Contaminated Marine Sediments Assessment and Remediation (1989) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Kepone and the James River
Kepone and the James River
Pages 417-424
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 417... ...
Environmental Protection Agency and Food and Drug Administration action levels. Biological, chemical, physical and geological aspects of the contamination indicate that remedial actions to remove kep one would be expensive and environmentally unwise.
|
From page 418... ...
If the particles sink into the bottom layer, they are transported upstream toward the interface (Figure 2~. This phenomenon is mainly responsible for the higher sedimentation rate and more turbid water in the interface region of the river, which is appropriately called the "turbidity maximum zone." The circulation pattern and its influence on the movement of particulate matter controls the transport of kep one in the James River.
|
From page 419... ...
—~ BAR - ^ ~ By'` C, of I i. - ~ ~ ~l-:: FIGI1RE 1 Map of the Chesapeake Bay showing the tidal James River.
|
From page 420... ...
. 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 km Dl STA N CE UPST REAM B \ 7one A LTurbidit y—I I Maximu m I F r e s h - So I t Interf ace included runoff from contaminated soils near the manufacturing facilities and solid waste dumped into a freshwater marsh on a small tributary of the James River (Huggett et al., 1980~.
|
From page 421... ...
The organic content of the sediments can have a dramatic influence on kepone distribution. For instance, the highest sediment concentrations found (except within several kilometers of the Hopewell source)
|
From page 422... ...
A comparison of existing toxicity data and kepone concentrations in solution or in tissues of the biota indicates that there has been little or no biological impact due to the contamination (Bender and Huggett, 1984~. The impact has been economic; commercial fishermen couldn't harvest the seafood and consumers couldn't buy it.
|
From page 423... ...
The benefits of continued shipping on the James River by allowing dredging will have to be compared to the potential costs of fisheries closures due to kep one contamination. One solution to the dilemma may be to bear the expense of upland disposal and containment of the dredged materials rather than pumping them back overboard.
|
From page 424... ...
1987. Contami nant Problems and Management of Living Chesapeake Bay Resources, Penn.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.