ECi_Proposal_MSU_Spartans

Happy Cruise Line
Sediment Management Proposal and Air Pollution Impact Study
in Long Beach, CA
6/9/2014
Michigan State University College of Engineering
Daniel Domino (Design Engineer), Eunsang Lee (Lead Researcher), Steven C. McConnell
(Environmental Policy Expert), Priyank Patel (Modeling Engineer)
Photo credit: Aerial above Queen Mary and Carnival cruise ships Paradise vessel Long Beach harbor,
California, Arial Archives.com

Introduction and problem statement
Happy Cruise Line has proposed the dredging of contaminated sediment in order to build
a new docking facility in Long Beach, California. This sediment is contaminated with DDT and
PCB at concentrations of 80 ng/g and 50 ng/g, respectively, with hotspots that have
concentrations 10 times this amount. In order to obtain permission from the City of Long Beach
to construct the docking facility, Happy Cruise Line must propose a feasible sediment
management strategy that properly manages the dredged sediment while minimizing air, water,
and noise pollution, and traffic congestion during both the dredging and cruise line operations.
Sediment Management Plan
The Port of Long Beach (POLB) and the Contaminated Sediment Task Force (CSTF,
2005) (Figure 1) consider the use of contaminated sediment as port fill in a near shore confined
disposal facility (CDF) as the best sediment management strategy (Table 1). As such, the MSU
Team recommends the dredging and containment of the contaminated sediments in a CDF
(Figure 2), thereby incorporating this material for beneficial use the planned cruise ship pier. The
first step in the CDF construction process will be testing and geotechnical characterization of the
sediment and determination of the CDF area. The actual construction of the CDF will begin with
the placement of dikes that will encompass the proposed CDF. Water will be pumped from
within the CDF into the ocean. The saturated contaminated sediment will then be dredged and
placed in the CDF. Next, after allowing the contaminated sediment to settle, the supernatent
above the contaminated sediment will be removed from the CDF into the ocean. Based on our
estimates of the concentrations of DDT and PCB in the sediment pore water (Appendix D), we
anticipate that this marine water will not exceed criteria set under the California Toxics Rule
(CTR) during this process (Table 2) (Chiou). In addition, best management practices will be
employed to reduce the re-suspension of sediment associated with dredging (Table 3). If
pollutant concentrations exceed the CTR, additional treatment of the water will be required
before discharge to the ocean. Finally, clean sediment and then pavement will placed on top of
the contaminated sediment to further confine the contaminated sediment.
Further analysis demonstrates that the average sediment contaminant concentrations for
PCB and DDT at the site are both less than the probable effect concentration set under the
Sediment Quality Guidelines (Wisconsin DNR) (Table 4). However, due to hotspots, removal of

the contaminated sediments is strongly advised and we recommend containment as the most
suitable, technically feasible, and economical option. Containment within a CDF has been
estimated to cost $10/m3
, which is far less than other technologies (Table 1). In addition, the use
of the contaminated material in the construction of the pier further reduces construction costs
attributed to the purchase and transport of clean material from outside of the site. Finally, the use
of a CDF as a sediment management strategy results in significantly lower air emissions when
compared to other possible methods such as thermal destruction or transportation to a landfill.
The MSU Team will obtain the requisite permits before the dredging and the construction
of the CDF begins. We anticipate that up to 36 months may be required to obtain these permits.
Under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), an issued permit is necessary for the
discharge of any pollutant during the dredging and CDF construction process. In order to obtain
this permit, we plan to monitor the concentration of the pollutants in the sediment and water
prior discharge to ensure that our operations comply with Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307
of the CWA and a water quality certification (FWPCA 2002) can be awarded. The outlined
project and sampling results must meet the standards, set under Section 401 of the CWA, in
order to receive a water quality certification (CRWQCB 2012).
Processes that will release air pollution include dredging and construction of the near-
shore CDF. The pollutants that will be released are reactive organic gases (ROGs), CO, NOx,
SO2, PM2.5 and PM10. Both the dredging and building of the CDF will be sources for these
pollutants. Table 5 in the Appendix shows the mass of each pollutant released per day by the
dredging equipment. Air quality is regulated by California Ambient Air Quality Standards
(CAAQS) (Table 6) (LSA, 2013). Long Beach is currently non-attainment for ozone, lead, and
PM 2.5. A simple box model was used to estimate the concentration of the pollutants added to
the ambient air of Long Beach. Emission factors are taken from AP-42 Sec 3.3 (EPA, 1996). The
calculations show that the CAAQS will not be exceeded during this dredging process. Total
concentrations of each pollutant can be seen in Figure 3 and Table 7.
During the dredging process, the MSU team proposes that mitigation strategies be used to
reduce air pollution. We recommend the use of Clean Diesel Combustion, a technology that
achieves higher engine efficiency and reduces emissions, thereby allowing the dredge engines to
meet requisite Tier 3 emission standards. To further reduce emissions, and ensure worker safety,
we recommend that a diesel particulate filter (DPF) be installed on the dredge and tugboat. These

DPFs remove the soot and PM from emissions with a conversion efficiency that meets the
California Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary CI Engines (DCL International, 2008).
PCBs and DDT, both persistent organic pollutants, are regulated globally by The
Stockholm Convention (2001). Quality of Life (QOL) standards are set for PCB in air (EPA,
2004) (Table 8). Our proposed technology also addresses pertinent occupational exposure limits
(OELs) as set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), as well as
California’s OSHA program (Cal/OSHA) (OSHA, 2014) (Table 9). We predict that PCB and
DDT concentrations in the air will meet these standards during the dredging and construction
process. Monitoring can ensure these standards are met. Monitoring for PCBs and DDT involves
trapping these organic pollutants in polyurethane foam, and bringing these samples to a
laboratory for testing (EPA, 1999). Table 10 shows the detection limit of these pollutants and the
advantages and disadvantages of this sampling method (Figures 4 and 5).
Long-Term Management Plan
Potential sources that account for long term air pollution are additional traffic and cruise
ships. We estimated that the addition of the cruise line will add 1250 vehicles. A single cruise
ship produces exhaust equivalent to ~12,000 automobiles per day (Oceana, 2005). We suggest
that Happy Cruise Lines should collaborate with local bus companies who provide regular
service from Los Angeles to Long Beach to reduce traffic and air emissions.
In order to reduce the emission impact from ships, we recommend establishing an
Emission Control Area, which would require cleaner bunker fuel, reduced speed limits as cruise
ships approach ports, and cold ironing (turning off all engines while in port and plugging into
shore-side power).
The ground level concentration of the pollutants from additional cars was determined using a line
source model. Emission factors were taken from EPA (2008). According to line source model, the
maximum concentration of each pollutant was estimated near Highway 710, which is the main
route from the Los Angeles to the Long Beach port. Figures 6-10 show the concentration profile of
pollutants perpendicular to this route. Comparing the calculated maximum concentration of each
pollutant at 100 m from Highway 710 (Table 11), we concluded that adding approximately 1,250
cars is not likely to have a significant impact on the existing air quality in Long Beach.
Considering the aforementioned strategies, we believe the construction of a cruise port will be
feasible and sustainable, if a beneficial CDF management plan is implemented.

Special acknowledgments to:
Dr. Susan Masten
Scott McQuiston
Sue Pemberton
Environmental Engineering Student Society
Michigan State University, College of Engineering
WM-AWMA
EM-AWMA
CENTRAL AWMA

Appendix A: Acronyms and abbreviations
CAAQS-California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CWA-Clean Water Act
CDF-Confined disposal facility
CO-Carbon Monoxide
CSTF-Contaminated Sediment Task Force
DDT-Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
DPF-Diesel particulate filter
ECA-Emission Control Area
NOx-Nitrogen Dioxides
OELs-Occupational exposure limits
OSHA-Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PM-Particulate matter
PCB-polychlorinated biphenyl
POLB-Port of Long Beach
QOL-Quality of Life Standards
ROG-Reactive Organic Gases
SOx-Sulfur Dioxides

Appendix B: Figures
Figure 1. Dredging Action Decision Tree (CSTF, 2005)

Figure 2. Confined Disposal Facility (American Association of Port Authorities, 2012)
Figure 3. Concentration of Criteria Pollutants During the Dredging Process Based on Box
Model
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Concentration(µg/m3)
Pollutants
Concentration of criteria pollutants in Long Beach CA.
(Short Term)
PM10
PM2.5
NO2
SO2
CO

Figure 4. Portable High Volume Air Sampler for TO-4A Method Developed by EPA (EPA,
1999; TRC, 2009)
Figure 5. Low Volume Air Sampler for TO-10A Method Developed by EPA (EPA, 1999;
TRC, 2009)

Figure 6. PM10 Concentration Perpendicular to Highway 710 Based on Line Source Model
Figure 7. PM2.5 Concentration Perpendicular to Highway 710 Based on Line Source Model
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Distance (km)
PM10
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Distance (km)
PM2.5

Figure 8. Carbon Monoxide (CO) Concentration Perpendicular to Highway 710 Based on
Line Source Model
Figure 9. Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Concentration Perpendicular to Highway 710 Based on
Line Source Model
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Distance (km)
CO
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Distance (km)
NOx

Figure 10. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Concentration Perpendicular to Highway
710 based on Line Source Model
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Distance (km)
VOC

Appendix C: Tables
Table 1. Evaluation Summary of Contaminated Dredge Material Management Strategies for Los Angeles Region (CSTF, 2005; HLA, 2000;
POLB, 2011)
Management
Alternative
and POLB’s
Priority
Ranking
Brief Description
Environmental
Effectiveness
Engineering
Constructability
Factors Affecting Cost Range of Unit Costs
1. Beneficial
reuse in a
port fill
(nearshore
CDF)
 Placement in nearshore
area behind diked
berm or perimeter with
covering and effluent
control
 Provides for effective
isolation of
contaminants.
 Common practice for San
Pedro Bay in the form of
Port development projects.
 Transport distance
 Quantity of material
 Geometry of nearshore
area/size of required dike
 USACE Port Hueneme estimate
as low as $10/m3
.
2. Suitable
treatment
option and
reuse
opportunity
Cement Stabilization:
 Physical and chemical
stabilization of
contaminated dredged
material using cement‐
based binders
 Effectively removes
contaminants from the
water by removing
material.
 Not yet proven effective
for organics using
regional material
 CSTF/DMMP pilot studies
proved that cement
stabilization could be
effectively implemented in
Southern California.
 Equipment and facility
requirements
 DMMP Pilot Study baseline case
estimate for a volume of 100,000
m3
was $46/m3
(Note 1)
Thermal Desorption:
 Application of direct
and indirect heat to
material to vaporize,
destroy, or vitrify
contaminants
 Has been shown to be
effective at removing/
immobilizing organics.
 Not as effective for
metals.
 Few examples of projects
used locally to treat
contaminated sediments.
 Typically contractor
specific processes using
proprietary equipment.
 Treatment facility setup
 Transport distance after
dredging and after
treatment
 Cost of equipment
 Moisture content
 $45 - $330/ton or $25-$180/m3
.
(Note 3)
Soil Separation:
 Mechanical separation
of finer‐grained
material from coarser‐
rained material
 Not effective at directly
removing contaminants;
however, separation of
fine-grained material
will likely serve same
purpose.
 No example of projects
used locally, but
technology exists
elsewhere to facilitate
implementation in the
region.
dredging and after
treatment
 Cost of treatment facility
setup
 High sand concentrations in
the sediment
Previous demonstration projects
have shown that, once
constructed, hydro cyclones can
be run very efficiently and
produce processing costs as low
as $6/m3
. (Note 5)

Cement Lock
Technology:
 Use of extremely high
heat in the presence of
mineral modifiers to
create Ecomelt, which
can be ground and
mixed to make cement
 Effective at removing
organics and
immobilizing metals.
 No example of projects
used locally, but
technology exists
elsewhere to facilitate
implementation in the
region.
dredging and after
treatment
 Cost of treatment facility
 Demonstration project conducted
in New Jersey using 30,000 yds3
of sediment showed a processing
cost of $50/ton (not including
capital expenditures). Equates to
approximately $92/m3
. (Note 4)
Sediment Blending:
 Dredge material mixed
with other proprietary
materials to produce a
topsoil
 Not directly effective
for removing
contaminants – only
provides dilution.
showed that sediment
blending is frequently used
by the Ports to manage
dredge materials, not from
a contaminant reduction
standpoint, but from a
construction standpoint.
 Engineering design
specifications do not exist,
but experienced contractors
are available in the region
 Suite of target contaminants
dredging and after
treatment
 Dewatering/treatment
 Facility setup
 Estimated costs based on DMMP
Pilot Study for treatment of
100,000 m3
of sediment: $49/m3
,
not including real estate lease
rates for the work area. (Note 1)
Sediment Washing:
 Process blends
detergents, chelating
and oxidizing agents,
and high pressure
water jets
water by removing
material.
 Not directly effective
for removing
contaminants
showed that sediment
washing provided limited
effectiveness in removing
chloride ions and metals.
 Required large work area,
constant source of
freshwater and method for
discharging a potentially
contaminated waste stream.
 Suite of target contaminants
 Dewatering/treatment
 DMMP Pilot Study baseline case
estimate for a volume of 100,000
m3
ranged from $34 to $82/m3
not including real estate lease
rates.
(Note 1)
3. Upland
Placement
Upland Nearshore
Disposal:
 Placement as fill in
landside depressions or
as surcharge for capital
improvement projects
site.
 Must ensure that
nearshore groundwater
and soil resources are
not impacted.
 Common practice by the
Ports in the region during
capital development
projects and experienced
contractors readily
available
 Transport distance to CDF
 Construction/maintenance
costs
 USACE Port Hueneme estimate
as low as $10 to 20/m3
.

Notes:
1. Source: USACE 2002. DMMP Pilot Studies for Aquatic CAD site disposal, cement stabilization, sediment washing, and sediment blending. Prepared for the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. November 2002.
2. Source: Anchor 2003. Evaluation of dredge material disposal options for channel deepening at Port Hueneme Harbor. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Los Angeles District by Anchor Environmental. March 2003.
3. Source: US Army Engineer District. 1993. Pilot‐Scale Demonstration of Thermal Desorption for the Treatment of Buffalo River Sediments, EPA‐905‐R93‐005.
Chicago, Ill.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
4. Source: Rehmat, A., Lee, A., Goyal, A. and Mensinger, M.C. Construction‐grade cement production from contaminated sediments using cement‐lock
technology. Presented at WEDA Annual Conference 1999.
5. Source: U.S. EPA 1994. ARCs Remediation Guidance Document. EPA 905‐B94‐003. Chicago, IL: Great Lakes National Program Office.
Class I Landfill
Disposal:
 Placement as solid
waste in landfill or as
daily cover on the
working surface of a
landfill
site.
 Must ensure that upland
groundwater and soil
resources are not
impacted.
 Trade aquatic impacts
for upland impacts
associated with disposal
 Common construction
procedures – no specialized
engineering design
required.
 Dewatering required
ensuring no water losses
during transport
 Facility costs/tipping fee
 Potential need for
dewatering
 Feasibility study conducted by
the Army Corps of Engineers,
Los Angeles District for Port
Hueneme estimated transport and
disposal costs for a project
containing 70,000 m3
at $88/m3
.
(Note 2)
Class III Landfill
Daily Cover:
 Placement as solid
waste in landfill or as
daily cover on the
working surface of a
landfill
site.
 Must ensure that upland
groundwater and soil
resources are not
impacted.
 Trade aquatic impacts
for upland impacts
associated with
disposal.
 Common construction
procedures – no specialized
engineering design
required.
 Dewatering required
ensuring no water losses
during transport.
 Facility costs/tipping fee
 Potential need for
dewatering
 Feasibility study conducted by
the Army Corps of Engineers,
Los Angeles District for Port
Hueneme estimated transport and
disposal costs for a project
containing 70,000 m3
at $21/m3
.
(Note 2)
4. Submerged
Confined
Aquatic
Disposal
(CAD) Site
North Energy Island
Borrow Pit Confined
Aquatic Disposal Site
 Placement into a
submerged depression
or pit and capping with
clean sediment
 Data collected for first
two years indicates that
chemical isolation has
occurred and physical
stability is intact.
 CAD surface provides
for suitable re-
colonization of benthic
organisms.
proved that CAD sites
could be effectively
constructed in Southern
California.
 Transport distance to CAD
site
 Excavation required to
create CAD
 Cap thickness required
 DMMP Pilot Study conducted on
volume of 100,000 m3
was
$27/m3
. (Note 1)

Table 2. CTR Criteria for protection of aquatic life
Table 3. Management strategies to reduce water quality impacts while dredging

Table 4. Comparison of sediment concentrations with sediment quality guidelines
Contaminant Average Concentration Hotspot Concentration
Probable Effect
Concentration
PCBs 50 500 676
DDT 80 800 572
Table 5. Estimated Emissions During Dredging (based on USACE, 2009). All rates are
given in kg/day
ROG CO NOx SOx PM PM10 PM2.5
6.8 29088.00 g 93312.00 g 2592.00 g 2880.00 g 2880.00 g 2592.00 g
5.1 21816.00 g 6998.004 g 1944.00 g 2160.00 g 2160.00 g 1944.00 g
0.53 1704.96 g 7672.32 g 207.36 g 276.48 g 276.48 g 253.44 g
0.38 3590.40 g 17164.80 g 1555.20 g 422.40 g 422.40 g 403.20 g
1.5 6862.91 g 21858.17 g 714.06 g 793.40 g 793.40 g 714.06 g
14.3
63.062
kg/day
209.99
kg/day
7.01 kg/day 6.53 kg/day 6.53 kg/day 5.91 kg/day

Table 6. Ambiant Air Qaulity Standards (Port of Long Beach, 2006)

Table 7. Dredging Process Emissions and Concentrations (based on USACE 2009)
Emissions
(kg/day)
Emission rate
(μg/m2
·s)
C(8 hr)
(μg/m3
)
Existing C(t)
(μg/m3
)
Total C(t)
(μg/m3
)
Standards
(μg/m3
)
PM10 6.53 5.68 x 10-4
4.74 x 10-2
33.50 33.50 50
PM2.5 5.91 5.13 x 10-4
4.28 x 10-2
8.60 8.60 65
NO2 209.99 1.82 x 10-2
1.52 x 10-1
20.70 20.90 470
SO2 7.01 6.09 x 10-4
5.09 x 10-2
5.23 5.25 655
CO 63.06 5.48 x 10-3
4.57 x 10-2
573.7 574 10000
Table 8. Quality of Life Standards for PCBs (EPA, 2006)
Standard
24 hr average, total
PCBs
“Concern
Level”
Demonstration of
Compliance
Residential 0.11 g/m3
0.08 g/m3
Continuous monitoring
24-hr samples
Commercial/Industrial 0.26 g/m3
0.21 g/m3

Table 9. Cal/OSHA Regulatory Limits
Substance CAS NO.
Regulatory Limits Recommended Limits
OSHA
PEL
Cal/OSHA
(as of 4/26/13)
NIOSH REL
(as of 4/26/13)
ACGIH 2014
TLV
mg/m3
8-hour TWA
(ST) STEL
(C) ceiling
mg/m3
Up to 10-hour
TWA
(ST) STEL
(C) ceiling
mg/m3
8-hour TWA
(ST) STEL
(C) ceiling
mg/m3
Chlorodiphenyl
(42% Chlorine)
53469-21-9 1 1 0.001 1
Chlorodiphenyl
(54% Chlorine)
11097-69-1 0.5 0.5 0.001 0.5
Dichlorodiphenyltr
ichloroethane
(DDT)
50-29-3 1 1 0.5 1

Table 10. Summary of Sampling Methods for PCBs and DDT (EPA,1999)
Method
Types of
compounds
Determined
Sampling and Analysis Approach
Detections
Limit
Advantages Disadvantages
TO-4
Pesticides/PCBs
[e.g., PCBs, 4,4-
DDE, DDT and
DDD]
High vol. filter and PUF adsorbent
followed by GC/FID/ECD or
GC/MS detection
· Pesticides/PCBs trap on filter and
PUF adsorbent trap.
24 hr sampling
· Trap returned to lab, solvent
extracted and analyzed by
GC/FID/ECD or GC/MS
0.2 pg/m
3
-
200 ng/m3
· Low detection Limits.
· Effective for broad range of
pesticides/PCBs.
· PUF reusable.
· Low blanks.
· Excellent collection and retention
efficiencies for common pesticides
and PCBs
· Breakdown of PUF adsorbent
may occur with polar extraction
solvents.
· Contamination of glassware
may limit detection limits.
· Loss of some semi-volatile
organics during storage.
· Extraneous organics may
interfere
· Difficulty in identifying
individual pesticides and PCBs
if using ECD.
TO-
10A
PUF adsorbent cartridge and
GC/ECD/PID/FID analysis
· A low-volume sample
· (1-5 L/min) is pulled through a
polyurethane foam (PUF) plug to
trap organochlorine pesticides.
24 hr sampling
· After sampling, the plug is
returned to the laboratory, extracted
and analyzed by GC coupled to
multi-metectors (ECD, PID,
· FID, etc.)
1-100
ng/m
3
· Easy field use.
· Proven methodology.
· Easy to clean.
· Effective for broad range of
compounds.
· Portability.
· Good retention of compounds.
· ECD and other detectors
(except the MS) are subject to
responses from a variety of
compounds other than target
analysis.
· PCBs, dioxins and furans may
interfere.
· Certain orgagnocholorine
pesticides (e.g., chlordane) are
complex mixtures and can make
accurate quantitation difficult.
· May not be sensitive enough
for all target analytes in ambient
air.

Table 11. Comparison of Line Source Model Results with National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
Pollutant Modeling results
Existing Con
(µg/m3)
Predicted
Con. at 100m
(µg/m
3
)
Standard
(µg/m
3
)
CO 133 19,132 19,265 22,913
PM10 0.62 145.50 146.12 50
NOx 9.82 218.27 228.09 470
PM2.5 0.06 40.40 40.46 35
* Note : Lowest of NAAQS or CAAQS

Appendix D: Sample Calculations
Box Model Sample Calculation
C(t) = (1 -
( )
)
qs = Emission rate (g/m2
-s)
L = length (m)
H = Mixing Height (m)
t = time (s)
u = wind velocity (m/s)
Assumptions:
H = 1000 m; mixing height for Long Beach is 1000 m
u = 5 m/s
t = 8 hrs = 28800 s; 8 hour shifts of dredging contaminated material
L = 26.9 mi = 43291.4 m; the distance from long beach to Los Angeles
Example equation for CO:
(1 -
( )
) = 45.74 ng/m3

Line source modeling sample calculation
The line source model assumes an infinite length source with winds blowing perpendicular to the
line at 5m/s on a clear summer day with the sun 35-60 above horizon (Stability Class D).
The impact of the additional cars will be modeled as a line source using the equation
√
Where,
q=Emission Rate per unit distance along the line (g*m-1
s-1
)
σz=Vertical dispersion coefficient (m)
u=Windspeed(m/s)
Here we will assume the following worst case scenario
Windspeed of 5m/s
A clear summer day with sun 35-60deg above horizon
Cars moving from LA to the port of Long Beach
Stability class D
650 cars(based on 2500 customers and 4 passengers per car)
32mins travel time
For x<1km
For x>1km
Example q calculation
qPM10=(0.044g/mi-car)(1mi/1609.3m)/[32min*(60s/min)]*(650car)=9.26*10^-6g/m-s
q_PM10 q_VOC q_CO q_NOx q_PM2.5
1.78E-05 4.18E-04 3.80E-03 2.80E-04 1.66E-06

X(km) σz C_PM10 C_VOC C_CO C_Nox C_PM2.5
0.1 4.55 6.24E-01 1.47E+01 1.33E+02 9.82E+00 5.81E-02
0.2 8.64 3.29E-01 7.73E+00 7.03E+01 5.18E+00 3.06E-02
0.3 12.17 2.33E-01 5.49E+00 4.99E+01 3.68E+00 2.18E-02
0.4 15.39 1.85E-01 4.34E+00 3.94E+01 2.91E+00 1.72E-02
0.5 18.39 1.54E-01 3.63E+00 3.30E+01 2.43E+00 1.44E-02
0.6 21.22 1.34E-01 3.15E+00 2.86E+01 2.11E+00 1.25E-02
0.7 23.94 1.19E-01 2.79E+00 2.54E+01 1.87E+00 1.11E-02
0.8 26.54 1.07E-01 2.52E+00 2.29E+01 1.69E+00 9.97E-03
0.9 29.06 9.78E-02 2.30E+00 2.09E+01 1.54E+00 9.11E-03
1 31.50 9.02E-02 2.12E+00 1.93E+01 1.42E+00 8.40E-03
1.1 33.74 8.42E-02 1.98E+00 1.80E+01 1.33E+00 7.84E-03
1.2 35.89 7.91E-02 1.86E+00 1.69E+01 1.25E+00 7.37E-03
1.3 37.95 7.48E-02 1.76E+00 1.60E+01 1.18E+00 6.97E-03
1.4 39.94 7.11E-02 1.67E+00 1.52E+01 1.12E+00 6.63E-03
1.5 41.86 6.79E-02 1.59E+00 1.45E+01 1.07E+00 6.32E-03
1.6 43.71 6.50E-02 1.53E+00 1.39E+01 1.02E+00 6.05E-03
1.7 45.52 6.24E-02 1.47E+00 1.33E+01 9.83E-01 5.82E-03
1.8 47.27 6.01E-02 1.41E+00 1.28E+01 9.46E-01 5.60E-03
1.9 48.97 5.80E-02 1.36E+00 1.24E+01 9.14E-01 5.40E-03
2 50.63 5.61E-02 1.32E+00 1.20E+01 8.84E-01 5.23E-03
2.1 52.26 5.44E-02 1.28E+00 1.16E+01 8.56E-01 5.07E-03
2.2 53.84 5.28E-02 1.24E+00 1.13E+01 8.31E-01 4.92E-03
2.3 55.39 5.13E-02 1.21E+00 1.10E+01 8.08E-01 4.78E-03
2.4 56.91 4.99E-02 1.17E+00 1.07E+01 7.86E-01 4.65E-03
2.5 58.40 4.86E-02 1.14E+00 1.04E+01 7.66E-01 4.53E-03
2.6 59.86 4.75E-02 1.12E+00 1.01E+01 7.47E-01 4.42E-03
2.7 61.29 4.63E-02 1.09E+00 9.90E+00 7.30E-01 4.32E-03
2.8 62.70 4.53E-02 1.06E+00 9.68E+00 7.14E-01 4.22E-03
2.9 64.08 4.43E-02 1.04E+00 9.47E+00 6.98E-01 4.13E-03
3 65.44 4.34E-02 1.02E+00 9.27E+00 6.84E-01 4.04E-03
3.1 66.78 4.25E-02 1.00E+00 9.09E+00 6.70E-01 3.96E-03
3.2 68.10 4.17E-02 9.80E-01 8.91E+00 6.57E-01 3.89E-03
3.3 69.40 4.09E-02 9.62E-01 8.74E+00 6.45E-01 3.81E-03
3.4 70.68 4.02E-02 9.44E-01 8.59E+00 6.33E-01 3.74E-03
3.5 71.94 3.95E-02 9.28E-01 8.44E+00 6.22E-01 3.68E-03
3.6 73.18 3.88E-02 9.12E-01 8.29E+00 6.11E-01 3.62E-03
3.7 74.41 3.82E-02 8.97E-01 8.16E+00 6.01E-01 3.56E-03
3.8 75.62 3.76E-02 8.83E-01 8.02E+00 5.92E-01 3.50E-03
3.9 76.82 3.70E-02 8.69E-01 7.90E+00 5.82E-01 3.45E-03
4 78.00 3.64E-02 8.56E-01 7.78E+00 5.74E-01 3.39E-03
4.1 79.16 3.59E-02 8.43E-01 7.67E+00 5.65E-01 3.34E-03
4.2 80.32 3.54E-02 8.31E-01 7.56E+00 5.57E-01 3.30E-03
4.3 81.46 3.49E-02 8.19E-01 7.45E+00 5.49E-01 3.25E-03
4.4 82.58 3.44E-02 8.08E-01 7.35E+00 5.42E-01 3.21E-03
4.5 83.70 3.39E-02 7.98E-01 7.25E+00 5.35E-01 3.16E-03
4.6 84.80 3.35E-02 7.87E-01 7.16E+00 5.28E-01 3.12E-03
4.7 85.89 3.31E-02 7.77E-01 7.07E+00 5.21E-01 3.08E-03
4.8 86.97 3.27E-02 7.68E-01 6.98E+00 5.14E-01 3.04E-03
4.9 88.04 3.23E-02 7.58E-01 6.89E+00 5.08E-01 3.01E-03
5 89.10 3.19E-02 7.49E-01 6.81E+00 5.02E-01 2.97E-03
Pollutants
Emission rate
(g/mi-car)
PM10 0.044
VOC 1.034
CO 9.4
NOx 0.693
PM2.5 0.0041
Customers 2500
Cars 1250
Time(s) 1920
Distance(m) 6.21E-04
Wind
velocity(m/s) 5.00

Calculations for prediction PCB and DDT concentrations in water
Calculation of DDT and PCB concentration in water in sediment column from the Long Beach
California
Assumptions:
1. Given concentration of each pollutant is dry sediment weight basis
2. At equilibrium condition (Ce) between water and sediment
3. Sediment contain 5% organic matter (OM)
4. Fresh water and based on 1kg of sediment samples
Pollutant
molecular
formula
Molecular
weight
(g/mole)
Log Water
–Octonal
constant
(log Kow)
Concentration Hot spot concentration
PCB C12H3Cl7 395.32 5.62
ng/g
ppm
(mg/kg)
ng/g
ppm
(mg/kg)
50 0.05 500 0.5
DDT C14H9Cl5 354.49 6.36 80 0.08 800 0.8
DDT
Step 1: Estimate Kom value using Empirical formula (Chiou et al,
1883)
Step 2: If OM content assumed 5% then estimated sorption
coefficient (K) (Chiou et al, 1883)
Step 3: Concentration in water in the sediment column at
equilibrium condition (Ce) (using mass balance approach)
Note – calculated on 1kg of sediment and 1 liter of water basis
Step4: Concentration in water in the sediment column at
equilibrium condition (Ce) for hot spot
PCB
DDT
Step 1: Estimate Kom value using Empirical formula (Chiou et al,
1883)
Step 2: If OM content assumed 5% then estimated sorption
coefficient (K) (Chiou et al, 1883)
Step 3: Concentration in water in the sediment column at
equilibrium condition (Ce) (using mass balance approach)
Note – calculated on 1kg of sediment and 1 liter of water basis
Step4: Concentration in water in the sediment column at
equilibrium condition (Ce) for hot spot
Note: Due to the salinity of the water, the solubility of these calculations are expected to be
reduced by 15-20%, results in to lower concentrations then those calculated above.

References
American Association of Port Authorities. “Beneficial Reuse of Dredge Materials at the Port of
Los Angeles” (2012). <http://www.aapa-
ports.org/files/SeminarPresentations/2012Seminars/12HNE/Walsh,%20David.pdf> accessed
6/8/2014
California Regional Water Quality Control Board Los Angeles Region (CRWQCB), (2012),
<http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb4/water_issues/programs/401_water_quality_certi
fication/final_letters/Documents/2012/march/11-
192%20Shoreline%20Marina%20Fuel.pdf>
CSTF, “Los Angeles Regional Contaminated Sediments Task Force, Long-Term Management
Strategy, (2005). <http://www.coastal.ca.gov/sediment/long-term-mgmt-strategy-5-
2005.pdf> accessed 4/26/2014
EPA. “Ambient Air Monitoring Program”, (2013),
<http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/qa/monprog.html> accessed 4/27/2014
EPA. “Ambient Air Monitoring Strategy for State, Local, and Tribal Air Agencies” (2008),
<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/monitorstrat/AAMS%20for%20SLTs%20%
20-%20FINAL%20Dec%202008.pdf> accessed 4/26/2014
EPA. “AP-42 section 3.3 Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines” (1996)
<http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch03/final/c03s03.pdf> accessed 4/26/2014
EPA. “Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars
and Light Trucks” (2008). <http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/420f08024.pdf> accessed
4/26/2014
EPA. “Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Toxic Organic Compounds in
Ambient Air - Second Edition” (1999).
<http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/airtox/tocomp99.pdf> accessed 4/26/2014

EPA. “Determination of Pesticides and Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Ambient Air Using Low
Volume Polyurethane Foam (PUF) Sampling Followed By Gas Chromatographic/Multi-
Detector Detection (GC/MD)” (1999), <
http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/airtox/to-10ar.pdf> accessed 6/8/2014
EPA. “Determination of Pesticides and Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Ambient Air Using High
Volume Polyurethane Foam (PUF) Sampling Followed by Gas Chromatographic/Multi-
Detector Detection (GC/MD)” (1999),
<http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/airtox/to-4ar2r.pdf > accessed 6/8/2014
EPA. “Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Quality of Life Performance Standards” (2004).
<http://www.epa.gov/hudson/quality_of_life_06_04/full_report.pdf> accessed 4/25/2014
ERDC. “Liner Design Guidance for Confined Disposal Facility Leachate Control” (2004).
< http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/doerr6.pdf> accessed 4/27/2014
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), (2002), http://www.epw.senate.gov/water.pdf
Harding Lawson Associates (HLA). “The Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Material for Upland
Disposal” (2000)
LSA Associates. “Air Quality Impact Analysis” (2013).
<http://www.lbds.info/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=4156> accessed 4/25/2014
Oceana. “Needless Cruise Pollution” (2005)
<http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/o/fileadmin/oceana/uploads/cruise_pollution/polling
_report.pdf> accessed 4/26/2014
OSHA, “OSHA Annotated Table Z-1” (2014). <https://www.osha.gov/dsg/annotated-
pels/tablez-1.html accessed 4/26/2014> accessed 4/26/2014
Port of Long Beach, “Ambient Air Quality Standards” (2006),
<http://www.polb.com/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3313> accessed 4/27/2014

Port of Long Beach. “Sediment Management Handbook for Dredge and fill projects” (2011)
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, (2001),
<http://chm.pops.int/Portals/0/Repository/convention_text/UNEP-POPS-COP-
CONVTEXT-FULL.English.PDF> accessed 4/26/2014.
TRC Corporation. “PCBs in Ambient Air Method Evaluation and Background Monitoring The
Hudson River, NY Sediment Remediation Project” (2009)
USACE. “Port of Los Angeles Channel Deepening Project Final SEIS/SEIR” (2009), <
http://www.portoflosangeles.org/EIR/ChanDeep/FEIR/3.2%20AirQuality%20Mar%2026
_jks.pdf> accessed 4/27/2014
Waymer, Kim.“Ships’ Soot Deadly, Study Shows.” Florida Today, Nov. 17 2007,
<pqasb.pqarchiver.com/floridatoday/access/1719620611.html?FMT=ABS&date=No
v+17,+2007> accessed 4/24/2014
Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources. “Consensus-Based Sediment Quality Guidelines” (2003)

ECi_Proposal_MSU_Spartans

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to ECi_Proposal_MSU_Spartans

Similar to ECi_Proposal_MSU_Spartans (20)

ECi_Proposal_MSU_Spartans