Read Slide 1 text version

Sediment Sites

An Overview of the Remedial Challenge

Presented at

PERF Fall Meeting Houston, TX

Presented by

Ian A. Webster, Sc.D. Project Navigator, Ltd. Brea, CA September 9, 2009

www.ProjectNavigator.com

www.SafetyMoment.org

www.PRPblog.com

SafetyMoment.org is a Safety Website with a Focus on Environmental Projects

An online tool to promote a Safety-First Workplace Culture Provides project professionals a one stop shop for safety content, including videos, presentations, tips, etc. Ability for the user to upload and post your own files. Goal is to create a safety networking portal, where safety content is clearly cataloged, and easily delivered.

2 of 50

Foss Waterway ­ View to North (1929)

3 of 50

Research Illustration ­ Tar Processor (1919)

4 of 50

Foss Waterway ­ View to North (2001)

5 of 50

Sediment Sites Pose Different Challenges than Terrestrial Sites

Rivers, harbors, estuaries = "linear" sites Often large geographic areas Sites are like groundwater basins, but the dirt moves too Multiple sources over space and time Geographic divisibility among sources? Fate and transport issues (hydrodynamics) Remedy selection

6 of 50

Newark Bay ­ Plot of Mercury in Sediment

1 MILE

N

ER IV R

HACKENSACK RIVER

IC SA S PA

KEARNY PT DROYERS PT

PORT NEWARK CHANNEL

· Mercury concentrations in subsurface boreholes shown. All database data from Tierra displayed less duplicates. · High mercury noted in Port Newark Channel. · Elevated mercury > 5 ppm distributed throughout bay system. · High mercury noted on south part of Newark Bay. · Data range: 1-1990 to 122007.

Y RK BA NEW A

PORT ELIZABETH CHANNEL

BAYONNE

Mercury in Sediment

7 of 50

Outline

Today's Big Issues in Remediation The Continued Growth of the NPL, with more Sediment Sites When to be Proactive Comparing Terrestrial Vs Sediment Sites Data: Its Mining, Collection and Interpretation for Decision-making Remedial Alternatives and Selection Dredging & Dewatering Capping Research to Aid the Field

8 of 50

Where Our Field is Going

National Observations

Major New Trends by Dwight Bledsoe of Dow Chemical 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Indoor Air Vapor Intrusion Natural Resource Damages Brownfields Development DNAPL Source Remediation Contaminated Sediments Ecological Risk Assessments

9 of 50

Outline

Today's Big Issues in Remediation The Continued Growth of the NPL, with more Sediment Sites When to be Proactive Comparing Terrestrial Vs Sediment Sites Data: Its Mining, Collection and Interpretation for Decision-making Remedial Alternatives and Selection Dredging & Dewatering Capping Research to Aid the Field

10 of 50

Status of NPL Sites Cleanups

Reference: NACEPT Report, Figure II-2, Pipeline Status of 1,518 Final and Deleted Sites on the NPL

11 of 50

Activity Type for the 142 Mega-Sites

Note: A Mega Site is defined as having a cleanup cost of > $50 MM.

Reference: NACEPT Report, Figure II-5, Activity Type (and Manufacturing Subtype) for 142 NPL Mega Sites

12 of 50

Distribution of 142 Mega-Sites by Region

34% of Mega Sites are

Note: A Mega Site is defined as having a cleanup cost of > $50 MM.

Reference: NACEPT Report, Figure II-3, Distribution of 142 Mega Sites by Region

in Regions 2 and 9

13 of 50

Mega-Sediments Sites Typically Have Large Acreage and High Volumes

LEGEND

Property Boundary Surface Sediment Concentrations for Mercury

Approximate locations of impacted sediments. See legend for types and magnitudes.

Southwest Marine Shipyard

Surface Sediment Concentrations for Lead

NASSCO Shipyard

Surface Sediment Concentrations for Arsenic

San

y o Ba Dieg

Capping Excavation

1

2

14 of 50

Sediment Sites: Review of Scope of Problem

Sediment sites increasing in number, size, cost. Trend likely will continue. 2004 EPA report to Congress on sediment quality lists 96 watersheds with "Areas of Widespread Sediment Contamination," based on nonrandom survey of sampling locations (only 9% of water body segments in U.S.). Over 8,000 sampling stations "probably" associated with harmful effects on aquatic life or human health.

15 of 50

Scope Of Problem

As of 2003, EPA reported about 7 sediment "megasites" (cost > $50MM) By 2007, more than 14 sediment megasites Others on horizon: e.g., Lower Passaic, Berry's Creek, Tar Creek, Tittabawassee River, Kalamazoo River Many other sites with sediment cleanup costs between $10MM and $50MM (e.g., Saginaw River, Sheboygan River, Lavaca Bay)

16 of 50

EPA Has Been Active in Issuing Guidance at Sediment Sites

Apr. 1998: Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy Feb. 2002: 11 Sediment Management Principles Dec. 2005: 220-page Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance Manual

17 of 50

EPA Activity At Sediment Sites

Projects just keep getting larger Hudson: 2.6M cy dredging, $450MM Lower Fox (OUs 2-5): Initially 7.3M cy dredging, now 3.5M cy dredging + 650 acres of cap or sand cover, $600MM Lower Passaic: FS evaluated dredging alternatives ranging from 1M11M cy, with costs ranging from $0.9B-$2.3B

18 of 50

Outline

Today's Big Issues in Remediation The Continued Growth of the NPL, with more Sediment Sites When to be Proactive...Best Use of $'s...A PM's Perspective Comparing Terrestrial Vs Sediment Sites Data: Its Mining, Collection and Interpretation for Decision-making Remedial Alternatives and Selection Dredging & Dewatering Capping Research to Aid the Field

19 of 50

PRPs Ability to "Drive Change" Varies with Project Phase High Cost Savings Returns Exist by Engaging with US EPA During the RI/FS Phases

Change = Scopes of Work; EPA declarations or remedy (e.g. PP,ROD); Risk Definition

Public comment period Interpretation of responsiveness summary

Ability to Effect "Change"

Ownership

EPA

EPA

EPA/ PRP

EPA/ PRP

EPA/ PRP

EPA

EPA

PRPs Typically

*

NPL

PSA

RI

Risk Assess-ment

FS

PP

ROD

RD

RA

OM&M/ ICs

PROJECT PHASE

* All time phases are shown as equal for graphical depiction

20 of 50

Outline

Today's Big Issues in Remediation The Continued Growth of the NPL, with more Sediment Sites When to be Proactive Comparing Terrestrial Vs Sediment Sites Data: Its Mining, Collection and Interpretation for Decision-making Remedial Alternatives and Selection Dredging & Dewatering Capping Research to Aid the Field

21 of 50

Overview of Terrestrial vs. Sediment Site

1. Typical MultiParty "Terrestrial" Site

Dump Tickets Accounting Records

Generator

Transporter

Landfill Site Owner / Operator

Transporter

Generator

2. Sediment Case: "Underwater Landfill"

Upland Facility Owner/Operator (Generator)

NonPoint Runoff via Catch Basins

"No She nPoi et F nt" lo w

Impacted Sediments Transported from Upstream Sources

Wharf Operator

Upland Facility Owner/Operator (Generator)

"Point Source" Effluent

Sediment Site

Sewer Bank Owner/Operator Owner (Transporter) Marina

Lessee/ Operator Bedland Owner Bank Owner Overwater Operator

Municipal Urban Runoff Sewer from Streets, Highways, Owner/Operator Rooftops and Parking (Transporter / Arranger) Lots (Arranger/Generator)

22 of 50

22

Develop a Strategy Which Balances Remediation Costs and Risk Reduction

Transport via Transport via Historical Slough Historical Slough

Onshore Historical Parcel E Historical Parcel E Filling/Disposal Filling/Disposal Activities Filling/Disposal Activities Activities Sediment Sediment

Ingestion Ingestion

Biota (e.g., invertebrates)

Groundwater Groundwater Discharge/ Discharge/ Tidal Pumping Tidal Pumping

Direct Contact Direct Contact Bioturbation Resuspension/Transport Deposition Advection Diffusion

Shoreline Shoreline Erosion/Runoff Erosion/Runoff

Ingestion Ingestion

Historical Filling in Historical Filling in Historical Filling in Adjacent Tributary Yosemite Creek Area Yosemite Creek Area

Surface Water Surface Water

Major pathway Minor pathway Active Source

Upper Trophic Level Receptors (e.g., sport fish, piscivorous birds, invertebrate-eating birds, seals) Humans

23 of 50

Data Mining is Essential to Assist in PRP Decision-Making

Complex technical projects generate large amounts of data and information that need to be explained to stakeholders. These concepts must be communicated in a succinct and clear manner. GIS and visuals allows data to become clear, concise and understandable. When people understand, they make better, faster decisions.

Before

24 of 50

After

Newark Bay Site General Transport Picture

Passaic River (650,000 gpm flow) Hackensack River (87,000 gpm flow) Project Metrics ~4,000 acres 6.25 square miles 6 miles long, 1 mile wide Fed by numerous sources Historically impacted since 1850s Tierra issued data findings in 2004 ­ PAH ­ Dioxins ­ PCBs ­ Metals 70+ PRPs performing RIFS at LPRSA Tierra performing RI at NBSA EPA issued general notice letters to 12 parties. Kill Van Kill (tidal) South Elizabeth Channel beth za E li

t en Sta d

NEWARK 30 CSOs

Port of Newark Channel

rk wa Ne

17 Miles of LPRSA are Impacted

New York Harbor (tidal) Elizabeth Channel

ELIZABETH 39 CSOs

yo Ba

nn

e

NBSA Phase I data collection completed. Phase II data collection started October 2007. Draft NRD assessment available from NOAA and USFWS

I sl

an

Elizabeth River

Numerous surface runoff sources from urban and industrial areas

Complex interaction within bay system Tidal, Intertidal, Estuarine, Channel, Subtotal Flats and Transitional Slopes characterize Fish and shellfish consumption advisories posted for Newark Bay area 3000 feet Arthur Kill (tidal)

3000 foot grid square = 207 acres 6" depth = for each grid = 166,666 cy 4000 acres 6" depth = 3.3MMcy

25 of 50

CSO ­ Combined Sewer Overflow LPRSA ­ Lower Passaic River Study Area Figure 2-1: Tierra RIWP, Oct. 2007, Rev. 2

Components of 3D Analytical Profile Maps

· Maps are shown in 3D perspective with an angled view from above. · Borehole samples show as beads down the length of the hole. · Color corresponds to concentration.

North Top

East Borehole Sample Locations 3D Reference Lines

If 3 axes are shown, the view is in 3D.

South West Bottom

Borehole sample locations have a 75X vertical exaggeration

26 of 50

Newark Bay ­ Plot of 2,3,7,8 TCDD in Sediment

N

High TCDD near Diamond Alkali

IC SA S PA ER IV R

HACKENSACK RIVER

1 MILE

KEARNY PT

· 23,7,8 TCDD · Elevated TCDD in sediment noted in lower Passaic River · TCDD trails to upper NB on west side. · Hackensack River not NEWARK BAY BRIDGE apparently affected. · Data range: 1-1990 to 122007.

PORT NEWARK CHANNEL

Y RK BA NEW A

PORT ELIZABETH CHANNEL

BAYONNE KILL VAN KULL

27 of 50

Newark Bay - 2,3,7,8 TCDD in Sediment Focus on Diamond Alkali Site

N

Diamond Alkali

KEARNY PT

AIC SS PA

R VE RI

Top of Sediment

-0-5 -10

Sample Depth

· Detail borehole sample profile. Shallow sediments typically lower concentration than subsurface. · High concentrations noted near Diamond Alkali and in sediment profiles downstream in Passaic River.

28 of 50

-15ft

Color corresponds to concentration

Preliminary Data Assessment Work

Newark Bay ­ Visualization of TCDD, Mercury and Lead Impacts

Legend

TCDD (ppm)

0-100 100-300 300-500 >500

Qualifier: These data analysis figures have been created by Project Navigator from a very limited set of TCDD, Mercury and Lead data. The figures are intended purely to give the reader an impression of PNA's data and visualization capabilities. Potential task: Augment with Phase II data

TCDD

Note: 1 core per 100-acres

Legend

Mercury (mg/kg)

Legend

Lead (mg/kg)

0-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50

0-20 20-100 100-250 >250

Mercury

Reference : Phase 1 Remedial Investigation Work , December 2005

29 of 50

Lead

Source Location Methods ­ Terradex.com

30 of 50

Contaminated Site Locations Projected to Google Earth Image

31 of 50

Portland Harbor: Allocation Facilitation via Data Ratio of Fluoranthene/Pyrene

OSM

Time Premier Schnitzer Burgard

St Johns West

US Moorings Northwest Natural

m S rco BE ve Ma rd/ Co w fo te t Cra me illa W

RPAC / Arkeman Willbridge

a Tri

ark le P ng d yar hip S

on go La /

Gunderson / Shell Fireboat /GE

lde Go

R PR /U ale nd

Sulzer

32 of 50

Outline

Today's Big Issues in Remediation The Continued Growth of the NPL, with more Sediment Sites When to be Proactive Comparing Terrestrial Vs Sediment Sites Data: Its Mining, Collection and Interpretation for Decision-making Remedial Alternatives and Selection Dredging & Dewatering Capping Research to Aid the Field

33 of 50

Remedial Decision-Making Common challenges and decisions on sediment remediation projects center on:

Dredging and Dewatering Subaqueous Capping In-Situ Monitored Natural Attenuation Making Disposal vs. Beneficial Re-Use Decisions Balancing Remediation Costs with Risk Reduction

34 of 50

Dredging and Dewatering

Start by Evaluating the Appropriate Technologies: Dredging

Water depths, currents & tidal fluctuations Production Rates (c.y./hr; 24/7, etc.) Sediment Characteristics

Dewatering

Dredge Production Rates Water Treatment Production Rates Available Laydown Area for Dewatering Technology Available Schedule Duration (limited dredge "windows")

Water Treatment

Discharge Criteria (NPDES; Pre-treatment for POTW, etc.) Re-circulation to dredge prism area

Transport and Disposal

35 of 50

Hazardous; Non-hazardous; Beneficial Reuse

Dredging

Select Dredging Method for Site-Specific Conditions & Regulatory Acceptability

Reference: EPA/OSRTI Sediment Remedies: Dredging ­ Technical Considerations for Evaluation and Implementation - Michael R. Palermo, PhD

36 of 50

Dewatering

Select Dewatering Method Based on Site-Specific Conditions and Regulatory Conditions

Passive dewatering

Lagoon Confined disposal facility (includes final disposal)

Active dewatering

Mechanical dewatering (e.g., filter and belt presses, centrifuges ) Geotextile tubes

May need amendments to increase strength and % solids for disposal

Filter Presses Geotextile Tubes

37 of 50

Subaqueous Capping...will be further discussed by Clay and Danny

Advantages

Quickly reduces exposure Risks during capping can be less then those during dredging Easier to implement than dredging Residual risk (after capping) can be less than after dredging alone Can be utilized where debris is present Cost Effective

Disadvantages

Contaminants remain in the aquatic environment Waterway use potentially restricted (ship movement, anchorage, etc.) Potential erosion Long-term monitoring and maintenance is required Institutional controls are required

38 of 50

Reactive Capping Technology

Why choose reactive cap technology?

1. Reactive cap technology can be a cost effective alternative to dredging at some sites 2. Plays a dual role as containment and remediation 3. Re-suspension and residuals of contaminated sediment less of an issues than in dredging 4. Caps have been applied to several Superfund sites 5. Can facilitate habitat restoration by using ecofriendly surface layer 6. Shorter time to implement remedy than dredging

Research needs:

1. Fate processes from physical, chemical and biological transport within cap 2. Gas production and migration within the sediment and cap 3. Effects of water flow rate on deployment of cap 4. Temperature effects on cap efficiency 5. Cap stability and permeability effects 6. Bio-film growth associated with micro-organism activity

39 of 50

A Possible Apparatus for the Measurement of the Performance of In Situ Reactive Barriers

General Approach

1. Create a well-mixed environment over the cut-off barrier. 2. Monitor diffusion/ convection across the barrier. 3. Build descriptive mathematical models 4. Predict performance with simple mass balance equations 5. Vary the barrier type

Geotextile layer Activated carbon layer Geotextile layer Well-mixed aqueous phase on top side of barrier "Pass-through" COC Adsorbed COC COC (chemical of concern) Pipette sampler; Sample submitted for GC analysis COC Measure concentration of COC vs. Time

Mixer

Time

Sandwiched Cut-off barrier An example of an adsorptive/reactive, aqueous environment, containment barrier system. Blow up shows activated carbon layer sandwiched between geotextile membranes. (For commercial barrier types, see www.gseworld.com).

Prepared "model sediments" with "mixed in" COC Model sediment layer created by mixing chemical of concern (COC) with a defined sediment grain size to achieve a starting sediment COC concentration

40 of 50

Tailor Made Reactive Caps: Design Based on Type of Contaminants...Steps to a priori Design

Reactive Caps have been deployed at the following sites:

Anacostia Project, Washington D.C.

· Contaminated with PCBs, PAHs and Metals · Applied 4 types of caps Aquablok, Coke Breeze, Apatite and sand · Evaluate cost, ease of deployment and short term mechanical & environmental performance

McCormick and Baxter Superfund Site, Portland, Oregon

· Contamination of soils, groundwater and sediment from Creosote NAPL · 600 tons of organoclay used to control NPL groundwater seeps · 35,000 sq ft of organoclay mats used to control gas release

Stryker Bay, MN

· Applied 550,000 sq ft of activated carbon type of reactive cap

Suggested Reactive Material

Organoclay

Typical Cap Material Aquablok

Description

Formed by the modifications of sodium bentonite with cationic surfactants, organoclay material absorbs low soluble organics and their associated metals. Commonly used wastewater treatment materials which absorbs organics. A phosphate-based mineral that complexs heavy metals. Hydrated aluminosilicates of alkaline and alkaline-earth metals family that absorbs ammonium and heavy metals Metal particles that reduce chlorinated compounds and certain metals

Treatable Contaminants

PAHs PCBs Organo-Hg PAHs PCBs Heavy Metals Ammonium Heavy Metals Chlorinated Compounds Cr+6

Granular Activated Carbon

Apatite Zeolite

Zero Valent Iron

Reactive Core Mat

41 of 50

General Scope of a Pilot Study for Consideration by PERF

· Collect samples of contaminated sediments from "relevant" sites · Design laboratory tests to quantify the relative effectiveness of reactive capping technologies · Develop mathematical models (software?) to predict and optimize reactive caps · Conduct a field pilot study at an appropriate site

42 of 50

Conclusions

Sediment Sites are complex, expensive and generate enormous allocation challenges Sediment transport can cause the nature of the site to change with time Vast amounts of data are generated which require multi-discipline interpretation Remedial technologies are still evolving Reactive capping techniques have high cost effectiveness, and improved a priori design methods should be further developed

43 of 50

Thank You / Questions

Contact

Ian A. Webster, Sc.D. 714.388.1800 Project Navigator, Ltd. One Pointe Drive, Suite 320 Brea, CA 92821 T 714.388.1800 F 714.388.1839

Other Resources

Visual Navigator www.visual-navigator.com Projectoolbox www.projectoolbox.com

www.ProjectNavigator.com

www.SafetyMoment.org

www.PRPblog.com

Information

Slide 1

44 pages

Report File (DMCA)

Our content is added by our users. We aim to remove reported files within 1 working day. Please use this link to notify us:

Report this file as copyright or inappropriate

1233364