Cover Image

PAPERBACK
$125.25



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 313


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright Β© 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 312
313 · the 50-acre Fairhaven Marsh on the eastern shore of the Acushnet River; o three bridge crossings that form constrictions and define boun- daries for the feasibility study (FS) areas; a very active commercial fishery in both Fairhaven and New Bedford (commercial fish landings in 1987 were the largest of any U.S. port); and the New Bedford hurricane barrier dike, 4,600-ft long with a top elevation of 22 ft and navigation opening 150-ft wide, that forms the lower limit of the harbor. Description of the Problem Selecting and implementing a cost-effective remedial action for New Bedford Harbor requires that the nature and extent of contamination by PCBs and metals be determined and that environmental effects, including impacts on public health, be evaluated. Conducting a remedial inves- tigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) to select the remedial action cur- rently involves five federal agencies or departments and six private consultants or institutions. The following subsections contain discus- sions of the environmental problem. The Environmental Problem Since the initial survey of the New Bedford area in 1974, a much better understanding of the extent of PCB contamination has been gained. The entire area north of the hurricane barrier, an area of 985 acres, is underlain by sediments containing elevated levels of PCBs and heavy metals. PCB concentrations range from a few parts per million (ppm) to over 100,000 ppm. Portions of western Buzzards Bay sediments along the New Bedford shoreline south of the hurricane barrier are also contaminated, with concentrations occasionally exceeding 50 ppm. The water column in New Bedford Harbor has been measured to contain PCBs in the parts per billion (ppb) range well in excess of the U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency's (EPA) 30 parts per trillion (ppt) guideline for protection of saltwater aquatic life from chronic toxic effects. Much of the PCB sampling performed before 1980 was analyzed for Aroclor 1254. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution scientists have presented evidence suggesting that, as a result, PCB contamination is often under- stated by factors of three to five. Sampling and analyses performed since 1980 have included PCB isomers. Sediment copper concentrations were reported in 1977 to range from more than 6,000 ppm near the head of the harbor, to less than 100 ppm at the edge of Buzzards Bay. Other metals are also present at lower concentrations. The direct discharge of PCB-contaminated wastewater from Cornell-Dubilier and Aerovox plants has been significantly reduced, as a result of EPA's amendments to their wastewater discharge permits. However, uncontrolled releases from the tidal mudflats beneath Aerovox's discharge have continued una- bated. Studies have shown that 200 to 700 lbs of PCBs were previously

OCR for page 312
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 312
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 312
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 312
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 312
~~ #-- ~'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 312
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 312
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 312
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 312
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 312
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 312
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 312
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 312
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 312
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 312
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 312
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 312
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 312
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 312
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 312
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.