Effectiveness of Remediation in the Cochato River, Baird & McGuire Superfund Site

Cornell Rosiu U.S.EPA - New England (Region 1)Office of Site Remediation and Restoration

Deirdre Dahlen Battelle Duxbury Operations

May 31, 2001U.S.EPA Forum on Managing ContaminatedSediments at Hazardous Waste Sites

Acknowledgements

Melissa Taylor U.S.EPA-NE, Remedial Project Manager

Andrew Beliveau U.S.EPA-NE, QA Officer

Lisa Lefkovitz Battelle Duxbury Operations

Presentation Overview

• Site History and Background • Long-Term Monitoring Program

œ Objectives œ Stations Monitored œ Parameters Monitored

• Results of Monitoring œ Fish œ Sediment and River Bank Soil

• Summary and Conclusions

Baird & McGuire Site History

EPA Record of Decision (ROD) ground

River sediment excavation Chemical manufacturing and handling facility

EPA initial Remedial Investigations

water treatment and soil incineration

EPA ROD, sediment excavation and treatment

EPA ROD replace municipal drinking water supply wells

Long-term monitor river sediment, bank soil, and fish

Sylvan Lake Fish Toxics Survey

MILESTONES 1912-1983 1986

1985-1987 1990 1994-19951992 1996-present1989

Long-Term Monitoring Program Asksthe Following Questions

• Are Concentrations of COCs in Fish Fillets Below Project Action Limits (PALs)?

• Are Concentrations in Sediment and River Bank Soil Below PALs?

• Are Time Trends Apparent, and if so, in Which Mediumand Where?

• Are Concentrations Overall Increasing or Decreasing?

Monitoring Stations in the Cochato RiverListed Up to Downstream:

Station A - Control location upstream and outside the influence of the Site

Station E - Adjacent to the Site (area of excavation)

Station B - Between Union and Center Streets

Station C - Ice Pond reach of the River

Station D - Mary Lee Wetlands reach

Cochato River On Site and Downstream 4-Years Post-Remediation

Station E, adjacent to the Site area of excavation in the River (Battelle, 1999)

Station B, 400-meters downstream of the Site and excavation (Battelle, 1999)

Long-Term Monitoring ProgramMeasurement Parameters 1988-2000

Parameter 1992 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Sediment/Soil Chemistry

Arsenic X – X X X X X

Chlorinated Pesticides and PAHs X – X X X X X

Tissue Chemistry

Arsenic – X – – – – –

Chlorinated Pesticides and* PAHs – X X – – X* X*

PCB – X – – – – –

Dioxin/Furans – X – – – – –

Ancillary Measurements

Grain Size (sediment/soil) X – – X X X X

TOC (sediment/soil) X – X X X X X

% Lipid (tissue) and Fish Aging – X – – – X X

1988

Species, Ages and Sample Size of FishFillets in 1999 for Tissue Chemistry

BB œ brown bullhead; BG œ bluegill; CP œ chain pickeral; PS œ pumpkinseed; RP œ redfin pickeral NA œ Not applicable/available because age analysis not performed on brown bullhead. a Fish aged using fish scale analysis for individual fish used in composite fillets. b Age analysis on a total of 43 fish that produced 17 composite fillets for tissue chemistry.

Parameter Units

Station and Species

Program Year

A B C D Sylvan Lake (SL)

PS RP BG BG RP BB BB CP

Approximate Age a Year 3 - 4 3 - 6 2 - 4 2 - 5 2 œ 4 NA NA 8 1999

Sample Size b N 8 4 14 8 8 1 1 1 1999

Total Chlordane in Fish Fillet, 1992-1999

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

1992 1996 1999

Year & Species

To

tal

Ch

lord

ane

(n

g/g

we

t)

SL

AE BB LM B

Proje ct Action Lim it = 320 ng/g (bas e d on 10-5 excess cancer risk)

A C

D

A

B

C

D

SL

SL

Spe cies: GS GS GS PS PS PS PS PS RP RP BG BG BB CP

A A D B C SL SL

Composite sample concentrations

Total DDT in Fish Fillet, 1992-1999

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

1992 1996 1999

Y ear & S pecies

TotalDD T (ng/g w

et)

S L

A E B B L M B

P ro je ct A ctio n L im it = 300 n g /g

(b as e d o n 10-5 e xce s s can ce r ris k )

A

C

D

A

B C

D

S L

S L

S p e cie s : G S G S G S P S P S P S P S P S R P R P B G B G B B C P

A A D B C S L S L

Composite sample concentrations

PAH in Fish Fillet, 1999

Composite sample concentrations

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

P A H (ng/g w et)

T o talP A H **

B en zo (a)p yren e

A**

A

S L**

DCB S L

B G R PP SC PB B

S L** P rogram A ction Lim it= 10 ng/g

(based on 10-5 excess cancer risk ofbenzo(a)pyrene**)

B G B BS pecies: R P

1999 & S pecies

Overall Trends in Fish Contamination 1992-1999 or 1996-1999a

a Decreases in 1996-1999 fish from Stations A-D, and 1992-1999 fish from Sylvan Lake

Station Station Description Total DDT Total

Chlordane Total PAH

Station A Control ↓ ↓ No Trend

Station E Adjacent to the Site No Sample No Sample No Sample

Station B Between Union and Center Streets ↓ ↓ No Trend

SL Sylvan Lake ↓ ↓ No Trend

Station C Ice Pond ↓ ↓ No Trend

Station D Mary Lee Wetlands ↓ ↓ No Trend

Mean Total Chlordane in Sediment and River Bank Soil, 1988-2000

Project Action Limit = 5,000 ng/g

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

1988 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

To

tal C

hlo

rdan

e (

ng

/g d

ry)

Station A Station B Station C (River) Station C (Bank)Station D (River) Station D (Bank)Station E

De crease at Station C (River) Mann-Kendall S=-13, n=6, P<.0083 (99% Confidence Le vel)

Decrease at Station D (Bank) Mann-Kendall S=-6, n=4, P<.042 (96% Confidence Le vel)

Decrease at Station C (Bank) Mann-Kendall S=-4, n=5, P<.242 (76% Confidence Level)

***

*** **

**

*

*

Mean Total DDT in Sediment and River Bank Soil, 1988-2000

Project Action Limit = 114,000 ng/g

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

1988 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

To

tal D

DT

(n

g/g

dry

)

Station A Station B Station C (River) Station C (Bank)Station D (River) Station D (Bank)Station E

De crease at Station C (River) Mann-Kendall S=-9, n=6, P<.068 (93% Confidence Le vel)

Decrease at Station B Mann-Kendall S=-7, n=6, P<.136 (86% Confidence Level)

*

*

**

**

Mean Arsenic in Sediment and RiverBank Soil, 1988-2000

0

50

100

150

200

1988 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Year

Ars

en

ic (

ug

/g d

ry)

Station A Station BStation C (River) Station C (Bank)Station D (River) Station D (Bank)Station E

Project Action Limit = 250 ug/g

Decrease at Station C (River)Mann-Kendall S=-6, n=5, P<.117(88% Confidence Level)

Decrease at Station D (Bank)Mann-Kendall S=-4, n=4, P<.167(83% Confidence Level)

* *

***

*

Mean Total PAH in Sediment and River Bank Soil, 1988-2000

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

1988 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

To

tal P

AH

** (

ng

/g d

ry)

Station A Station B Station C (River) Station C (Bank)Station D (River) Station D (Bank)Station E

Project Action Lim it = 22,000 ng/g (Bank Soil PAL = 33,000 ng/g)

Incre ase at Station C (Bank) M ann-Kendall S=8, n=5, P<.042 (96% Confidence Level)

Increase at Station A (Control) Mann-Kendall S=7, n=6, P<.136 (86% Confidence Le vel)

Decre ase at Station C (River) Mann-Kendall S=-4, n=6, P<.298 (70% Confidence Level)

**

**

*

***

***

*

Overall Trends in Sediment and River Bank Soil Contamination 1988-2000

Apparent trends in 1988-2000 sediment concentrations were estimated using Mann-Kendall test (Gilbert, 1987)

Station Station Description Arsenic Total DDT

Total Chlordane

Total PAH

Station A Control No Trend No Trend No Trend ↑

Station E Adjacent to the Site No Trend No Trend No Trend No Trend

Station B Between Union and Center Streets No Trend ↓ No Trend No Trend

Station C Ice Pond, River ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

Station C Ice Pond, Bank No Trend No Trend ↓ ↑

Station D Mary Lee Wetlands, River No Trend No Trend No Trend No Trend

Station D Mary Lee Wetlands, Bank ↓ No Trend ↓ No Trend

Summary - Sediment and River Bank SoilMonitoring

• Concentrations Were Below Media-Specific PALs • Single Year Peak in Concentrations 1-3 Years After

Remediation, but Overall Downward Trends from 1988 to 2000, Except for Total PAH

• Upward Trend in Total PAH in Sediment at Station A(Upstream) and in River Bank Soil at Station C

• River Bank Soils Are Likely Depositional for FineGrain Particle-Bound Contaminants

Summary – Fish Monitoring

• In 1999, Concentrations in Fish Were Below Chemical-Specific Project Action Limits (PALs)

• B(a)P and Total DDT in Large Bullhead from SylvanLake Approached PALs, and Fish Upstream of theSite had Higher Total PAH Compared to Others

• A Year After Remediation (in 1996), Concentrations inFish had Increased

• Within 4-Years Post-Remediation, Concentrations in Fish had Decreased Significantly to Below PALs

Conclusions

Remediation of Contaminated Sediment Was Effective in Significantly Reducing Concentrationsin Fish and Risks Within 4-Years Site Remediation Fostered Downward Trends in Contamination of Sediment and River Bank Soil Within 4-Years, with Exception of Total PAH