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 80
--> 5 Interim and Long-Term Technologies and Controls INTRODUCTION When characterization of a site determines that contaminated sediment poses unacceptable risks to humans and/or ecosystems, the next step is the evaluation and selection of control measures. This chapter assesses the state of practice and the research and development (R&D) needs for both interim controls, which can be used to reduce high-risk levels quickly, and engineered technologies for longer term, more complete remediation. Costs, which often dictate the selection of technologies, are examined as well. Numerous technologies and practices are available for managing contaminated sediments (NRC, 1989; Sukol and McNelly, 1990; EPA, 1991, 1993a,b), but few have been tested in marine environments. Although considerable experience with contaminated sediments in fresh water has been accumulated, and some of it may apply to marine systems, such extensions should be approached with caution. The high salt concentration in marine waters influences the surface chemistry of clays, their ion-exchange capacity for metals, and the resulting physical structure of the sediment. More important, perhaps, is the influence of high salt concentrations, particularly sulfate, on microbial processes.1 Applicability to marine sediments is just one of many considerations in selecting a technology. 1 Sulfate can be reduced to sulfides in organic-rich sediment, leading to the precipitation of metal contaminants High sulfate concentrations can prevent methane formation, which takes place in organic-rich freshwater sediments Because organic contaminant concentrations depend on whether conditions are methanogenic or sulfate reducing, freshwater and marine sediments are expected to undergo different intrinsic and engineered rates of transformation.
OCR for page 81
--> Harbor managers, state and federal authorities, city mayors, industrial plant managers, and military base commanders are often overwhelmed by the complexities of the technical issues as well as questions about costs, benefits, and the potential for hazard reduction, among other factors. This chapter attempts to sort through these issues to provide constructive guidance (see Box 5-1). Much of the experience managing contaminated sediments, and hence the basis for much of the analysis in this chapter, comes from the Great Lakes, where the search for solutions began more than 20 years ago. A very high proportion of material dredged from the Great Lakes is contaminated, and open-water disposal became impossible by the early 1970s. Therefore, technology development and community-based debate and selection mechanisms are generally at later stages of development there than on the other coasts. The 1987 Amendments to the CWA authorized the EPA, in conjunction with other federal agencies, to conduct a five-year study of treatment processes for toxic pollutants in Great Lakes sediments. The resulting assessment and remediation of contaminated sediments (ARCS) research and planning program has provided much of the data on remediation technologies. The program and the overall results to date have been summarized by Garbaciak (1994) and EPA (1994a,b). Although the committee relied heavily on reports generated by the ARCS program, it must be emphasized that this data comes from freshwater systems. Furthermore, the reports are not readily available, have not been peer reviewed, and are based partly on anecdotal information. BOX 5-1 Importance of Cost in Technology Assessment Remediation technologies are costly, with costs escalating based on the number of stops. The cost of treatment, for example, is in addition to the costs of dredging and sediment placement or reuse. The most effective technologies for eliminating contamination-that is, treatment or decontamination technologies--are the most difficult to implement, the most equipment intensive, and usually cost the most. Although the costs of many technologies can be estimated, comparative data on costs of methods actually used in the field are limited and unreliable. The effectiveness of remediation technologies in reducing risk has not been measured, so cost effectiveness can only be estimated.
OCR for page 82
--> The committee has emphasized throughout this report that a risk-based approach to the management of contaminated sediments is both logical and essential. Currently, however, controls and technologies are not assessed with regard to their risk reduction capability. The end-points now used (see Chapter 2) are not intended to determine whether remediation technologies actually meet the project goals. But post-project evaluations are conducted in some cases. For example, now that the Superfund site at Waukegan Harbor has been cleaned up to the standards set for the project (the removal of PCB concentrations above 50 parts per million [ppm]), the EPA plans to determine whether fish in the area are still contaminated (S. Garbaciak, EPA, personal communication to Marine Board staff, November 30, 1995). But so few contaminated sediment sites have been cleaned up that there is no consistent standard for post-project evaluations (S. Garbaciak, EPA, personal communication to Marine Board staff, November 30, 1995). The overall goal in the remediation of contaminated sediments, therefore, remains the removal or isolation of contamination to meet human and ecosystem exposure limits. Achieving this goal at an affordable cost requires a systems approach to the evaluation of possible solutions, including natural recovery and other in situ approaches; sediment removal and transportation technologies; and ex situ controls, including treatment or decontamination. However, the range of choices in any given situation is limited by site conditions. High-unit-cost treatments are precluded, for example, for large volumes of sediments with relatively low levels of contamination. Similarly, the selection and sequence of ex situ treatment technologies are constrained by the characteristics of marine sediments, which, as long-term integrators of contaminants in aquatic environments, typically contain a complex matrix of organic and inorganic compounds that are both nonvolatile and relatively insoluble in water. If risks are high enough to be judged imminently hazardous, then interim controls must be used to reduce risk levels quickly. Interim and long-term control technologies are a subsystem of the overall remediation system. Figure 5-1 is a schematic diagram of this subsystem and the various components that must be considered. The four major sections in this chapter address the four components of the subsystem interim control technologies; in situ management technologies; sediment removal and transportation; and ex situ management. The first section examines interim controls, including administrative and technology-based measures, which may be used to reduce imminent hazards. The second major section deals with in situ management, including natural recovery processes that reduce contaminant bioavailability through either destruction or isolation; in-place contaminant isolation by capping; and active treatment through thermal, chemical, or biological processes. The third section addresses sediment removal and transportation by dredges, pipelines, and barges for environmental, as opposed to navigation, purposes. (Land-based transportation by truck or rail is not addressed in this report.) The assessment focuses on criteria for selecting
OCR for page 83
--> FIGURE 5-1 Process of defining a remediation system. Note: See Box 5-2 for details.
OCR for page 84
--> equipment and on environmental impact. The last section assesses ex situ treatment and containment management, which encompasses dozens of technologies. The chapter concludes with three sections that integrate information on the four components. One section examines how the performance of technologies and controls is evaluated through monitoring, estimates of cost-effectiveness, and other activities. Another section summarizes needs for R&D, testing, and demonstrations. The final section presents a qualitative comparison and overall assessment of the various categories of technology. The use of remediation technologies and controls in the management of contaminated marine sediments is still emerging. For the most part, the field has been dominated by tools developed for navigation dredging, and few full-scale treatment systems have been implemented. Therefore, the committee's analysis focuses on the general classes of treatment technologies that are applicable to treating contaminants found in sediments. The discussion is not very detailed, and the cost estimates are uncertain. Technical developments worldwide are considered. All technologies are examined with respect to scientific and engineering feasibility, practicality, cost, efficiency, and effectiveness. Key attributes of each technology are noted in summary tables; the text does not reiterate each point in the tables but addresses only those issues that require analysis. It is important to note that performance can be evaluated only in a qualitative sense, because the available data on cost and effectiveness are inadequate for making reliable comparisons of technologies based on cost effectiveness or any other meaningful quantitative basis. To achieve optimal results, decision makers must understand the role of technology assessment in the overall remediation system, which includes the elements discussed in earlier chapters, regulatory issues, stakeholder interests, and site-specific considerations. A simplified description of the remediation system is shown in Figure 5-2 and described briefly in Box 5-2. The system includes many of the elements found in the conceptual management approach presented in Chapter 2 (Figure 2-1). However, in the present context, the focus is on defining, integrating, and optimizing the various components of the remediation system. Only the most significant tasks are shown; the physical orientation among the tasks is based on the relative timing between tasks and the dependency on the completion of earlier tasks. The direction of data flow between tasks, both with respect to input data and the output of results, is shown by the arrows. For example, task 8 requires input from tasks 6 and 7. When it has been received and task 8 has been completed, the results of task 8 are used in tasks 11 and 12 as input data. The timing of the management schedule and technical risks affects costs directly and is an important consideration in the design of the remediation system.
OCR for page 85
--> FIGURE 5-2 Remediation technologies subsystem structure.
OCR for page 86
--> BOX 5-2 Process of Defining a Remediation System The discipline and structured thought process inherent in systems engineering provides a logical approach to the development of acceptable and workable strategies for managing contaminated sediments. Before technologies and controls can be evaluated, the system boundaries must be defined (see Figure 5-1). In addition to establishing the physical boundary for the horizontal and vertical extent of contamination, the contaminants of concern, political institutions, applicable laws and regulations, regulatory bodies, stakeholder interests, planning-time horizon, and desirable end-points must also be bound. Without boundaries, the extent of the system is poorly defined, and, reaching a near-optimum solution will be difficult. The various elements of the system must be determined. Defining the geographical extent of contaminated marine sediment (task 2) presents great difficulties. In many engineering processes, the physical boundary has controllable, or at least measurable, inputs and outputs. In the case of contaminated sediments, the boundary is less defined, and there is exchange of water, sediment, air, and aquatic organisms. Legal and regulatory constraints must also be recognized. Environmental laws and regulations at the local, regional, state, federal, and international levels constrain the management of contaminated sediments through environmental impact assessments and the permitting process (tasks 3 and 6). These limitations can delay the development of a solution and increase costs. Only at this stage can appropriate technologies be assessed (task 5). Once the objective functions have been quantified along with constraints, the optimal solution can be studied. These studies (task 6) address the interrelationships of the subsystems, considering performance, costs, and environmental effects. These studies permit definition of the optimal approach (task 7) to the selection of the appropriate removal, transport, treatment, and disposal subsystems of an integrated total system, designed within the available and proven component technologies. Other elements of the process include public acceptance of the proposed remediation plan (task 11). INTERIM CONTROLS A previous report by the NRC (1989) found that sediment contamination issues at Superfund sites were often not addressed effectively because of the time lapse between the identification of the problem and the initiation of remedial action. In the dynamic underwater environment, a long wait often means that the contamination has spread, making it much more difficult and costly to clean up than it would have been when it was concentrated in a small area The 1989
OCR for page 87
--> report, therefore, recognized the value of using interim control measures soon after discovery of the problem to prevent the situation from deteriorating or to avert excessive damage over the prolonged period required to choose a long-term course of action and secure all necessary regulatory approvals. For purposes of the present report, interim control technologies are defined as temporary measures that can be implemented quickly to meet an immediate need to control exposure to contaminants and reduce risk to humans and the environment. It is appropriate to consider interim measures in all cases where an imminent hazard has been identified by risk analysis (discussed in Chapter 2) and reasoned judgment.2 Permanent solutions typically take 3 to 15 years to implement, according to the committee's case histories (see Table 1-1). By definition, interim controls must be less expensive than long-term controls and must be suited to faster implementation. Interim controls include a broad spectrum of administrative and technology-based approaches based principally on isolation or avoidance techniques. Controls considered by the committee range from issuing public warnings or health advisories to constructing barriers blocking access to contaminated areas by humans or other biota. Slow processes, such as natural recovery and bioremediation, are not included in this category (these approaches are examined as long-term solutions). Experience with interim controls has been limited. The committee identified only a handful of cases in which such measures have been used, just two of which involved technology-based control. Nevertheless, there is some evidence that these measures are at least partly effective in the short term, and, equally important, they may offer the only hope of rapid risk reduction in highly contaminated areas. Indeed, interim controls are likely to be used more in the future because the costs of treating large volumes of sediment in ''permanent" ways are generally very high. Interim controls require special attention in the planning process, however, because the importance of quickly reducing exposures and controlling the scale of the problem are often overlooked in the rush to find a more permanent response. The effective use of interim controls could be enhanced by monitoring and evaluating their effectiveness where they are being used. Selection of Interim Controls A decision to proceed with interim controls can be made at any point in the decision process after preliminary site data have been obtained. But inexpensive, fast-acting methods cannot be expected to provide permanent solutions. Decision makers who implement an interim strategy to address an imminent hazard must anticipate taking further, more elaborate action later to meet long-term cleanup criteria. It is possible, however, that interim actions or intervening events 2 The focus is on when the hazard is identified, rather than when it developed (sediments tend to become contaminated slowly over time rather than suddenly).
OCR for page 88
--> may reduce the risk sufficiently to obviate the need for long-term measures. This phenomenon occurred at the James River, where commercial fisheries were closed in 1975 to reduce the health risk of Kepone contamination while decision makers considered permanent solutions (see Appendix C). Active remediation eventually was rejected as both too costly and environmentally unwise; in the meantime, Kepone manufacturing had been forbidden, and the contaminated sediments were covered over by clean sediments, a natural process that was effective enough to permit lifting of the fishing restrictions in 1988. Thus, the combination of an interim control and a passive, long-term solution (natural recovery) largely solved the problem (although maintenance dredging is still restricted, which is a problem because ships can navigate only at high tide). Post-project monitoring ensured that the risk was reduced indicating that no further action was necessary. It is desirable, but not necessary, that interim control measures be compatible with, and possibly even complement, the ultimate solution. Interim measures that hamper long-term remediation can increase overall project costs. In some cases, the use of an interim control may reduce the overall project costs, but in the committee's view this is a side benefit rather than a selection criterion. Cost control is a consideration, however, in that an ill-conceived interim control might interfere with, or require expensive removal prior to, the implementation of a permanent solution. For example, a temporary sand cap might render dredging impractical, but extensive or armored capping is appropriate as a permanent solution and is not considered to be an interim control. Administrative Interim Controls Restrictions on catching or marketing high-risk fish and shellfish species can reduce the risks to human health in areas where unconfined contaminated sediments must remain in place for long periods of time (i.e., where natural restoration is planned or the selection and implementation of a remediation strategy drags on for years). Such restrictions can take various forms. In the James River case, commercial fisheries were shut down, which was a drastic step. In areas frequented by recreational fishermen, other approaches may be necessary. For example, in the mid-1970s, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control and the EPA discovered that fish from certain areas of Lake Hartwell were contaminated with PCBs at levels above the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tolerance limit of 5 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). To prevent or minimize exposure to fish with PCB contamination above a target risk level, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control issued a health advisory in 1976 warning the public against eating fish from the Seneca River arm of Lake Hartwell (EPA, 1994c; Hahnenberg, 1995). In 1984, the FDA lowered the PCB tolerance level to 2 mg/kg, and, as a result, the original health advisory was modified to specify that no fish taken in the highly contaminated areas should be eaten, nor should any fish larger than three pounds
OCR for page 89
--> taken from the general area be eaten (Hahnenberg, 1995). Fishing was not prohibited, but signs warning against eating fish have been posted at most public boat launch areas and recreation areas at Lake Hartwell since 1987 (Hahnenberg, 1995). In addition, education programs designed to increase public awareness of the health advisory and methods of preparing and cooking fish were implemented to reduce further the quantity of contaminants consumed (see EPA, 1994c). A health advisory is a temporary palliative because it obviously does nothing to minimize the exposure of, or risk to, fish-eating birds and mammals. But fishing restrictions can be left in place for years, even decades. The New Bedford Harbor Superfund site was closed to all fishing in 1979; in 1990, a number of studies culminated in a decision to remove and incinerate the sediments in hot spots (EPA, 1990). In some cases, fishing restrictions have been in place for so long that they have become de facto permanent solutions. For instance, PCB-contaminated fish and sediments were found in the upper Hudson River in the early 1970s. Health advisories against fish consumption from the lower river and a complete ban on fishing in the upper river have been in effect since the mid-1970s (Harkness et al., 1993). Although complete bans on fishing can reduce risk to humans, the effectiveness of public advisories about contaminated sediments is an open question. The committee was unable to find enough information to document or analyze the risk reduction of either fishing bans or advisories. The compliance problems involved are illustrated by Belton et al. (1985) in a study that addressed a potential 60-fold increase in the risk of human cancer associated with the lifetime consumption of PCB-contaminated fish from the Hudson-Raritan estuary area. The effectiveness of public health advisories as risk reduction measures was evaluated by a careful, multidisciplinary study of recreational fishermen. Approximately 59 percent of those surveyed fished for the purpose of catching food. More than 50 percent of the respondents were aware of the warnings, and those who did not consume the fish generally were persuaded by a perception of unacceptable risks. But 31 percent of those who ate their catch did so despite believing it was contaminated. The researchers concluded that the broad-scale rejection of the health advisories was due to a combination of factors: the way the media were used, the nature and delivery of the health advisory, and personal predispositions that tended to reduce the credibility or usefulness of the communication. Technology-Based Interim Controls The committee could identify only two instances in which a technology-based interim control was implemented to control the dispersion of contaminated sediments. The use of technology-based measures may be impeded by concerns that, because of the cost associated with implementation or removal, they will narrow the choice of long-term solutions or become de facto, second-rate permanent solutions. There is also some question about how to monitor the
OCR for page 90
--> effectiveness of interim controls. Nevertheless, in cases where a quick, inexpensive risk reduction is needed, a strong argument can be made for considering interim structural controls, preferably immediately after a high-risk site has been discovered. Contaminated sediments can be covered with a layer of cleaner sediment or placed within a temporary containment structure, with the intention of removing them later for extensive or permanent treatment or disposal. This approach was demonstrated in 1995 when sediments were contained temporarily in Manistique Harbor in Michigan to prevent the resuspension and transport of PCB-contaminated sediments into Lake Michigan (Hahnenberg, 1995). A high-density polyethylene plastic liner (110 feet by 240 feet) was placed over the hot spot with the highest surficial PCB concentration at a cost of approximately $300,000. One-way gas valves and more than 40 2,000-pound concrete blocks were installed to keep the liner in place. This measure was used until a permanent cap could be installed The effectiveness of the temporary cap was evaluated by monitoring the liner placement to ensure that the hot spot remained covered. It is not known, however, if the cap actually reduced the risk posed by the PCB contamination. The second case of a structural interim control known to the committee was at New Bedford Harbor, where limited dredging of a hot spot was combined with the temporary storage of sediments for later treatment (Otis, 1994). The dredging of hot spots is analogous to short-term Superfund "removal"3 prior to more extensive "remedial response." When contaminated sediments must be moved out of a navigation channel, it may be cost effective to remove and store the sediments until final treatment and disposal methods can be selected. In such cases, removal and storage not only reduce the immediate risk but also serve as necessary components of the ultimate solution. Sediments can be stored, for example, in a CDF. Although CDFs are generally not used in rapid response to imminent hazards, it is possible to recover and reuse CDFs by following a series of steps, including solids separation, dewatering, and removal of the sediments to a permanent disposal site or for beneficial use. In the New Bedford case, a CDF was to be used for both a pilot study and the hot-spot remediation. Eventually, it was capped (Otis, 1994). Management guidelines are available for the reuse of dredged material disposal areas (Montgomery et al., 1978). Dredged contaminated sediments have also been placed temporarily in multicelled settling basins for treatment (as in the Marathon Battery case history) and in confined aquatic sites (as in the Port of Tacoma case history). Another interim approach involves the installation of sediment traps and bypass systems, which can redirect the deposition of new contaminated sediments to a controlled location or can isolate "clean" natural sediments from highly 3 The term "removal" as used by Superfund is not necessarily confined to physical excavation. The term refers to a broad array of "emergency" response measures, which require less time and money to implement than longer-term, more permanent "remedial response" measures.
OCR for page 143
--> TABLE 5-14 Qualitative Comparison of the State of the Art in Remediation Technologiesa Feature technology State-of-design Guidance Number of Times Used Scale of Application Cost (per cubic yard) Limitationsb Natural recovery Nonexistent 2 Full scale Low Source control Sedimentation Storms In-place containment Developing rapidly < 10 Full scale < $20 Limited technical guidance Legal/regulation uncertainty In-place treatment Nonexistent ≈2 Pilot scale Unknown Technical problems Few proponents Need to treat entire volume Excavation and containment Substantial and well developed Several hundred Full scale $20 to $100 Site availability Public assistance Excavation and treatment Limited and extrapolated from soil < 10 Full scale $50 to $1,000 High cost Inefficient for low concentration Residue toxic Need for treatment train a Estimates for North America. b See Table 5-15 for further details.
OCR for page 144
--> TABLE 5-15 Comparative Analysis of Technology Categories Approach Feasibility Effective Practicality Cost INTERIM CONTROL Administrative 0 4 2 4 Technological 1 3 1 3 LONG-TERM CONTROL In Situ Natural recovery 0 4 1 4 Capping 2 3 3 3 Treatment 1 1 2 2 Sediment Removal and Transport 2 4 3 2 Ex Situ Treatment Physical 1 4 4 1 Chemical 1 2 4 1 Thermal 4 4 3 0 Biological 0 1 4 1 Ex Situ Containment 2 4 2 2 SCORING 0 < 90% Concept Not acceptable, very uncertain $1,000/yd3 1 90% Bench $100/yd3 2 99% Pilot $10/yd3 3 99 9% Field $l/yd3 4 99 99% Commercial Acceptable, certain < $1/yd3 demonstrated at the bench level in a small (typically a batch) reactor. Higher scores represent, in ascending order, a pilot-scale demonstration using contaminated sediments in a volume on the order of a few cubic yards, a field-scale demonstration using tens of cubic yards, and finally, a commercial operation. The practicality ranking reflects public acceptance; a score of 0 means the public would not tolerate such an activity, and a score of 4 means a technology would be viewed favorably. The practicality ranking also includes some qualitative measure of uncertainty, which can be a deciding factor to a risk-averse regulatory community and public. Finally, the cost score is inversely related to the treatment cost, with incineration being the most expensive and thus assigned the lowest score. Costs do not include expenses associated with monitoring, environmental resource damages, or the costs imposed on the public by closure of a commercial fishery or loss of subsistence fishing.
OCR for page 145
--> In the category of interim controls, two approaches were considered: administrative controls that provide warnings and structural controls that isolate contaminated sediments from humans and ecosystems. Administrative controls, such as the controls used during the natural restoration of the James River estuary, are probably less than 90 percent effective in limiting human consumption of finfish and shellfish contaminated by sediments. Administrative controls would be most effective in restricting commercial operations and least effective in limiting subsistence fishing, particularly fishing by individuals unable to read posted signs. Administrative controls do not limit ecosystem exposures unless measures are taken to exclude wildlife from contaminated areas. Administrative controls appear to be practical although the public perceives that the responsible parties are doing nothing besides posting signs. The costs of administrative interim controls are very low, but there is some uncertainty as to the type and level of monitoring program that would be required. Technology-based interim controls have the potential to effectively limit contaminant releases to the ecosystem, although there has been little experience with this approach. The practicality score is low because of concerns that the contamination will not be remediated completely. The cost is relatively low, but it can rise if extensive monitoring, which may last indefinitely, is required. The potential exists for cost savings if the interim control becomes the long-term control, but there is an alternative risk of increasing costs in the future if the interim control has to be removed. In the latter case (e.g., if removal of a cap resulted in the mixing of clean and contaminated sediment), the project might entail the removal and treatment of larger volumes of diluted, contaminated sediments than were present originally. Although in situ controls are attractive in some ways, there is considerable doubt about their effectiveness and practicality. Natural recovery is of limited effectiveness in preventing contaminant release into the ecosystem, because this approach depends on natural processes of burial by sedimentation and contaminant destruction or sequestration by physical, chemical, or microbial processes. Natural recovery was demonstrated at the James River. The cost borne by the responsible party and the regulatory community is low. In situ control by in-place capping involves a number of trade-offs compared with natural recovery. Laboratory experiments and calculations based on chemical and physical principles indicate that capping should be at least 99 percent effective in reducing contaminant release over the long term. The technology has been demonstrated at the field scale, although long-term performance has not been verified. Some stakeholders view capping as a temporary solution and thus of less-than-optimum practicality. Costs, including monitoring, are moderate. In situ treatment using physical, chemical, and biological approaches is at an early stage of development and testing. Limited information is available on the effectiveness of these processes because most studies have not gone beyond the
OCR for page 146
--> bench scale. Given the limited experience and the uncertainties about effectiveness and cost, in situ treatment may seldom be acceptable to risk-averse decision makers and stakeholders. The next category, sediment removal and transport, is the first step in ex situ remediation. There is an extensive U.S. commercial experience base for this technology with navigation dredging and the placement of dredged material. Sediments can be recovered and isolated with contaminant losses of approximately 2 to 5 percent. Experience with clean sediments provides reasonable certainty regarding the feasibility and cost, although the practicality of dredging is often not completely accepted by the public, particularly when contaminated sediments are involved. Costs are moderate for environmental dredging and for transport. A wide array of ex situ technologies has been considered. Four general treatment categories and one containment technology are listed in Table 5-15. These approaches are feasible and practical although they are costly, and few have been demonstrated at pilot or full scale. Physical treatment methods separate sediments based on size and density. The approach is commercially feasible in large-scale mining operations and has been used in the management of contaminated sediments. The effectiveness of physical separation can be on the order of 90 percent if the contaminants selectively associate with a small mass fraction of the sediments that can be isolated; further treatment of the concentrated contaminants is then required. Costs are moderate. Ex situ chemical treatments are less well developed than physical separation technologies. The effectiveness rating is low because results to date at the bench and pilot scales show only 90 percent recovery of contaminants. For sediments contaminated by both organics and metals, even lower recoveries can be expected, and multiple treatment processes need to be sequenced. Because full-scale experience with contaminated sediments is limited, the feasibility score of chemical treatments is also low. Thermal technologies have the highest effectiveness of any remediation technology, with the capability of destroying more than 99.99 percent of organic contaminants, including PCBs. There has been considerable commercial experience in destroying hazardous waste by incineration, and the regulatory community and most stakeholders understand the principles of this approach. But there is still some skepticism about the technology. The major drawback to thermal destruction is high cost, which can reach $1,000/yd3 at low processing rates. Ex situ biological treatment approaches have some potential, and the concept is supported by most stakeholders. However, few data are available on effectiveness, and studies have been limited to the bench scale. Much of the expertise evolving with the biological remediation of soils and groundwater can be applied to sediments, but additional research is needed to adapt to the unique contaminant mixtures, the saltwater content, and the fined-grained nature of marine sediments. In addition, knowledge is limited concerning the effects of contaminant mixtures, particularly mixtures of organics and metals, on biological processes.
OCR for page 147
--> The containment of residues in a facility above or under the water is a common sediment management technique, so there is a record of performance. Containment systems are effective in containing at least 99 percent of the contaminants initially and can provide long-term isolation if the physical integrity of the container is maintained. The major downside to this approach is the difficulty of finding sites for the facilities and gaining public acceptance of a landfill for sediments. The costs are low to moderate. Of most interest to the committee is the obvious need to make trade-offs in the selection of technologies. Interim controls and in situ approaches are both feasible and relatively inexpensive but limited in terms of effectiveness, practicality, and uncertainty. Ex situ approaches require sediment removal and transport, which receive high scores, combined with treatment and containment approaches, which receive good scores for feasibility and practicality but low scores for effectiveness and cost. Thus, the decision maker is left in the uncomfortable position of trading off low-cost, less-effective, less-practical, yet feasible interim controls and in situ approaches, as compared with the most practical ex situ approaches, which can be effective but tend to be expensive and complex. The magnitude of the contamination problem and site-specific considerations can guide the decision maker in analyzing these alternatives. One solution to this dilemma can be found through cost-benefit analysis (see Chapter 2), a decision tool that uses remediation technologies as one of several inputs. In comparing the results of the qualitative assessment with the history of use (Table 5-14), it appears that feasibility and practicality are the most important considerations in the implementation of technologies or controls and that high cost is a serious disincentive. REFERENCES Abramowicz, D.A., M.R. Harkness, J.B. McDermott, and J.J. Salvo 1992. 1991 In situ Hudson River Research Study: A Field Study on Biodegradation of PCBs in Hudson River sediments. Schenectady, New York: General Electric Corporation Research and Development. Allen, J.P. In press. Mineral Processing Pre-treatment of Contaminated Sediment. Great Lakes National Program Office. Chicago: EPA. Alluvial Mining Group, Ltd. 1993. Tramrod with Environmental Dredging Tools. Operations Manual. Document No. RBW-AM-931. Sudbury, Suffolk, United Kingdom: Alluvial Mining Group, Ltd. Averett, D.E. and N.R. Francingues. 1994. Sediment remediation: An international review. Pp. 596-605 in Dredging '94: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Dredging and Dredged Material Placement. E.C. McNair, Jr, ed. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Averett, D.E., B.D. Perry, E.J. Torrey, and J.A. Miller. 1990. Review of removal, containment and treatment technologies for remediation of contaminated sediment in the Great Lakes. Miscellaneous Paper EL-90-25. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Belton, T., B. Ruppel, K. Lockwood, S. Shiboski, G. Bukowski, R. Roundy. N. Weinstein, D. Wilson, and H. Whelan. 1985. A Study of Toxic Hazards to Urban Recreational Fishermen and Crabbers. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Science and Research, and Cook College-Rutgers University, Department of Human Ecology. September 15.
OCR for page 148
--> Bohlen, W.F. 1978. Factors governing the distribution of dredge resuspended sediments. Pp. 2001-2019 in Proceedings of the 16th Coastal Engineering Research Conference held August 17-September 3, 1978, in Hamburg, Germany. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Bragg J.R., R.C. Prince, E.J. Hamer, and R.M. Atlas. 1994. Effectiveness of bioremediation for the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Nature 368 413-418. Buchberger, C. 1992. Environment Canada tests cable arm bucket on contaminated sediment in Toronto. International Dredging Review 11(5): 6-7. Buchberger, C. 1993. Environment Canada demonstrations: remediation technologies for the removal of contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes. Terra et Aqua, International Journal on Public Works, Ports, and Waterways Developments (50): 3-13. Caulfield, D.D., A. Ostaszewski, and J. Filkens. 1995. Precision Digital Hydroacoustic Sediment Characterization: Analysis in the Trenton Channel of the Detroit River. Paper presented at the 1995 Conference on Great Lakes Research. East Lansing: Michigan State University. Clausner, J.E. 1996. Potential Application of Geosynthetic Fabric Containers for Open Water Placement of Contaminated Dredged Material. Technical Note EEDP-01-39. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Clausner, J.E., W.A. Birkemeier, and G.R. Clark. 1986. Field Comparison for Four Nearshore Survey Systems. Miscellaneous Paper CERC-86-6. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Collins, M.A. 1995. Dredging-Induced Near-Field Resuspended Sediment Concentrations and Source Strengths. Miscellaneous Paper D-95-2. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Crockett, T.R. 1993. Modeling Near Field Sediment Resuspension in Cutterhead Suction Dredging Operations. Master's thesis. Lincoln: University of Nebraska. Cundy, D.F., and W.F. Bohlen. 1982. A numerical simulation of the dispersion of sediments suspended by estuarne dredging operations. Pp. 339-352 in Estuanne and Wetlands Processes. P. Hamilton and K.B. MacDonald, eds. New York: Plenum. Detzner, H.D. 1993. Mechanical treatment of the dredged material from Hamburg Harbor. Pp. 3.25-3.28 in Proceedings of the CATS II Congress 1993. Antwerp, Belgium: Technological Institute of the Royal Flemish Society of Engineers. Digiano, F.A., C.T. Miller, and J. Yoon. 1993. Predicting release of PCBs at point of dredging. Journal of Environmental Engineering 119(1): 72-89. Digiano, F.A., C.T. Miller, and J. Yoon. 1995. Dredging Elutriate Test (DRET) Development Contract Report D-95-1. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Edgar, C.E., and R.M. Engler. 1984. The London Dumping Convention and its role in regulating dredged material: An update. Pp. 240-249 in Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal, ASCE Specialty Conference Dredging 1984, vol. 1. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1989. Solidification and stabilization of CERCLA and RCRA wastes. Washington, D.C.: EPA. EPA. 1990. Record of Decision, New Bedford Harbor Pilot Dredging Project. Boston: EPA, Region 1. EPA. 1991. Handbook—Remediation of Contaminated Sediments. EPA-625/6-91-028. Center for Environmental Research Information, Office of Research and Development. Cincinatti: EPA. EPA. 1993a. Selecting Remediation Techniques for Contaminated Sediment. Office of Water. EPA-823-B93-001. Washington, D.C.: EPA. EPA. 1993b. Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA-542-B-93-005. Washington, D.C.: EPA. EPA. 1994a. Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program, Final Summary Report. Great Lakes National Program Office. EPA-905-S-94-001. Chicago: EPA. EPA. 1994b. Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program. Remediation Guidance Document. Great Lakes National Program Office. EPA 905-R94-003. Chicago: EPA.
OCR for page 149
--> EPA. 1994c. Superfund Record of Decision: Sangamo Weston/Twelve-Mile Creek/Lake Hartwell Site, Pickens, Georgia. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. EPA/ROD/R04-94/178. Washington D.C.: EPA. Fowler, J., D.J. Sprague, and D. Toups. 1994. Dredged Material-Filled Geotextile Containers, Environmental Effects of Dredging. Technical Notes. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Frodge, S.L., B.W. Remondi, and D. Lapucha. 1994. Dredging Research Technical Notes, Real-Time Testing and Demonstration of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Real-Time On-The-Fly Positioning System. DRP-4-10. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Galloway, J.E., and F.L. Snitz. 1994. Pilot-scale demonstration of sediment washings. Pp. 981-990 in Dredging '94: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Dredging and Dredged Material Placement. E.C. McNair, Jr., ed. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Garbaciak, S. 1994. Laboratory and field demonstrations of sediment technologies by the U.S. EPA's Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program. Pp. 567-578 in Dredging '94: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Dredging and Dredged Material Placement. E.C. McNair, Jr., ed. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Gibbs, R.J. 1973. Mechanisms of trace metal transport in rivers. Science 180: 71-73. Hahnenberg, J. 1995. Presentation at the Workshop on Interim Controls held July 31, 1995. Committee on Contaminated Sediments, National Research Council. Chicago: EPA Headquarters. Harkness, M.R., J.B. McDermott, D.A. Abramowicz, J.J. Salvo, W.P. Flanagan, M.L. Stephens, F.J. Mondello, R.J. May, and J.H. Lobos. 1993. In situ stimulation of aerobic PCB biodegradation in Hudson River sediments, Science 259: 503-507. Hayes, D.F. 1993. Assessing impacts of environmental dredging operations. Pp. 161-172 in Proceedings of the 16th U.S./Japan Experts Meeting on Management of Bottom Sediments Containing Toxic Substances held October 12-14, 1993, in Kitakyushu, Japan. Unpublished. Hayes, D.F., N. McLellan, and C.L. Truitt. 1988. Demonstrations of Innovative and Conventional Dredging Equipment at Calumet Harbor, Illinois. Miscellaneous Paper EL-88-1. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Herbich, J.B. 1995. Removal of contaminated sediments: Equipment and recent field studies. Pp. 77-111 In Dredging, Remediation, and Containment of Contaminated Sediments. K.R. Demars, G.N. Richardson, R.N. Yong, and R.C. Chaney, eds. ASTM STP 1293. Philadelphia: American Society of Testing and Materials. Herbich, J.B., and J. DeVnes. 1986. An Evaluation of the Effects of Operational Parameters on Sediment Resuspension Dunng Cutterhead Dredging Using a Laboratory Model Dredge System. Report No. CDS 286. College Station: Texas A&M University. Herbich, J.B., and S.B. Brahme. 1991. Literature Review and Technical Evaluation of Sediment Resuspension Dunng Dredging . Contract Report HL-91-1. Prepared for the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Holgné, J. 1988. The chemistry of ozone in water. Pp. 121-143 in Process Technologies for Water Treatment. S. Stucki, ed. New York: Plenum. Hua, I., R.H. Hochemer, and M.R. Hoffmann. 1995. Sonochemical degradation of p-nitrophenol in a parallel-plate near-field acoustical processor. Environmental Science and Technology 29(11): 2790-2796. Huggett, R.J., and M.E. Bender. 1980. Kepone in the James River. Environmental Science and Technology 14(8): 918-923. Kato, H.1993. Development of thin-layer dredging equipment with belt conveyor. Pp. 173-190 in Proceedings of the 16th U.S./Japan Experts Meeting on Management of Bottom Sediments Containing Toxic Substances held October 12-14, 1993, in Kitakyushu, Japan. Unpublished. Keillor, J.P. 1993. Obstacles to the remediation of contaminated soils and sediments in North America at reasonable cost. In Proceedings of the CATS II Congress: Characterization and Treatment of
OCR for page 150
--> Contaminated Dredged Material. Antwerp, Belgium: Technological Institute of the Royal Flemish Society of Engineers. Kenna, B.T., S.M. Yaksich, D.E. Averett, and M.A. Zappi. 1994. Demonstration of equipment for dredging contaminated sediments at Buffalo River, Buffalo, New York. Pp. 885-895 in Dredging '94: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Dredging and Material Placement. E.C. McNair, Jr., ed. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Krahn, H.P. 1990. Feasibility Study of Estuary and Lower Harbor Bay, New Bedford, Massachusetts, vol. 2. EBASCO Services, Inc. McGee, R.G., R.F. Ballard, Jr., and D.D. Caulfield. 1995. A Technique to Assess the Characteristics of Bottom and Subbottom Manne Sediments. Technical Report DRP-95-3. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. McLellan, T.N., R.N. Havis, D.F. Hayes, and G.L. Raymond. 1989. Field Studies of Sediment Resuspension Characteristic of Selected Dredges. Technical Report HL-89-9. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Miller, J.1995. Presentation at the Workshop on Interim Controls held July 31, 1995. Committee on Contaminated Sediments, National Research Council. Chicago: EPA Headquarters. Montgomery, R.L., A.W. Ford, M.E. Poindexter, and M.J. Bartos. 1978. Guidelines for Dredged Material Disposal Area Reuse Management. Technical Report DS-78-12. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Moore, J.N., E.J. Brook, and C. Johns. 1989. Grain size partitioning of metals in contaminated coarse-grained river flood plain sediment, Clark Fork River, Montana, USA. Environmental Geology and Water Science 14(2): 107-115. Myers, T.E., and M.E. Zappi. 1992. Laboratory evaluation of stabilization/solidification technology for reducing the mobility of heavy metals in New Bedford Harbor Superfund site sediment. Pp. 304-319 in Stabilization and Solidification of Hazardous, Radioactive, and Mixed Wastes, vol. 2. T.M. Gilliam and C.C. Wiles, eds. ASTM STP 1123. Philadelphia: American Society of Testing and Materials. Myers, T.E., M.R. Palermo, T.J. Olin, D.E. Averett, D.D. Relble, J.L. Martin, and S.C. McCutcheon. In press. Estimating Contaminant Losses from Components of Remediation Alternatives for Contaminated Sediments. Great Lakes National Program Office. Report prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, Illinois. Nakles, D.V., and D.G. Linz, eds. In press. Environmentally Acceptable Endpoints in Soil. Annapolis, Maryland: American Academy of Environmental Engineers. National Research Council (NRC). 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. NRC. 1990. Managing Troubled Waters: The Role of Marine Environmental Monitoring. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Otis, M.J. 1992. A pilot study of dredging and disposal alternatives for the New Bedford Harbor, Massachusetts, Superfund site. In Proceedings of the 14th U.S./Japan Experts Meeting on Management of Bottom Sediments Containing Toxic Substances in Yokohama, Japan. T.R. Patin, ed. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Otis, M.J. 1994. New Bedford Harbor. Massachusetts, dredging/disposal of PCB-contaminated sediments. Pp. 579-595 in Dredging '94: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Dredging and Material Placement. E.C. McNair, Jr., ed. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Palermo, M.R. 1991a. Design Requirements for Capping. Dredging Research Technical Notes, DRP-05-03. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Palermo, M.R. 1991b. Site Selection Considerations for Capping. Dredging Research Technical Notes, DRP-5-04. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Palermo, M.R. 1991c. Equipment and Placement Techniques for Capping. Dredging Research Technical Notes, DRP-5-05. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
OCR for page 151
--> Palermo, M.R. 1995. Considerations for disposal of dredged sediments in solid waste landfills. Paper prepared for the 16th Technical Conference of the Western Dredging Association and the 28th Annual Texas A&M Dredging Seminar and University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Dredging Workshop held May 23-26, 1995, in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Available from M. R. Palermo, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Palermo, M.R., and J. Miller. 1995. Strategies for management of contaminated sediments. Pp. 289-296 in Dredging, Remediation, and Containment of Contaminated Sediments. K.R. Demars, G.N. Richardson, R.N. Yong, and R.C. Chaney, eds. ASTM STP 1293. Philadelphia: American Society of Testing and Materials. Palermo, M.R., T.J. Fredette, and R.E. Randall. 1992. Monitoring Considerations for Capping. Dredging Research Technical Notes, DRP-05-07. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Palermo, M.R., R.M. Engler, and N.R. Francingues. 1993. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers perspective on environmental dredging. Buffalo Environmental Law Journal 1(2): 243-253. Palermo, M.R., R.E. Randall, T. Fredfette, and J. Clausner. In press. Technical Guidance for Subaqueous Dredged Material Capping. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Pelletier, J.P. 1995. Demonstrations and commercial applications of innovative sediment removal technologies. Pp. 112-127 in Dredging, Remediation, and Containment of Contaminated Sediments. ASTM STP 1293. Philadelphia: American Society of Testing and Materials. Pilarczyk, K.W. 1994. Novel Systems in Coastal Engineering, Geotextile System and Other Methods: An Overview. Rijkswaterstaat, Road and Hydraulic Engineering Division, Delft, The Netherlands. Pritchard, P.H., and C.F. Costa. 1991. EPA's Alaska oil spill bioremediation project. Environmental Science and Technology 25(3):372-379. Rubin, Debra K. 1995. Estimating: Cleanup costing seeks order. Engineering News-Record 235(13): 46. Sedlak, D.L., and A.W. Andren. 1994. The effect of sorption on the oxidation of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) by hydroxyl radical. Water Research 28(5): 1207-1215. Shields, F., and R. Montgomery. 1984. Fundamentals of capping contaminated dredged material. Pp. 446-460 in Dredging '94: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Dredging and Material Placement. E.C. McNair, Jr., ed. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Stern, E., J. Olha, A.A. Massa, and B. Wisemiller. 1994. Recent assessment and decontamination studies of contaminated sediments in the New York/New Jersey Harbor. Pp. 458-467 in Dredging '94: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Dredging and Material Placement. E.C. McNair, Jr., ed. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Sturgis. T., and D. Gunnison. 1988. A Procedure for Determining the Cap Thickness for Capping Subaqueous Dredged Material Deposits. Technical Note EEDP-0109 Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Sukol, R.B., and G.D. McNelly. 1990. Workshop on Innovative Technologies for Treatment of Contaminated Sediments: Summary Report. EPA-600/2-90-054. Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sumeri, A. 1984. Capped in-water disposal of contaminated dredged material. Pp. 644-653 in Dredging '84: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Dredging and Material Disposal. R.L. Montgomery and J.W. Leach, eds. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Taylor, A. 1995. Bayou Bonfouca Superfund cleanup project mission completed. World Dredging, Mining, and Construction 31(8): 16-17. Tetra Tech, Inc., and D. Averett, 1994. Options for Treatment and Disposal of Contaminated Sediments from New York/New Jersey Harbor. Miscellaneous Paper EL-94-1. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Thibodeaux, L.J. 1989. Theoretical Models for Evaluation of Volatile Emissions to Air During Dredged Material Disposal with Application to New Bedford Harbor, Massachusetts. Miscella-
OCR for page 152
--> neous Paper EL-89-3. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Thibodeaux, L.J., D.D. Reible, W. Bosworth, and L. Sarapas. 1990. A Theoretical Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Capping PCB Contaminated New Bedford Harbor Sediment. Hazardous Waste Research Center. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University. Thoma, G. 1994. Summary of the Workshop on Contaminated Sediment Handling, Treatment Technologies, and Associated Costs held April 21-22, 1994. Background paper prepared for the Committee on Contaminated Sediments, Marine Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Toronto Harbor Commission. 1993. Report on the Treatment of the Toronto Harbour Sediments at the THC Soil Recycling Plant. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Wastewater Technology Centre. Truitt, C.L. 1986. The Duwamish Waterway Capping Demonstration Project: Engineering Analysis and Results of Physical Monitoring. Technical Report D-86-2. Long-Term Effects of Dredging Operations Program. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Truitt, C.L. 1987a. Engineering Considerations for Capping Subaqueous Dredged Material Deposits—Background and Preliminary Planning Environmental Effects of Dredging. Technical Note EEDP-01-3. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Truitt, C.L. 1987b. Engineering Considerations for Capping Subaqueous Dredged Material Deposits—Design Concepts and Placement Techniques. Environmental Effects of Dredging. Technical Note EEDP-01-4. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Confined Disposal of Dredged Material—Engineering Manual. EM-I 110-2-5027. Washington, D.C.: USACE. USACE. 1993. Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal. Engineer Manual. 1110-2-5025. Washington, D.C.: USACE. USACE and EPA. 1992. Evaluating Environmental Effects of Dredged Material Management Alternatives—A Technical Framework . EPA 842-B-92-008. Washington, D.C.: USACE and EPA. U.S. Department of the Army and USACE. 1995. Navstar Global Positioning System Surveying. Engineer Manual. EM 1110-1-1003. Washington, D.C.: USACE. U.S. Army Engineer Buffalo District. 1993. Pilot-Scale Demonstrations of Thermal Desorption for the Treatment of Buffalo River Sediments, Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program: Great Lakes National Program Office. EPA 905-R93-005. Chicago: EPA. U.S. Army Engineer Buffalo District. 1994. Pilot-Scale Demonstrations of Thermal Desorption for the Treatment of Ashtabula River Sediments, Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program. Great Lakes National Program Office. EPA 905-R94-021. Chicago: EPA. U.S. Army Engineer Detroit District. 1994. Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program: Pilot-Scale Demonstration of Sediment Washing for the Treatment of Saginaw River Sediments. Great Lakes National Program Office. EPA 905-R94-019. Chicago: EPA. Valent, P.J., and D.K. Young. 1995. Technical and Economic Assessment of Storage of Industrial Waste on Abyssal Plains. Paper Presented to the Marine Board, John C. Stennis Space Center, Mississippi, June 21–23, 1995. van der Veen, R. 1995. Contaminated Sediment Remediation: Dredging Polluted Bed Materials: A Study of Environmentally Effective Dredging Methods. Directorate General for Public Works and Water Management (Rijkswaterstaat). North Sea Directorate, P.O. Box 5807, 2280 HV Rijswijk, The Netherlands. April. van Oostrum, R.W. 1992. Dredging Contaminated Sediments in the Netherlands. Proceedings from the International Symposium on Environmental Dredging . Buffalo, New York: Erie County Environmental Education Institute, Inc.
OCR for page 153
--> Wardlaw, C. 1994. Interim results of Canada's Contaminated Sediment Treatment Technology Program. Background material provided for the Committee on Contaminated Marine Sediments. Workshop on Handling and Treatment Technologies and Associated Costs held April 21–22, 1994, in Chicago, Illinois. Wenzel, J.G. 1994a. Feasibility and Availability of Equipment for Dredging Contaminated Sediments from the Palos Verdes Shelf and Slope Saratoga, California: Marine Development Associates, Inc. Wenzel J.G. 1994b. Dredging Equipment and Controls for Palos Verdes Shelf and Slope. MDA 93-001. Saratoga, California: Marine Development Associates, Inc. West Harbor Operable Unit. 1992. Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site Record of Decision. Seattle, Washington: EPA, Region 10. Wong, C.S., G. Sanders, D.R. Engstrom, D.T. Long, D.L. Swackhammer, and S.J. Eisenreich. 1995. Accumulation, inventory, and diagenesis of chlorinated hydrocarbons in Lake Ontario sediments. Environmental Science and Technology 29(10): 2661-2672. Zappi, M.E., and D.F. Hayes. 1991. Innovative Technologies for Dredging Contaminated Sediments. Miscellaneous Paper EL-91-20. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Zeman, A.J., S. Sills, J.E. Graham, and K.A. Klein. 1992. Subaqueous Capping of Contaminated Sediments: Annotated Bibliography. Burlington, Ontario, Canada: National Water Research Institute, Environment Canada.
Representative terms from entire chapter: