|
Items in cart [4] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 312
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
OCR for page 313
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
OCR for page 314
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
OCR for page 315
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
OCR for page 316
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
OCR for page 317
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.
OCR for page 318
~~ #--
~'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
OCR for page 319
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
OCR for page 320
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.
OCR for page 321
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.
;,~_.
OCR for page 322
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.
OCR for page 340
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
OCR for page 341
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.
OCR for page 342
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
OCR for page 343
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
OCR for page 344
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
OCR for page 345
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)
OCR for page 346
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
OCR for page 347
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.
OCR for page 348
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.
OCR for page 349
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
OCR for page 350
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.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
acushnet river
