- mined by two primary factors: exposure to and toxicity of the contami- nants detected at the site. Exposure is defined as contact with a chem- ical or physical agent and toxicity is the inherent ability of the chem- ical to cause harm. Combined, these two factors determine risk. The risk assessment for the New Bedford Harbor Superfund site consists of both a public health and an environmental assessment of the risks asso- ciated with exposure to the contaminants of concern: PCBs, cadmium, cop- per, and lead. A summary of these risks follows.

324 i 1 l l - V ll ~ ~ ~ At: 1 ·—.. i - e · 1 l ~ , -. AL L I I ~ ~ Cal :. 1 . 1 o CM ~ SOd1~1013/3~ Ol301 . :E in C: m I . o rQ so :r: 5 o A; C o . - ~o o a, . - I ~ _ ~ o Cal a, I ~ V O ~ rat ~3 to

325 I -. Len] - r 1 , t" w i L , , , I I ~ ~ CM o CM ~ SOd lel°l 6/6 ~ o 1601 J En CM to CM CO Cal lo CO Cal CM Cal lo Cal Cal Cal o Cal o sol o 4 a, 3 a) - a a) o Ct 3 o z I Cat o Ad o C) o o V) 1 sol o V? sol o . - o v Cal Go ~3

326 TABLE 1 New Bedford Harbor Organic Compounds in Sediment Location Compound Concentration Acushnet River estuary phenol 2 methylphenol bis(2-ethylhexl~phthalate di-n-octyl phthalate di-n-butyl phthlate acenaphthene acenaphthylene anthracene benzokajanthracene benzo~b~fluoranthene benzokk~fluoranthene benzo~g,h,i~perylene benzota~pyrene chrysene dibenz~a,h~anthracene flouranthene flourene indenokl,2,3-cd~pyrene napthalene 2-methylnapthalene phenanthrene pyrene benzoic acid dibenzofuran 140 ppb 56 ppb 120-4,500 ppb 60 ppb 250 ppb 1,900 ppb 52 ppb 110-13,000 ppb 240-7,400 ppb 440-5,600 ppb 53 ppb 330-3,700 ppb 320-4,100 ppb 290-4,700 ppb 100-710 ppb 420-2,900 ppb 2,300 ppb 390-940 ppb 73-980 ppb 350 ppb 57-8,500 ppb 490-7,100 ppb 260 ppb 1.500 ppb Harbor/bay acetone 21-360 ppt 4 methyl-phenol 100-560 ppb bis(2-ethylhexyl~phthalate 75-4,400 ppb di-n-butylphthalate 1,200-1,100 ppb diethylphthalate 380-1,400 ppb acenaphthene 320 ppb acenaphthylene 180 ppb anthracene 230-270 ppb benzokajanthracene 87-2,600 ppb benzo~b~fluoranthene 580-1,100 ppb benzokk~fluoranthene 580-1,100 ppb benzo~g,h,i~perylene 1,300 ppb benzoka~pyrene 690 ppb chrysene 860-1,700 ppb fluoranthene 81-2,300 ppb fluorene 250 ppb indenokl,2,3-cd~pyrene 5S0-990 ppb napthalene 110-270 ppb 2-methylnapthalene 140 ppb phenanthrene 180-2,500 ppb pyrene 110-3,200 ppb benzoic acid 68-520 ppb

327 TABLE 2 Mean and Maximum Concentrations of PCBs (pa/liter) in New Bedford Harbor Water Area Ia Knob Area II (n) Area III (n) Area IV (n) PCBs total MeanC 7.93 (6) Max 36.94 0.23 (97) 0.057 (72) 0.00461 1.41 0.64 0.06 NOTES: aAreas correspond to those labeled in Figure 9 b2n ~ sample size CMean and maximum from HydroQual, 1988 Public Health Risk Summary The public health risk evaluation was composed of three sections: an exposure assessment, a toxicity evaluation, and a risk assessment. The exposure assessment focused on site- specific demographic and land use information to identify the subpopulations (children, adults, teens, etc.) considered to be at risk from contaminant exposure and to determine the principal pathways of contaminant exposure at the New Bedford Harbor s ite . Analyses of the demographic and land use information, as well as activity and behavior patterns, indicated that exposure to contaminants in the New Bedford Harbor area could occur through dermal contact with sediments and water, ingestion of water and biota, and/or inhalation of airborne contaminants. A quantitative screening analysis of these expo- sure pathways was performed to identify the principal pathways of expo- sure. These were ingestion of aquatic biota, direct contact with sediments, ingestion of sediments, and inhalation of airborne contaminants. These exposure pathways accounted for 99 percent of the potential expo- sures within the New Bedford Harbor area, and were the focus of the remaining risk assessment efforts. Exposure dose levels were estimated for each exposure pathway and based on a variety of exposure conditions, including the mean and maxi- mum contaminant levels detected in the various media. To provide real- istic exposure concentrations for sediment and water, the New Bedford Harbor site was divided into three areas (Figure 9), as follows:

328 TABLE 3 Rangea of Total PCBs in New Bedford Harbor Biota Organism Areab PCBs (ppm) nc Lobster 1 2 0.195-1.234 15 3 0.042-0.351 14 4 0.016-0.176 21 Winter 1 5.658-8.235 23 flounder 2 0.514-6.348 17 3 0.925-4.504 27 4 0.122-2.615 22 Mussel 1 1.467-2.962 9 2 1.461-6.204 9 3 0.254-0.278 5 4 0.008-0.039 6 Quahog 1 0.282-2.121 22 2 0.010-1.181 18 3 0.025-0.478 21 4 0.002-0.137 11 Green 1 0.070-0.725 5 Crab 2 .067-0.031 4 3 0.624-1.329 2 4 0.020-0.076 4 Polychaetes 1 2 3 4 12.97d 16.54d 96.24-689.46 0.182-0.789 NOTES: aEach mean represents the mean of several organisms within one Size class taken during Cruises 1, 2, or 3. Areas correspond to Figure 10. CTotal number of organisms sampled in each area. dOnly one value available. · Area I, between the Wood Street Bridge and the Coggeshall Street Bridge; · Area II, between the hurricane barrier and the Coggeshall Street Bridge; and · Area III, south of the hurricane barrier.

329 AE?CV~X ' HOT SPOT - ,,~. ~ APPROXIMATE i_ LOCATION / · v~ E-, UAR Y~ AREA I FAIRHAVEN · -~..:;t _305c~hL" HE'D 963fORO : ~ ~ a- _~1~5c · WEAN SE3ft:R4 ) L ~NOF!LL . ~ _~ SULLiVANS · . hi. ~ L=3Gc ~ . AREA 11 ~ ~ , " 4~ ~—~ ~ .< ., ~ ~ ., ~ , , us 2 ,.'AC'u - H —' '. :,~R~E·' OWN, I C J T ,. ~ ., .- ,~ .: .. \ .. I. . . ·, ~ . .. ~ am. ..~: At. . · \- · 7 ~~ l . ~ i . - :.' .\ ~.:','( - \ . · ~ · ·\ . ..\ ·! i. RICKERSONS PO I~T · ·\ ·' '''> . , ~ . , CL ~ RKS At\ ? —_,, pC i NT IN EW 3 ED FORD ' '~A S T ~ MA r E ./TREAT.ME.NT PLIANT AREA 111 \,. 'xj '; . .; / LEDGc : NEC K i~ ~ ~-~ ~ AREA IV ~/ MISHAUM POI ~ ~ , - . - . '` ; _-~.; '~wE '` _t\~_ ! S L ~ ~ 0 —~j ' ~ v - ~ _. .' \~ ; ;> . · , `%, .j ~ / —I R CC K / ?~INT `NIL::UR ~ O I N T SCALE —\_~_ ~ 6,~ 12,000 F EET FIGURE 9 Areas for ecological risk assessment for New Bedford Harbo,

330 Exposure through the ingestion of biota was assessed separately for the following four areas (Figure 10~: · Area I, between the Wood Street Bridge and the Hurricane Barrier; · Area II, between the Hurricane Barrier and Wilbur and Ricketsons Point; · Area III, between Wilbur and Ricketsons Point; and Rock Point, Negro Ledge, and Mishaum Point; and · Area IV, outside Area III. A standard 8-oz (227 g) fish meal was considered to be a reasonable estimate of fish consumption for older children and adults from this area. Ingestion frequencies of daily (365 meals/year), weekly (52 meals/year), and monthly (12 meals/year) were assumed. Body dose calculations for each route of exposure were evaluated using the most appropriate health-based standard, criteria, or guideline value derived for PCBs, cadmium, copper, and lead. Noncarcinogenic risk estimates were generated for acute and chronic exposure to PCBs, cadmium, copper and lead for direct contact and inges- tion of sediments (PCBs only) and the ingestion of biota. Carcinogenic risk estimates were generated for subchronic, chronic, and lifetime exposure to PCBs for direct contact and ingestion of sediments, inges- tion of biota, and inhalation of air. Ecological Risk Summary The ecological risk assessment for the New Bedford Harbor site examined the potential risks to marine biota from exposure to PCBs, cadmium, copper, and lead. This evaluation was composed of three sec- tions: an exposure assessment, an ecotoxicity assessment, and a risk assessment. The exposure assessment described the potential exposure of aquatic biota to PCBs, cadmium, copper, and lead. Three routes of exposure (direct contact with the water, direct contact with sediments, and ingestion of contaminated biota) were evaluated. To represent the potential aquatic receptors in this area, 33 species were selected and used to describe exposure. These species also represented five dif- ferent classes of organisms, including each major trophic level. In addition, a food web was constructed to illustrate the potential for contaminant movement within an ecosystem. Direct contact with contaminated sediments was evaluated for the first three of the four areas of the New Bedford Harbor site shown in Figure 9. These areas are the same as those used to assess public health risks. The concentration of PCBs detected in the sediments from these areas were used to assess exposure. A comparison of these PCB con- centrations to site-specific and appropriate toxicity data and/or criteria values was used to assess the potential risks to aquatic biota.

NEW REWORD NOW BEDFoRD. AREA LANDFILL SULLIVAN S LEDGE DARTMOUTH \.. .. ~ ~- '\\: 1 '4; ..':L \.. · ~ ). .~. N£w; B£~.~-~ ~. ~ N. I' WAS.~-~6'~22 ' < I. it- if 7~7 PLAffT 3 I; ~ -- ~ · ~ ~ · A ·- - --- ._ t Rt0XETSONS POINT \ 331 AERCV0X .= ESTUARY \ ~ i__ a\ *I to ~ FiELL ~ - ~~t tER ,-AIR HAVEN , . a. I- . AREA U ~ . \ N- ~ ~ . remarks Petit - AREA 111 ~ (it's SCONTICt ANEW ~ - =~N ~ — WILBUR ~OJ NT rye ? Em, y ROC K / POINT ~ LEDGE SMITH . ~ NECK f ~ ~ . . ~ / AREAS SUBJECT TO PC8 CLOSURES ~ ~ /AREA IV WATERS CLOSED TO ALL FISHING V ~ t ~ WATERS CLOSED TO THE .AKlNG Of EELS .. I L08STERS, FLOUNDERS, SCUP AND TAUTOi tic\ ~ ~ 'HATERS CLOSED TO SING ONL ~1 SHOUT POINT =—12,OOO f£E] FIGURE 10 Areas used to assess exposure to biota in New Bedford Harbor.

332 Direct contact exposure to water-borne contaminants was assessed for all areas previously described, including Area IV, which extends further out into Buzzards Bay. Water concentrations in these four areas were compared to both EPA's Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQCs) and benchmark concentrations (laboratory-derived toxicity values) to evaluate the potential risks to aquatic organisms. The observed contaminant concentrations in aquatic biota were eval- uated against species-specific toxicity data. The ecological risk assessment focused on site-specific toxicity data when available. The AWQC and other applicable toxicity data were also used to evaluate PCB exposure from the water column and were derived by comparing exposure concentrations to benchmark concentrations (laboratory-derived toxicity values). Remedial Response Objectives Under EPA's Superfund process, the next step following assessment of the distribution of contamination at a site is to establish remedial response (clean-up) objectives. Response objectives for the New Bedford Harbor FS will be established to guide the development and evaluation of remedial alternatives for this site. Based on the results of the risk assessment, the response objectives for this site will likely consider methods to reduce PCB biota concentrations to levels considered protective of public health, and/or protective of aquatic life; reduce total PCB sediment concentrations in the Acushnet River estuary to levels considered protective of public health and/or protective of aquatic life; reduce total PCB sediment concentrations in the Acushnet River estuary to levels considered protective of public health and/or protective of aquatic life, and reduce total PCB sediment concentrations in New Bedford Harbor to levels considered protective of aquatic life; and · reduce water-column PCB and copper concentrations to below the AWQC in the Acushnet River estuary and New Bedford Harbor. REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND ALTERNATIVES Overview of the New Bedford Harbor FS Process The FS for New Bedford Harbor is being conducted under the EPA Superfund program. The goal of this FS is to present EPA with remedial alternatives that address the cleanup of PCBs and metals in New Bed- ford Harbor. The New Bedford Harbor FS is a multistep process formu- lated to meet the legislative requirements of the Comprehens ive Envi - ronmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERLCA); the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA); and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

333 (NCP 1985, Final Rule, Section 300. 68) . Figure 11 shows the FS process for New Bedford Harbor. The methodology for conducting the FS was developed in accordance with guidance documents including CERCLA FS guidelines (EPA OERR/OSWER) and EPA directives (EPA OWSER). General response or clean-up actions were identified to provide a framework for subsequent identification and evaluation of component remedial technologies selected to address site problems and meet clean- up goals and objectives. The range of clean-up actions identified for New Bedford Harbor is shown in Figure 12. Remedial Technologies Identification From a remedial perspective, the sediments in New Bedford Harbor constitute the focal point for the FS. Therefore, for each of the res- ponse actions, technologies were identified to address the PCBs and metals in the sediments. Nonremoval technologies contain, isolate, or treat the PCBs and metals in the sediments via biological, chemical, or physical means, without removing the sediments. Removal technologies remove the PCBs and metals from the harbor bottom by removing the sedi- ment where the contaminants are located. Treatment technologies des- troy PCBs or render the PCBs and metals less toxic and/or less mobile by chemical or physical alteration. Disposal technologies contain and isolate untreated or treated sediments that have been removed from the harbor. FS PlIASt I ' IDtNTIf PANGE 0F ~ CL ~ ANUP ACT IONS IDENTIFY POTENTIAL CLE ANUP TECHNOI OGIlS INITIAL _ Of _ E C HNOl OGlE . _ ot TAIL E D SCHt ~ HING OF TECHNOLOGIES BASED UPON EPA GUIDANCE Sl)PERFUND AMENnMENTS AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT (OCTOBER 1986) FIGURE 11 FS process for New Bedford Harbor. FIGURE 12 Range of clean-up actions identif fed for New Bedford Harbor. LREMOVAL~ _ ... ~ 1 1 1 Lit _ 1 1 DISPOSABLE 1 r COUel - NG Cl tANUP TtCll~l0G~S INTO Ht hit HAL Al 1 [hNATIVES me. r- l ~~rc~3 FS PllASE 11* FS PlIASE 111* at_ . Itd11141 DElAlL tO l 5Cht ~ NING bLht ~ NING At hit DIAL ~ hi At DIAL Al 1iRNATI~tU AlltRNAllUth l , NON~OVAL 1

334 Figure 13 shows the clean-up technologies that were identified for New Bedford Harbor. Sources of information and data that were used to identify these technologies included: vendor literature surveys, other Superfund FSs, and remedial technology reports from the government, academic, and private sectors. Initial Screening An initial screening of the identified technologies was conducted to reduce the number of technologies for further detailed analysis. Waste-specific and site-specific factors were used to assess the effectiveness, implementability, and cost of each technology identified for New Bedford Harbor. The screening step eliminated technologies that · were not effective in remediating marine sediments contaminated with PCBs and metals, · could not be implemented due to an insufficient level of develop- ment or constraints on existing capacity or accessibility to the site; would cost an order of magnitude more than a technology that provided similar results. Figure 14 shows the technologies that were retained from the initial screening step and were determined to be potentially applicable for New Bedford Harbor. Detailed Evaluation An evaluation of each of the potentially applicable technologies was conducted to compile detailed information and data relating to effectiveness, implementation, and cost. The effectiveness of each technology was assessed on the basis of reliability and whether it would significantly and permanently reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous constituents. The implementation of a technology considered factors relating to the technical, institutional, and admi- nistrative feasibility of installing, monitoring, and maintaining that technology. The costs associated with a technology were estimated on the basis of direct and indirect capital costs, and operation and main- tenance expenses. Figure 15 summarizes the evaluation process and the criteria. Treatment Technology Bench Test Program SARA emphasizes a preference for remedial actions employing treat- ment technologies that permanently and significantly reduce the mobi- lity, toxicity, or volume of hazardous constituents. EPA directives require consideration of innovative (and often unproven in the field)

z lo - On z lo en Or: in z to - cr - - - : 335 o o S S O 1_ W V ~ A ~ US < r Zip {D ~ , ~ ~ up ~ ~ ~ · ~' ~ e ·— ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ , 1 0 0 fir _ a By to) . 0 Zen o~'- o s ~ ~ 0 · <J Z O ~ Ja ° _ SO - ~ - · ~ ~ · ~ Y · < - ~ P4O _ am—COO V OL,'~ 00 X 1 ~ 1 W 1 <: ~r _ ~ ._ . 0 U J. ~ ~ < ~ ~U r ~ · ~ <U J W <I ~ ~ O ~ · · Y ., ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ · Z ~ ~ ~ < <~<~<~0:~a I' .~.oO Q~'d - ~cOZ L,~<~O——~ 0~:30_:1 We ZO~ -—a:~< wu~ooO°om~ ^.oL,r - e ~ <cou~r.Oo~s ~ ~ ~ 1 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 U~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 · · — . O S ~S <~<~.Y - s U < ~ ~ J 1~1 ~,~~ ~~r ° r :r z I ~ , 1 1 - U) o ~r W< ~S °U.' O a0 0 ~1 ~ 1 . ~ — J z. z z o ~ O ~r~ Oo W Oo Ous. a, X~ W- ' O. 1 · . J o O O ~ ~ S o U ~oo. ~ < tt "1 1 I t ~ I I ~ I · · ~ Z U < 0 W ~J ~ ~Z ' W. O cn o Q cn C) o ~Q - :t s" o C) . Z ~ ~ o° ~ Z. ~ J . w 3 Z ~ o , -toe W ..z,, ~ - . o o t ~ out · - . o c) Cq o ~q o ~q o bC

336 NON-REMOVAL CAPPING · HYDRAULIC CONTROLS - EART - N EMBANK*IENTS - SHEETLIKE · SOLIDIFICATION · BIODEGRADATION REMOVAL MECHANICAL DREDGES - CLAMSHELL - WATERTIGHT CLAMSHELL HYDRAULIC DREDGES - CUTTERHEAD - PLAIN SUCTION - HOPPER · SPECIAL PURPOSE DREDGES - CLEAN-UP - REFRESHER - AIRLIFT - PNEUIVIA - DOZER - I4UDCAT · EXCAVATION - DRAGLINE - CLAMSHELL WATERTIGHT CLAMSHELL TREATMENT (SEDIMENT) · THERMAL INCINERATION SUPERCRITICAL WATER OXIDATION PHYSICAL SOLVENT EXTRACTION SUPERCRITICAL FLUID EXTRACTION SOLIDIFICATION VITRIFICATION CHEMICAL ALKALI METAL DECHLORINATION BIODEGRADATION (WATER) DEWATERING TREATMENT FIGURE 14 Technologies for detailed evaluation, New Bedford Harbor REMEDIAL TECIlNOLOGY 1 EFFECTIVENESS · RELIANT ITY · PUBES t~Al.Ttl · ENVIRONMENT IMPLEMENTAT10N · TECIBUCAI. fEASlBU ITY · LEVEL Of DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT REOl - ~~EtJ15 AVER ITY UdSTAI LATION T - E SAFETY hIO'JITORUlG AND h141N rENANGE PERMITT - G EGAL CONSTHARd I ~ IMPACTS ~ INST~CAI AND CUl I - AL ~S~CtS 1 1 , - 1 APPLICABLE TECHNOLOGY DISPOSAL · IN-HARBOR SHORELINE · UPLAND · OFFSITE · OCEAN . COST · DUit~ rlUIDIRECT CAPITAL COST S · OPERATION At MAltJIEtlA'lUE FIGURE 15 Criteria for the detailed analysis of remedial technologies for CERCLA feasibility studies as impacted by SARA, 1986.

337 technologies that could be implemented to provide better, more effec- tive treatment at lower cost than demonstrated technologies. A bench test program was developed and implemented to obtain per- formance data on the treatment of PCB-contaminated New Bedford Harbor sediments. Vendors of treatment technologies were identified through vendor literature and presentations, and detailed questionnaires were sent to vendors. The information and data were compiled and used to evaluate the level of development and potential effectiveness of these various treatment technologies. A select list of vendors was solicited for bench test proposals. Contracts were awarded to vendors of five different treatment technologies: 1. alkali metal dechlorination (KPEG), 2. solidification, 3. biological treatment, 4 . solvent extraction (B . E . S . T . - triethylamine), and 5. vitrification. Each vendor is bench testing small volumes (1 to 3 gal) of sediment containing two concentration levels of PCBs: less than 500 ppm and greater than 1,000 ppm. COE Dredging and Disposal Evaluation Program COE is conducting a detailed analysis of dredging and disposal of contaminated sediments in New Bedford Harbor. This effort includes 1. numerical modeling of sediment and contaminant transport during dredging; 2. laboratory studies of estuary sediment characterization, leachate and surface runoff from confined disposal facilities (CDFs), subaqueous capping, solidification/stabilization technologies, and settling and chemical clarification; and 3. conceptual designs of CDFs and confined aquatic disposal (CAD) areas. In addition to the laboratory studies, COE conducted a pilot-scale st3udy of dredging and disposal of a small volume (approximately 10,000 yd ~ of contaminated sediment during the fall and winter of 1988. The pilot study evaluated three dredges and two disposal techniques. Contaminated sediments were dredged using a mudcat, a cutterhead, and a matchbox dredge. The sediments were deposited in a shoreline CDF and in a CAD, both located in the immediate vicinity of the dredging operation. The results of this study are an important part of the New Bedford Harbor FS and will be used to determine · the effectiveness of the three dredges on contaminant removal and migration, and impacts on water quality; · the feasibility of disposing contaminated sediments in

338 underwater CADs; and the degree and cost of treating the water removed with the sediments. · The ability of the CDF to contain contaminated sediment and leachate. Remedial Alternatives Development of Alternatives Combinations of technologies from each of the response actions were assembled into remedial alternatives for New Bedford Harbor. These alternatives represent a range of treatment and containment combina- tions and an emphasis on permanent solutions mandated by SARA. The alternatives include a no-action alternative that serves as a baseline for comparison with other remedial actions, a containment option invol- ving little or no treatment, treatment alternatives that would elimi- nate the need for long- term management at the s ite ~ included in this group are off-site treatment and disposal options) , and treatment alter- natives that would reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of hazard- ous constituents as their principal element. Remedial alternatives were developed for three specific areas with- in New Bedford Harbor. The three areas were delineated on the basis of contaminant levels in the sediment and differences in topography and bathymetry. Although the overall response objectives are the same, the differences between these three areas warranted the development of reme- dial alternatives tailored for each area. The approach also allows EPA to consider remediation of the three areas separately as well as reme- diation of the overall site. The hot spot (Area I) is located along the western bank of the Acushnet River. This 4-acre area contains PCB concentrations in silts and marine clays ranging from 4,000 ppm to over 100,000 ppm. Mean low water depths range from 1.6 to 2.2 ft. The estuary (Area II) is de- fined as a 200-acre area between the Wood Street Bridge to the north and the Coggeshall Street Bridge to the south. PCB concentrations in the organic silts and silty sands of the estuary range from ~ 1 ppm to S,OOO ppm. Water depth at mean low water ranges from 18 ft at the Cog- geshall Street Bridge to 6 ft at the Wood Street Bridge. The lower harbor (Area III) is a 785-acre area that extends from the Coggeshall Street Bridge to the hurricane barrier (lower harbor). PCB concentra- tions in the sediments range from < 1 ppm to 100 ppm. Water depths range from 6 to 12 ft in nearshore areas, and 30 to 35 ft in the ship channel transecting the harbor. An additional area of approximately 5,000 acres (considered part of Area III) constitutes the upper Buzzards Bay portion of the New Bedford Harbor site. This area, extending from the hurricane barrier to an imaginary line between Mishaum Point, Negro Ledge, and Rock Point, contains isolated areas of PCBs in the range of 100 ppm and below. Water depths in the bay vary from tidal flats nearshore to 35 ft in the channel.

339 Screening of Alternatives Screening of the remedial alternatives was conducted to reduce the number of alternatives for further detailed evaluation. Each of the alternatives was evaluated against the same three criteria used for screening remedial technologies: effectiveness, implementation, and cost. However, for the screening of alternatives, greater emphasis was placed on cost/benefits and technical/administrative implementability. Table 4 shows the remedial alternatives for each of three PS areas that were retained after screening. Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives The detailed evaluation of alternatives provides the basis for iden- tifying a preferred alternative (selection of remedy) and preparing the proposed remedial action plan. The information and data compiled dur- ing the alternative development and screening phases is supplemented with: evaluations of the reduction of potential risk to human health and the environment; attainment of federal and state applicable, rele- vant, and appropriate requirements (ARARs); and the results of treat- ability studies, if conducted. As a result of recent EPA directives and revisions to the CERCLA guidance for conducting FSs, a detailed evaluation of remedial alterna- tives must address nine criteria, shown in Figure 16. Particular empha- sis is placed on evaluating each alternative against the five criteria I r SI1011~-1~ER~ EFFECTIVENESS 1 r RE~tAL l ACJERNA1-IVE l LOIdG-~IERIJ EFfECTIVENESS l . REDUCTION OF l~aXICll Y. ~OIl~ITY, AND BOLL - E 1 I COW;lANCE l l OUERAI L l | Wllil AP4AA~ | | PROTECTION l I STATE | | Cl)~`lllY l CEPTA CE CEP1~' i I I l I I e.~.e. '.eeeee.~ee.. COWAN LIST ~ 1 RE~EI)IAL ALTERNATIVES PROCESS .~.eeeeeeeseeee.-- ' 1 ~ 1 DETAl ED '~E - tJTABll.ll~Y I COST EVALUATK)N ' 1 _ TtlRESilOLD CRITERIA PFIEI IMWARY EVALUATK)N FIGURE 16 FS Phase III, detailed analysis of alternatives under EPA CERCLA guidance (1988 draft).

340 In ¢ en So o 3 As a) so o In Cat In ~ h30 5~ ~0 ~ 3= · - a' or ¢ En o lo ~ la ~] o ~ hi o 5 g o TIC - 9 o - o In - o E ~ a, up 8e _ 9- §3 - c e of _ ~ ~ ~ S C ~ ~ ~ B ~ . C ~ x y - 6 q ~ x8; o - a a o 0 - c c ~ E ,, U ,, ~ _ ~ ~ g ~ ~g - - _ ~ ~ U ~ o e~°~ 0~$~5 - . ~u o o r ~ E E , ~ g j' 546~ ~ri X~ ~r X a 8 - o o - o. ~ ~] ~ 4) a 3 o z . ~ . ~ l ~ l t o 3 4, o y o z - - - 6 ~ ·'. _ ~ 4, o - 3 ~o g ~—, ~ . ~ ~ ~ 4, o o 3 o ~ — ~n . ~ ~ _ ~ ' ~ - E - ~ ~ ~ ~ g |; . ~ 3 . ~ ~ & o: o 7

341 shown in the top line of Figure 16, since these criteria consider tech- nical, cost, institutional, and risk concerns. The threshold criteria, compliance with ARARs, and overall protection, are used to assess whe- ther a remedial alternative achieves compliance with ARARs and whether it provides overall protection of human health and the environment. The final two criteria (state and community acceptance) assess the state's and community's preferences or concerns about the alternatives. Evaluation of the effectiveness of remedial alternatives in achiev- ing the response objectives is the major environmental analysis step in the FS. Effectiveness evaluations consider time until protection is achieved, environmental impacts, magnitude of residual risk, and human health and environmental protection. Table 5 summarizes these factors and the analysis to be done under each. Following assessment of individual alternatives against the nine criteria, a comparative analysis will be conducted for alternatives developed for each area. This analysis, which will identify advantages and disadvantages of each alternative relative to one another, will assist EPA in selecting the preferred remedial alternative for each area. Alternatives from each area will also be combined to form reme- dial action scenarios for the overall New Bedford Harbor site. This approach of area-specific and site-wide remedial alternatives will provide EPA with the options of partial or complete remediation. IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING CONSIDERATIONS FOR REMEDIAL ACTION lrhe New Bedford Harbor FS is scheduled for completion in the spring of 1989. Following completion of the FS, EPA will decide on ache reme- dial alternative to be implemented. This will not occur until summer 1989. Thus, implementation and monitoring information for the selected remedial alternative is not available for discussion at this time. The New Bedford Harbor FS does consider implementation and monitor- ing aspects in the detailed evaluation of each remedial alternative. Factors considered are grouped in EPA's most recent guidance on perform- ing feasibility studies under headings of technical feasibility, admin- istrative feasibility, and availability of services and materials. Tech- nical feasibility includes considerations of . technical difficulties and unknowns with applying a new and innovative technology or a known technology under new conditions; technology capabilities in meeting specified operation rates and performance standards, along with consideration of materials handling and time needed to solve operational problems; · ease of performing further remedial action, particularly, if the site is remediated in stages; and · monitoring considerations, including the ability to measure how effective the remedy is during and after implementation, including risks of exposure if monitoring does not detect a release of contaminants or the technology not performing to standards should be assessed.

342 TABLE 5 Remedial Alternatives Effectiveness Evaluation Analysis Factor Analysis SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS Time until protection is achieved Environmental Impacts Environmental Impacts LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS Magnitude of residual risk Adequacy of controls Time until effect of hot spot removal is seen in water column, sediment, and biota, and change in risk is achieved Hot spot containment construction, impact of release on water column, sediment, and biota Evaluation of mitigative measures Impact after application of miti- gative measures Hot-spot dredging, no containment, impact of release of 0.6-1.5 kg PCBs per tidal cycle for 3-4 weeks through Coggeshall Street Bridge on water column, sediment, and biota and change in risk achieved Duration and impact of removal of hot spot to less than 10 ppm total PCB on estuary, harbor-bay on water column, sediment, and biota and changes in risk achieved Duration and impact of treated water dis- charge on estuary, harbor-bay, water column, sediment, and biota Evaluation of mitigative measures; hydraulic controls at Coggeshall Street Bridge, hurricane barrier closure, flood tide dredging, impact after application of mitigation measures Risk from residual PCBs after hot spot dredging, no containment Biota ingestion, direct contact water, sediment, exposure Risk from estuary, harbor-bay after hot spot dredging Biota ingestion, sediment, exposure direct contact water, _ , r _ _ Hydraulic controls at Coggeshall Street Bridge Hurricane barrier closure Flood tide dredging

343 TABLE 5 Continued Analysis factor OVERALL PROTECTION Analysis Site alternatives Protection over time, reducing PCB and metal concentrations in water, sediment, biota as reductions in harmful levels and risks Combined alternative simulations with model results in overall site predicted concentrations Under administrative feasibility, permitting and regulatory agency coor- dination time and costs need to be considered. Factors under availability of services and materials that are important are · treatment and storage capacity at the time of implementation, · availability of equipment and experienced operators, and extent that new and innovative technologies are proven in full-scale operation. INSTITUTIONAL AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS A number of institutional considerations are major factors in the New Bedford Harbor FS. They include siting and land space available for locating sediment handling, treatment, and disposal facilities; future use of the harbor and shoreline; and community and state acceptance. Management considerations to be addressed by EPA when selecting a clean-up alternative for the site are fund-balancing of the costs of the New Bedford Harbor remedy with other high priority sites and the SARA's emphasis on on-site permanent remedies. The State of Massachusetts is considering their responsibility under SARA to manage the long-term remedial alternative as they review and comment on the clean-up options. Siting of Handling, Treatment, and Disposal Facilities Alternative sites are generally of two types: off-site beyond the confines of the Acushnet River Estuary and New Bedford Harbor, or on- site within the confines of the Acushnet River and New Bedford Harbor. EPA's National Contingency Plan (40 CFR 300.68(f)~1~(i)) requires that remedial alternatives include treatment or disposal at an off-site facility. The siting evaluations consider various options, including: offsite

344 disposal in existing PCB-approved landfills; disposal at upland sites in the vicinity of New Bedford; onsite disposal, including shoreline sites and sites within New Bedford Harbor (islands and CADs); aquatic disposal; and ocean disposal. NUS has conducted the major disposal site studies completed to date. During the process of conducting the 1984 fast-track FS for cleanup of PCB-contaminated sediments in the Acushnet River Estuary, NUS completed an interim report titled "Initial Evaluation of Potential Disposal Sites for Contaminated Dredged Materials" (June 1984~. The report included an initial identification, evaluation, and ranking of potential sites, both upland and shoreline. Both EPA and the Massachu- setts Interagency Task Force for New Bedford Harbor participated in establishing criteria for screening the identified sites. These cri- teria are listed in the previously mentioned report. In addition to the Interagency Task Force, state and local governmental information on siting was obtained from previous solid-waste disposal and regional planning studies. For upland sites, 37 potential disposal sites remained following the first phase screening by NUS. In the second phase, the five high- est ranking sites were determined. The first phase screening identi- fied sites with "critical flaws" to eliminate such sites from further screening. These flaws included sites being located in close proximity to developed/populated areas, state parks, or wildlife management areas; public drinking water supply watersheds; highly productive stra- tified glacial deposits, including aquifers used for public water sup- plies; and wetlands. These five sites are not being evaluated further at this time due to SARA's preference for onsite disposal and the state of Massachusetts' policy of not establishing new hazardous waste disposal facilities in "nondegraded'' areas. For onsite disposal, NUS, in the 1984 Interim Siting Report, identified 12 sites, which were then screened to a subset of five using the factors listed in Table 6. Following public comment on the fast-track FS in 1984, EPA decided that further evaluation of potential in-harbor disposal sites was war- ranted. NUS completed the evaluation in April 1986; the results are described in the report "Investigation and Ranking of Potential In- Harbor Disposal Sites." The April 1986 report identified 15 potential in-harbor disposal sites as the most promising. The identification was based on a quantitative ranking procedure similar to that used in the 1984 s iting study by NUS . For purposes of the overall New Bedford FS, the 15 in-harbor sites identified by NUS will receive further evalua- tion when the in-harbor disposal alternative is studied. As the siting results are being used in the FS, it is becoming apparent that shoreline and land areas for disposal are limited and that it will be necessary to preserve land areas for addressing other environmental needs in the area. For example, if all of New Bedford Harbor, from the estuary to the Hurricane Barrier' needs to be dredged to achieve a residual PCB concentration of < 10 ppm total PCBs in the sediment, and it is disposed of without volume reduction, there will not be sufficient capacity for disposal in lined shoreline disposal facilities. A major aspect of the capacity of such facilities is

345 a) Z o ~ la C: ·` ~ o ~ .- ,4 I: h U) a) .- ~: ~ · X m a) · - a) ~ It) ~ ~ ~ m- - ~ ·~1 0 `: ~ c: - ~ a) ~ a, up V :: ~ ~ · a) ~ l: ,.~ ~ ~ Ha en o a) 3 1 V) V .- a U. ,l .- tO 3 h ,' ._' U. U) o ._1 o 52 :~: 1 ~ O CO ~ E~ eL, O ·- ~ · - ·- · ~ ~ ·- a) t) m- - cm 3 . ~ ~ ~£ ,'c O _1 ., ~ C: ·- O _ h , ~ ~ ~, a)= ~ ~ ~ a 3 a)~ 4) - 3 t U) O O ~ ~, 0) :^ L = a ~ ~ ~ a a~ a) ~ ~- O O t + ~: a) 3 a) ~_ a,~ ~ C,. ~ - ·,1 _1 · - - o U] eY a) ~ r- ~ ~ - ~ `~,_ 0 a ~ ~ o ~ · ~ a) - ~ a: o ,4 · cD ~ ~ · ~= ~oamou, -. u, . .,4 1 dJ J~ , ~Q . s~ a~ ~ ) tP :¢ X . ~ V 10 ~ ~ ~c~ 1 i4 4) h V 4~ ~~~ ~n a) a) ~ s ·~d ~n 1= ~ v ~ - 1 O ~ I O O ~ tr, V 1~= C: ~:s . a) ~e~4 ~ ~4t i5: ~C E! ~: ~ tn 1~ =-~N D~ Q'C~ t-~-~4 ~ ~ ~ ~ a) x~- C>C)U)dP~ + cn o ~0 S~ L' O · ~0 · O ·~4 O O . ,~ :~l'~ :^ o O ~D O ~ 00 er O S ~ S~ a, ~ 0 0 ~wo Ln ~ · · - ~4 O ~r ~ 0 0 :e := tD ,~ a h 0 ~cs.~' O PH ~ =~0 r C: a) 0 C t ~ a) r == · - O a ~n o ·,4 v, o~ n 0 a o a) ·,4 v' uo ~a 3 C: O c: ~ a) ~ s ~ a) ~ 0 3 - - - a) o o~: ~ ~ v a) a).,~ h h, - ~ V~ << + + - a) ·,4 _I CU ~ tC5 .,4 ~ _ ~ O o U1 ~ ,~ h :^ '~ o - h 00 0 a) ~o O ~ ' - O.,4 ~ct o ~: O ~ V .,4 ~ U] U) . l . ; m ~ l x r~ - ~ _ 0 v a ,~ .,4 ~: u~ ·~4 cu _ ~ - a ~ a L' 0 v, 0 x ~ a, x tn ~ a) h ~ O a) h N a, I ~ h I a O c S O cn _I a) ·~ tn O ~ ·,1 ·- '~ h ·- ~L ~ · - _' ~- v - 0 a)- ~ - - - _I 0O ~ - ~ ~ ~ O ~ . ~ O · C: ~ Z ~ u, ~ £ ~ o o cs ~ co ~n ,0 ~n .,4 ·% a) 3~ u, '0 ~: ~n a) ~o CU O ~ ~d .- ~ ~n ·~ ~ `: h ~ tn P. X CU V~ h ._ 3 · ~ ~ au 0 ·' CU ~ ·rd 0 ~ =- a)- v ~ =~N ~ ro me~ _ ~rd C: t~ C~ h ~ ~ · Om · ~ - ~ - ~ ~ .£ ~ ~ ~ ~ £ U . X .,4 0 Q4 _ ~ 0 a O ~ LO ·rd a; - a) .,4 CU .,4 - - 0 .,4 CU .,4 P. - o P" U) ='D O O O e 0m ~ ~ ~ ~ ·~4 S 00 0 0 ~5 ~0 co ~ · · 0~d 0 ~ ~ O O £ :S: ~:4 o tn O ~ m0 - CU ~O O O ,> ~ co ~ O 0~ - ~ ~ O c: ~ ~ · O ~D O ~ U) o ~ ·, O — h ., ~C ~ · - ., 0 ~: U U? ~ ~ h a 3 CU ~ 0 %4 3 t U) O O ~ ., t) :>~ L `: ~ ~ a 0~ 0 ~ - ~ 0 0 ~ C) + ~u v, v .,4 ~n C: ·~4 ~ cu ~ 0 ~ a, 0 ~= X ~ k' ~ rc, V] u u ta n: CU ~ ~ O h ~ ~C:.Q h 0~- h 0 h ~ ~ ~- - ~ ~ ~ ~ u~ au ~.~ ·~ (U ~ ~ ·^ U1 0-- ~ Q 3 V ~ ~ UO ~1:5 n ' 0 au ~ c o~ ~ v 0 0 . == ~ cs V V U au ~- ~ ~: c: . S S Fi C: ~ t~ ~ 0 ~.— n~ UO C: 0 ~ o4~5 ~ ·^ au ~ ~n ~ 0 X~-- .- v: a rs; v 0 u~ ~ a, c U~ s~ ~ x: V C, o ,l ~ + ~ r O L, cu a ~ ~ E ·- au c V ~L c., n: ~S Cd C ·, ~n 0= ~ _1 V) L 0 0 h ~ ~ 0 ·- ~ ~ c: 3 C: O n, U _d a, ~ a 0 3 - n, O 0= ~n ~ CU ~- h h _ C) V~ + + ·,1 L' ~U o V .,' - u H ·,. I ~ _ a, E. O O U - · - CU S S h t~ O (U - -,1 0 X :r: ~ _I ·,4 o · - . - V n5 n5 C) o _ O ~ · - ~ ~n ·,1 —h - a s~ a O uo Q. O X ~ a) x u, au ~ ~ ~ 0 h ~ U I ~ ~ ~ I au h th~ O ~ - O ~ cn ~ m li o . - .,, a, H 00 U] z o O O O ·. C) 3 o U)

346 lining them to prevent leaching of disposed contaminants in dredged material. Other environmental needs in the New Bedford area are space for an expanded and upgraded wastewater treatment plant and future solid-waste disposal, since the existing landfill is nearing capacity. State and Community Acceptance EPA Region I has very actively sought state and community involve- ment in the FS process for New Bedford. This has been accomplished by holding monthly progress meetings and presenting information on the study process and results to the Greater New Bedford Environmental Community Work Group. At monthly progress meetings, representatives of state agencies involved in regulatory review of the FS, a city of New Bedford repre- sentative, and the Community Work Group receive progress updates and results and have the opportunity to comment to and question EPA, COE, and the contractors performing the FS. Also, as various parts of the FS are completed, EPA and its contractors present results to the members of the Community Work Group to enable them to discuss and comment on all phases of the work as it proceeds. Through this process to date, it has become apparent that there are two major concerns shared by the community. The first is that remedial action should allow areas closed to fishing to be opened. This is par- ticularly important because of misimpressions that fish landed are sold through New Bedford are related to the PCB contamination-based fishing closures. In actuality, New Bedford fish are caught in the Georges Bank, some 200 mi east of New Bedford Harbor. The second major concern is availibility of shoreline and land areas for locating treatment and disposal facilities. The primary interest is to maintain shoreline areas as suitable for development of port facilities. Other land needs competing for space in New Bedford are an expanded wastewater treatment facility, a planned waste-to- energy, solid-waste disposal facility and continued expansion of commercial port facilities. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The information in this case study has been funded by the U.S. EPA under REM III contract 68-01-7250 to Ebasco Services Incorporated. It has been subject to EPA review and has been approved for publication as preliminary information from an ongoing study. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. REFERENCES Battelle New England Marine Research Laboratory. 1984. Work Plan for

347 Modeling of the Transports Distribution and Fate of PCBs and Heavy Metals in the Acushnet River/New Bedford Harbor Buzzards Bay System. Duxbury, Mass.: Battelle. E. C. Jordan/Ebasco Services Incorporated. 1988. Baseline risk assessment for the New Bedford Harbor site. Preliminary Draft. Portland, Me.: E. C. Jordan Company. E. C. Jordan/Ebasco Services Incorporated. 1986. Plan for New Bedford Harbor, Massachusetts. Jordan Company. Massachusetts Department of Pulbic Health. 1987. The Greater New Bedford PCB Health Effects Study 1984-1987, Executive Summary, Massachusetts Department of Public Health, The Massachusetts Health Research Institute, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Teeter, A. M. 1988. Sediment and Contaminant Hydraulic Transport Inves- tigations. Report 2 of 12, New Bedford Superfund Project: Acushnet River Estuary Engineering Feasibility Study Series, Technical Report EL-88. Vicksburg, Miss. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experi- ment Station. In preparation. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (U.S. Army COE). 1988. New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project, Acushnet River Estuary Engineering Feasibility Study of Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal Alternatives. Draft Final Report. Vicksburg, Miss.: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experi- ment Station. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Pilot Study of Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal Alternatives. Waltham, Mass.: COE New England Division. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. New Bedford Harbor pilot study, pre-operational monitoring progress report. Draft Report, U.S. EPA, Narragansett, R.T. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Guidance for conducting remedial investigations and feasibility studies under CERCLA. Draft. U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Preliminary Data Report, New Bedford Harbor Project, Draft Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett, R.I., and Science Applications International Corp. Narragansett, R.I.: U.S. EPA. Project Management Portland, Me.: E. ADDENDUM Completed Project Reports The following is a list of New Bedford Harbor Superfund project reports that have been issued to date: Task 7. Draft Technical Review Report; Evaluation of the New Bedford Wastewater Treatment Plant and Sewage System for PCB Discharges to the Acushnet River Estuary, New Bedford Harbor and Buzzards Bay, Bristol County, Massachusetts. September 1986. E. C. Jordan/Ebasco Services Incorporated.

348 Tasks 18. 23. 24. Draft Initial Screening Report: Non-removal and Remo- val Technologies, April 1987. E. C. Jordan/Ebasco Services Incor- porated. Tasks 18. 23. 24. Final Draft Initial Screening Report: Non-removal and Removal Technologies, November 1987. E. C. Jordan/Ebasco Services Incorporated. Tasks 18. 19. 21. 23. 24. Draft Detailed Analysis of Remedial Technolo- gies for the New Bedford Harbor Feasibility Study, August 1987. E. C. Jordan/Ebasco Services Incorporated. Task 13. Upper Estuary Sediment Characterization, Field Investigation and Analytical Testing by Woodward Clyde Consultants, January 1987. Task 14. Contaminant Migration Analysis: A. Baseline Conditions for Contaminant and Sediment Migration, Jan- uary 1987. COE, Waterways Experiment Station. B. Estimated Contaminant Release from Pilot Study Operations, July 1987. COE, Waterways Experiment Station. C. Controls for Dredging, January 1987. D. Numerical Modeling of Sediment Migration from Dredging and Dis- posal, May 1987. E. Suspended Material Transport at New Bedford Harbor (ASCE paper by Al Teeter [not on your reference list--please include]), May 1987. COE, Waterways Experiment Station. Task 16: Composite Sample Sediment Testing (COE, Waterways Experiment Station): A. Chemical Analysis of Composite Sediment and Site Water, January 1987. B. Surface Runoff Water Quality from New Bedford Harbor Sediment, June 1987. C. Interim Results from Leachate Testing, May 1987. D. Capping Effectiveness Testing, June 1987. E. Dredged Material Settling Tests for New Bedford Sediment, Janu- ary 1987. F. Chemical Clarification Testing, May 1987. Task 21: Field Operations Plan, E. C. Jordan/Ebasco Services Incor- porated. A. Site Management Plan. B. Field Sampling and Analysis Plan. C. Health and Safety Plan. Task 19: Disposal Site Selection, E. C. Jordan/Ebasco Services Incor- porated.

349 . Final Draft Report, Alternative Disposal Site Selections, Febru- ary 1987. B. Statement of Work for Drilling Services for Preliminary Geotech- nical Investigation of Engineering Properties, August 1987. C. Statement of Work for Survey Services for Preliminary Geotech- nical Investigation of Engineering Properties, August 1987. Task 20: Preliminary Flood Plain Assessment Investigation, September 1987. COE New England Division. Task 21: Detailed Evaluation of Detoxification/Destruction Technolo- gies, Initial Screening Report, January 1987. E. C. Jordan/Ebasco Services Incorporated. Task 21: Detailed Evaluation of Detoxification/Destruction Technolo- gies, Initial Screening Report (Final Draft), September 1987. E. C. Jordan/Ebasco Services Incorporated. Task 21: Technical Memorandum, Pilot Testing of Detoxification/ Destruction Technologies, February 1987. E. C. Jordan/Ebasco Services Incorporated. Task 21: Requests for Proposals - May 1987. E.C. Jordan/Ebasco Services Incorporated. A. Bench Testing of Selected Technologies for PCB Detoxification/ Destruction. B. Bench Scale Testing of Biodegradation Technologies for PCBs in New Bedford Harbor Sediment. Task 22: Draft Report: Exposed Species Analysis, July 1987. E. C. Jordan/Ebasco Services Incorporated. Draft Report: Selection of Contaminants of Concern, July 1987. E.C. Jordan/Ebasco Services Incorporated. Task 23: Technical Memorandum, Hot Spot Feasibility Study, March 1987. E. C. Jordan/Ebasco Services Incorporated. Task 26: Pilot Study of Dredging and Dredged Material Alternatives New England Division, USACE. September 1987. Technical memo on proposed target levels for PCB concentration in air, October 1987. Task 50: Project Management Plan for New Bedford Harbor, Massachu- setts, August 1986. E.C. Jordan/Ebasco Services Incorporated. Task 52: Technical Review Report of Comments to the NUS Report, Draft Feasibility Study of Remedial Action Alternatives, Acushnet River Estuary above Coggeshall Street Bridge, New Bedford Harbor, Bristol

350 County, Massachusetts, June 1986 Incorporated. . E. C. Jordan/Ebasco Services Task 63: Regulation Assessment (ARARs) for New Bedford Harbor 1986. E. C. Jordan/Ebasco Services Incorporated. Task 20: Hydrology of Floods, NBH by NED, September 1987 Floodplain). , October . (Prelim.

Next: Physical Transport Investigations at New Bedford, Massachusetts »
Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $125.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The pervasive, widespread problem of contaminated marine sediments is an environmental issue of national importance, arising from decades of intentionally and unintentionally using coastal waters for waste disposal. This book examines the extent and significance of the problem, reviews clean-up and remediation technologies, assesses alternative management strategies, identifies research and development needs, and presents the committee's major findings and recommendations. Five case studies examine different ways in which a variety of sediment contamination problems are being handled.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!