A Case Study of PCB Contamination in Two Great Lakes Harbors

1. A Case Study of PCB Contamination in Two Great Lakes Harbors Dave Wethington, PE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Chicago District U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes National Program Office October 22, 2007

2. Presentation Outline Background Indiana Harbor Ashtabula River Project details Contaminated sediments Mechanism for cleanup Working toward a solution Methodology Challenges Ashtabula RiverAshtabula, OH Indiana HarborEast Chicago, IN How Does the Science Apply?

3. Commercial Navigation Harbor Steel mills & metals processing Chemical production Regionally significant petroleum refining 1978 designated a Great Lakes AOC (14 BUIs) Hasn’t been dredged since 1972 History as an industrial harbor and river Foundries & iron works Ship dismantling Tanneries Currently primarily recreational 1985 designated a Great Lakes AOC (6 BUIs) Hadn’t been adequately dredged since 1962** A Tale of Two Sites… Indiana Harbor & Canal Ashtabula River

4. Lake Michigan Main Canal Lake George Branch Grand Calumet Branch Grand Calumet River Indiana Harbor and Canal • Man-made channel constructed in the early 1900’s • New connection between Grand Calumet River and Lake Michigan • Accumulated sediment volumes • 1.4 M yd3 “backlog” • 3.4 M yd3 future maintenance • Cannot be maintained due to a variety of chemical contaminants • PAHs • Metals • Oil & Grease • PCBs • Avg conc: 15 mg/kg • Max conc: 115 mg/kg • 45,000 yd3 TSCA material

5. Indiana HarborPresent Day

6. Ashtabula River Lake Erie • Natural river excavated for industrial use • Heavy industry has moved on, leaving a burgeoning recreational boating market • Had filled in over time yielding depths of less than 2 ft in some areas • Fields Brook cleaned up in 2003 • Accumulated sediment volumes • Overall 650,000 yd3 • Cannot be maintained due primarily to PCBs • Avg conc: 15 mg/kg • Max conc: 660 mg/kg • 150,000 yd3 TSCA material Ashtabula Harbor Ashtabula River Fields Brook

7. Ashtabula RiverPresent Day

8. Similar Problems… • …two very different solutions • Indiana Harbor & Canal • Authorized navigation project • 100% federally funded since May 2005 • $144 M price tag ($13 M non-fed contribution) • 4.8 M yd3 over a 30-yr project life • Dredging slated to begin late 2009 • Ashtabula River • Environmental dredging project under GLLA • 50% federal/non-federal cost share • $61.4 M price tag • 500 K yd3 over a 1-yr project life • Dredging complete October 2007 • Additional 150 K yd3 will be dredged by the USACE Buffalo District in spring 2008 to complete overall project

9. Indiana Harbor Federal Navigation Project CDF • Mechanical dredging • Barge/hydraulic delivery • Dedicated Confined Disposal Facility • Open placement • Seasonal water treatment and return • Site closure/ monitoring

10. CDF ConstructionCirca 2006

11. Former/Current Industrial Area • Hydraulic dredging • Transport pipeline • Dedicated, TSCA-permitted facility • Geotube confinement • Continuous water treatment and return • Site closure/monitoring Ashtabula River

12. Consolidation Facility

13. Geotubes in Action

14. Most significant difference? • Community perception • Ashtabula • Self-formed local partnership • Advocate for project, • Flexible • Willing to sacrifice • Indiana Harbor • Organized group opposition, uncooperative local partners • NIMBY • Concern for community health/safety • Emissions • TSCA designation of CDF, a.k.a. “chemical landfill” • Safety of CDF operations

15. How do we alter perception? • Education and outreach – interrelation of science and policy • State/federal programs should strive to include comprehensive educational components • For Indiana Harbor… • NIMBY does not apply • TSCA designation • PCBs not the driver for human health risk • Emissions • CDF can be controlled via engineered solutions • Benefit to economy • Currently $14 million annual benefit – and future economic gains • Benefit to ecosystem/environment • Removal of sediments from open water system, water supply

16. Questions?