Abstract
Contaminated sediment remediation is a long-term, often decadal, process from initial characterization to achieving remedial action objectives (RAOs). Monitoring remedial effectiveness is critically important in contaminated sediment management. It seeks to answer the fundamental question of “Were we successful?” As a result, it is also a topic of great sensitivity. From a pragmatic point of view, there are many disincentives to conducting remedy effectiveness monitoring. What happens if the remedy is not “successful” and hundreds of millions of private and public dollars have been spent over many years of cleanup, after years of investigation and negotiation? Do we start over again? Determine it cannot be done? While this concern is very real, it does not outweigh the statutory requirements, cost accountability, human and ecological risk implications, and the standards of good governance and environmental stewardship that mandate remedy effectiveness be tracked and verified.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In practice, there is great variety in the terminology (and nuance in meaning) associated with the contaminant concentrations that are to be achieved in various media by the remediation. Such terms include cleanup levels, cleanup goals, chemical and biological standards, remedial goals, cleanup criteria, target concentrations, performance goals, performance metrics, and performance standards. Federal Guidance (2005) does not precisely define the terms and their usage; that issue is still in flux (Ells, 2011).
- 2.
The term “cleanup level” is used here and is defined simply as the contaminant concentration (in whatever media is specified) that will achieve the risk reduction targeted by the remediation. The term “remedial goal” was not used because it typically specifies a “protective” concentration (see NCP quote in text), which may not be the target of a specific remedial action (e.g., if background or an interim concentration is to be achieved).
- 3.
The application of “cleanup levels” can vary: at some sites, a cleanup level may be expected immediately post-remediation; another may have one cleanup level to be achieved immediately post-remediation and another to be achieved 10 years post-remediation. Some large sites with a patchwork of contamination may have higher cleanup levels set for certain areas that, when integrated across the entire site, achieve a lower site-wide cleanup level. Those variations are site-specific, and not central to the main point: cleanup levels need to be specified that clearly define the concentration, area, and time of anticipated attainment.
- 4.
See Magar et al. (2009) for a useful discussion on lines of evidence and their use to support decision making.
- 5.
In some instances, biologic receptors may not be specified, as the objective of the sediment remediation may be to reduce flux of contaminants from the remediated area. In this case, contaminant flux would be the primary determinant of remedial effectiveness.
- 6.
http://www.epa.gov/quality/qa_docs.html. Accessed July 31, 2012.
REFERENCES
Alcoa. 2006. In-Situ PCB Bioavailability Reduction in Grasse River Sediments Final Work Plan. August 2006.
Alcoa. 2010. Activated Carbon Pilot Study, Grasse River, NY. Summary of 2006 to 2009 Monitoring Results. November 1
Anchor QEA. 2009. Phase 1 Data Compilation Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site. November. http://www.hudsondredging.com/scientific-reports/. Accessed November 20, 2012.
Battelle. 2003. A Compendium of Chemical, Physical and Biological Methods for Assessing and Monitoring the Remediation of Contaminated Sediment Sites. Submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-033. Work Assignment 4–20. February 17.
Battelle. 2009. Final Sediment Monitoring Summary Report 2008 Remedial Dredging. Environmental Monitoring, Sampling, and Analysis New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site New Bedford Harbor, MA. June. http://www.epa.gov/region1/superfund/sites/newbedford/299732-2008-NBH-Sediment-Report.pdf. Accessed January 27, 2012.
Beckingham B, Ghosh U. 2010. Comparison of field vs. laboratory exposures of L. variegatus to PCB impacted river sediments. Environ Toxicol Chem 29:2851–2858.
Beckingham B, Ghosh U. 2011. Field-scale reduction of PCB bioavailability with activated carbon amendment to river sediments. Environ Sci Technol 45:10567–10574.
Bridges TS, Gustavson KE, Schroeder P, Ells SJ, Hayes D, Nadeau SC, Palermo MR, Patmont C. 2010. Dredging processes and remedy effectiveness: Relationship to the 4 Rs of environmental dredging. Integr Environ Assess Manag 6:619–630.
Burton GA, Greenberg MS, Rowland CD, Irvine CA, Lavoie DR, Brooker JA, Moore L, Raymer DFN, McWilliam RA. 2005. In-situ exposures using caged organisms: A multi-compartment approach to detect aquatic toxicity and bioaccumulation. Environ Pollut 134:133–144.
CDM. 2009. Allied Paper Inc./Portage Creek/Kalamazoo River Superfund Site. Summary of Baseline PCB Concentrations in Surface Water and Fish Tissue; Evaluation of Pre- and Post-TCRA Data from the Bryant Mill Pond; and Site-wide Trends in Fish Tissue PCB Concentrations. Submitted to Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. May 2009.
Ells S. 2011. Developing Sediment Cleanup Levels and Other Measures to Evaluate Remedial Alternatives at Superfund Sites. Sixth International Conference on Remediation of Contaminated Sediments, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Fuglevand P, Webb R. 2012. Urban River Remediation Dredging Methods that Reduce Release, Residuals and Risk. Western Dredging Association, June 10–17, 2012, San Antonio, TX.
Gustavson KE, Burton GA, Francingues Jr NR, Reible DD, Vorhees DJ, Wolfe JR. 2008. Evaluating the effectiveness of contaminated-sediment dredging. Environ Sci Technol 42:5042–5047.
Integral Consulting. 2009. 2007 Monitoring Report for Sediment Remediation in Ward Cove, Alaska. Submitted to Ketchikan Pulp Company, Ketchikan, AK. April 2009.
Louis Berger Group. 2010. Hudson River PCBs Site EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District. March. http://www.hudsondredgingdata.com/Report. Accessed November 20, 2012.
MacDonald DD, Ingersoll CG. 2002. A Guidance Manual to Support the Assessment of Contaminated Sediments in Freshwater Ecosystems. Volumes I-III. EPA-905-B02-001-C. Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes National Program Office. December.
Magar VS, Chadwick DB, Bridges TS, Fuchsman PC, Conder JM, Dekker TJ, Steevens JA, Gustavson KE, Mills MA. 2009. Technical Guide. Monitored Natural Recovery at Contaminated Sediment Sites. ESTCP Project ER-0622. Department of Defense. Environmental Security Technology Certification Program, Arlington, VA, USA.
Malcolm Pirnie Inc. and TAMS Consultants. 2004. Engineering Performance Standards. Technical Basis and Implementation of the Resuspension Standard. April. http://www.epa.gov/hudson/eng_perf/FP2001.pdf. Accessed January 27, 2012.
Myers J. 2007. PCB levels in Cumberland Bay drop; Advisory not lifted. Press Republican. November 4.
Navy. 2010. Long-Term Monitoring Strategies for Contaminated Sediment Management. Final Guidance Document. February. http://israp.org/pdf/Navy_LTM_Guidance_FINAL_021110.pdf. Accessed January 27, 2012.
NRC (National Research Council). 2003. Environmental Cleanup at Navy Facilities. Adaptive Site Management. National Academies Press, Washington DC, USA.
NRC. 2004. Adaptive Management for Water Resources Project Planning. National Academies Press, Washington DC, USA.
NRC. 2007. Sediment Dredging at Superfund Megasites. Assessing the Effectiveness. National Academies Press, Washington DC, USA.
NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2001. Cumberland Bay Sludge Bed Removal Project. April.
NYSDOH (New York State Department of Health). 2010. Chemicals in Sportfish and Game 2010–2011. Health Advisories.
Tetra Tech EC. 2009. Final Year 7 Post Remedial Biomonitoring Report for Tabbs Creek, Nasa Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia. Prepared for U.S. Navy. October 8, 2009.
Tetra Tech FW. 2005. After Action Report for North of Wood Street Remediation. New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, Operable Unit #1. New Bedford, Massachusetts. April. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District, Concord, MA, USA.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998a. Record of Decision. NASA Langley Research Center Tabbs Creek OU 3. Hampton, VA USA. September 30.
USEPA. 1998b. Record of Decision for the Upper and Lower Harbor Operable Unit New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site New Bedford, MA, USA. September.
USEPA. 2000. EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Ketchikan Pulp Company, Ketchikan, AK, USA. Report number EPA/ROD/R10-00/035. March 29.
USEPA. 2001. Methods for Collection, Storage and Manipulation of Sediments for Chemical and Toxicological Analyses: Technical Manual. October. EPA-823-B-01-002. http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/sediments/cs/collection.cfm.
USEPA. 2002a. Principles for Managing Contaminated Sediment Risks at Hazardous Waste Sites. OSWER Directive 9285.6-08. February 12, 2002. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/remedy/pdfs/92-85608-s.pdf. Accessed November 20, 2012.
USEPA. 2002b. EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Hudson River PCBs. EPA/ROD/R02-02/013. February 1.
USEPA. 2010. Five-Year Review Report Second Five-Year Review Report For Ketchikan Pulp Company Site Ketchikan, AK, USA. August.
USEPA. 2005. Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites. EPA-540-R-05-012. December.
USEPA. 2008. Sediment Assessment and Monitoring Sheet (SAMS) #1. Using Fish Tissue Data to Monitor Remedy Effectiveness. OSWER Directive 9200.1–77D.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gustavson, K.E., Greenberg, M.S. (2014). Monitoring Remedial Effectiveness. In: Reible, D. (eds) Processes, Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments. SERDP ESTCP Environmental Remediation Technology, vol 6. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6726-7_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6726-7_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-6725-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-6726-7
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)