Theoretical Chemodynamic Models for Predicting Volatile Emissions to Air from Dredged Material Disposal
Some bottom sediment in both fresh and marine waters are contaminated with hazardous organic chemicals that are classified as volatile and semi-volatile. An example is the New Bedford Harbor and Acushnet River Estuary sediment which contains quantities of the polychlorinated biphenyls Aroclor 1242, 1248 and 1254. Dredged material contaminated with these and other volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) can be released to the atmosphere during and after disposal by volatilization. There is a need for methods to predict these volatilization losses in order to develop design, operating and management guidelines for controlling V0C emissions.
Volatilization rates for hydrophobic organic compounds from a confined disposal facility (CDF) containing contaminated dredged material are presently unknown. The primary purpose of this manuscript was to assess the availability of theoretical models for the evaluation of volatile emissions to air during the process of dredge material disposal in a CDF. The first objective was to identify the primary vapor phase transport mechanism for various CDF designs and stages of filling. This provides the theoretical basis for assessing relative volatilization rates. The second objective was to review available laboratory and field procedures for obtaining information needed to measure volatile losses.
Four V0C generating locales were identified. Emission locales are defined as specific locations within a CDF which exhibit common behavioral or operational characteristics that result in the release/generation of VOCs to air. The four are: the sediment relocation locale, the exposed sediment locale, the ponded sediment locale and the vegetation covered sediment locale. The word sediment is used above in place of the phrase dredged material.
Following a section which considers the thermodynamic basis of chemical vapor equilibrium and contaminated sediment, rate equations are presented and reviewed. These equations represent the quantitative results of models of emission mechanisms for each of the four locales. Computations using the equations will yield the chemical flux in mass per unit time. The rate equations are based on transport phenomena fundamentals and have the further advantage of inputs that require concentrations and surface areas of the contaminated sources. The models are sophisticated in the sense that they contain all the complexities of the physiochemical phenomena but some license is taken in assigning the thermal state, concentration gradients, source terms, geometric dimensions, etc. with simple mathematical approximations. This yields equations that are time and space averaged and the predictions of emission rates are therefore limited to time averages from area sources and not point values for specific time. Models for some locales are very crude and additional research is needed to develop more realistic predictive equations.
Emission rates, in the mass of specific or total VOCs per unit time, are primarily dependent on the chemical concentration at the source, the surface area of the source and the degree to which the dredged material is in direct contact with the air. The relative magnitude of these three parameters provides a basis upon which a tentative ranking of emission rates from the various locales can be given. On this basis the exposed sediment locale ranks first. The ponded sediment locale with a high suspended solids concentration in surface waters ranks second. Low in the rankings are bed sediment below a relatively quite water column such as exist in some ponded sediment locales and the vegetation covered sediment locale.
This report contains preliminary calculations of the emission rates of Aroclor 1242 and 1254 from a hypothetical CDF operation in the Upper Acushnet River Estuary of the New Bedford Harbor. The calculations appear in Appendix B and represent sites in two locales of the CDF.
KeywordsClay Sedimentation Chlorinate Diesel Drilling
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Bird, R. B., W. E. Stewart and E. N. Lightfoot 1960. Transport Phenomena, John Wiley & Sons, N. Y.Google Scholar
- 2.Chiou, C. T. and T. D. Shoup 1985. Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol 19, 1196.Google Scholar
- 3.Delos, C. G., J. V. DePinto, W. L. Richardson, P. W. Rodgers and K. Rygwelski 1984. Appendix B: Estimation and Use of Parameters in Modeling Toxics. Section 3.0 of EPA Tech. Guidance Manual, Book II, Streams and Rivers, Ch. 3 Toxic Substances. U.S. EPA, Washington.Google Scholar
- 5.DiToro, D. M. and D. J. O’Connor 1981. “Estimate of Maximum Probable PCB Flux to the Atmosphere from the Hudson River Sediment Disposal Basin”, App. J in Unpublished report, Hydro Qual Inc. Mahwah, N. J.Google Scholar
- 8.Eklund, B. M., Nelson, T. P., and Wetherold, R. G. 1987. “Field Assessment of Air Emissions and Their Control at a Refinery Land Treatment Facility”, EPA/600/2–87/086a, Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.Google Scholar
- 9.Farmer, W. J., M. Yang, J. Letey and W. G. Spencer 1980. “Land Disposal of Hexachlorobenzene Waste: Controlling Vapor Movement in Soil”, EPA, Office of Research and Development Final Report, No. EPA-600/J2–80–11.Google Scholar
- 10.Hill, D. O., Myers, T. E. and Brannon, J. M. 1986. “Development and Application of Techniques for Predicting Leachate Quality in Confined Disposal Facilities; Part I: Background and Theory”, Miscellaneous Paper D-88–1, U.S. Army Engineering Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.Google Scholar
- 11.Huang, J. C., B. A. Dempsey, S. V. Chang and H. Ganjidoost 1987. “Effects of Solid Concentration on the Partition Coefficient of Volatile Organic Compounds with Soils”, Manuscript presented at AIChE Spg. Nat. Mtg., Houston, TX.Google Scholar
- 12.Hwang, S. T. 1987. “Multimedia Approach to Risk Assessment for Contaminated Sediment in a Marine Environment”. Proceedings Superfund Conference, November, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- 14.Karimi, A. A. 1983. “Studies of the Emission and Control of Volatile Organics in Hazardous Waste Landfills”. Dissertation, Univ. So. Calif, Univ. Parks., L. A., CA.Google Scholar
- 15.Kolnsberg, H. J., 1986. “Technical Manual for Measurement of Fugitive Emissions: Upwind/Downwind Sampling Methods for Industrial Emissions”, U.S. EPA, Ind. Env. Res. Lab., EPA-600/2–76–089a, 75p.Google Scholar
- 18.Lyman, W. J., W. F. Reehl and D. H. Rosenblatt, 1982. Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation Methods: Chemical Behavior of Organic Compounds, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
- 19.Montgomery, R. L. 1978. “Methodology for Design of Fine-Grained Dredged Material Containment Areas for Solids Retention”, Technical Report D-78–56, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.Google Scholar
- 20.Palermo, M. R. and J. Miller 1987. “Disposal Alternatives for PCB-Contaminated Sediments from Indiana Harbor, Indiana”, Vol. 1. Environmental Laboratory Final Report, Dept. of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.Google Scholar
- 21.Palermo, M. R., Montgomery, R. L., and Poindexter, M. E. 1978. “Guidelines for Designing, Operating, and Managing Dredged Material Containment Areas”,Technical Report D-78–10, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.Google Scholar
- 22.Pavlou, S. P. and R. D. Kadeg 1987. “Preliminary Field Verification of the Equilibrium Partition Approach to Sediment Criteria Development”. Paper No. 289, 8th An. Mtg. Soc. Env. Tox. Chem., Nov. 1987, Pensacola, FL.Google Scholar
- 24.Reible, D. D. 1987. Personal communication, Department of Chemical Engineering, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.Google Scholar
- 25.Spencer, W. F., W. F. Farmer and W. A. Jury 1982. “Review: Behavior of Organic Chemicals at Soil, Air, Water Interfaces as Related to Predicting the Transport and Volatilization of Organic Pollutants”, Environ. Toxicol, and Chem.Vol. I, pp. 17–26.Google Scholar
- 27.Tetra Tech 1978. “Rate Constants and Kinetic Formulations in Surface Water Quality Modeling”. Prepared for the U.S. EPA.Google Scholar
- 28.Tofflemire, T. J., T. T. Shen, and E. H. Buckley 1981. “Volatilization of PCB from Sediment and Water: Experimental and Field Data”, Technical Paper No. 63, PCB Workshop Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
- 29.Thibodeaux, L. J. 1979. Chemodynamics: Environmental Movement of Chemicals in Air, Water, and Soil, John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
- 31.Thibodeaux, L. J., L. K. Chang and D. J. Lewis 1980. “Dissolution Rates of Organic Contaminants Located at the Sediment Interface of Rivers, Streams and Tidal Zones”, in Contaminants and Sediments Vol. 1, R. A. Baker, Editor. Ann Arbor Sci., p. 349.Google Scholar
- 32.Thibodeaux, L. J. and H. D. Scott 1985. “Air/Soil Exchange Coefficients” in Environmental Exposure from Chemicals, Vol. 1, W. Brock Neely and G. E. Blau Editors, CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 65–89.Google Scholar
- 34.Thibodeaux, L. J., D. D. Reible and C. S. Fang 1986. “Transport of Chemical Contaminants in the Marine Environment Originating from Offshore Drilling Bottom Sediment” in Pollutants in a Multimedia Environment, Y. Cohen, Editor. Plenum Press, N.Y. pp. 49–64.Google Scholar
- 36.Thomas, R. F., R. C. Mt. Pleasant and S. P. Maslansky 1979. “Removal and Disposal of PCB- Contaminated River Bed Materials”, Paper presented at the 1979 National Conference on Hazardous Material Risk Assessment, Disposal and Management, 25–27 April 1979, Miami Beach, Florida.Google Scholar
- 37.Valsaraj, K. T. and L. J. Thibodeaux 1988. “Role of Physical Adsorption in Determining the Vapor Pressure of Volatile Organic Chemicals Above Landfills and Landfarms”, Paper No. 105, 8th An. Mtg. Soc. Env. Toxicol, and Chem., Nov., Pensacola, FL.Google Scholar
- 38.Weaver, G. 1982. “PCB Pollution in the New Bedford Massachusetts Area: A Status Report”, Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management, Boston, Mass.Google Scholar
- 39.Welty, J. R., C. E. Wicks and R. E. Wilson 1984. Fundamentals of Momentum, Heat and Mass Transfer, John Wiley and Sons, New York, p. 266.Google Scholar