Monitoring Remedial Effectiveness

  • Karl E. Gustavson
  • Marc S. Greenberg
Part of the SERDP ESTCP Environmental Remediation Technology book series (SERDP/ESTCP, volume 6)


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.


Contaminant Concentration Monitoring Plan Remedy Effectiveness Contaminant Exposure Sediment Contaminant 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Alcoa. 2006. In-Situ PCB Bioavailability Reduction in Grasse River Sediments Final Work Plan. August 2006.Google Scholar
  2. Alcoa. 2010. Activated Carbon Pilot Study, Grasse River, NY. Summary of 2006 to 2009 Monitoring Results. November 1Google Scholar
  3. Anchor QEA. 2009. Phase 1 Data Compilation Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site. November. Accessed November 20, 2012.
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. 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. Accessed January 27, 2012.
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beckingham B, Ghosh U. 2011. Field-scale reduction of PCB bioavailability with activated carbon amendment to river sediments. Environ Sci Technol 45:10567–10574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Integral Consulting. 2009. 2007 Monitoring Report for Sediment Remediation in Ward Cove, Alaska. Submitted to Ketchikan Pulp Company, Ketchikan, AK. April 2009.Google Scholar
  15. 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. Accessed November 20, 2012.
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. Malcolm Pirnie Inc. and TAMS Consultants. 2004. Engineering Performance Standards. Technical Basis and Implementation of the Resuspension Standard. April. Accessed January 27, 2012.
  19. Myers J. 2007. PCB levels in Cumberland Bay drop; Advisory not lifted. Press Republican. November 4.Google Scholar
  20. Navy. 2010. Long-Term Monitoring Strategies for Contaminated Sediment Management. Final Guidance Document. February. Accessed January 27, 2012.
  21. NRC (National Research Council). 2003. Environmental Cleanup at Navy Facilities. Adaptive Site Management. National Academies Press, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
  22. NRC. 2004. Adaptive Management for Water Resources Project Planning. National Academies Press, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
  23. NRC. 2007. Sediment Dredging at Superfund Megasites. Assessing the Effectiveness. National Academies Press, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
  24. NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2001. Cumberland Bay Sludge Bed Removal Project. April.Google Scholar
  25. NYSDOH (New York State Department of Health). 2010. Chemicals in Sportfish and Game 2010–2011. Health Advisories.Google Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998a. Record of Decision. NASA Langley Research Center Tabbs Creek OU 3. Hampton, VA USA. September 30.Google Scholar
  29. USEPA. 1998b. Record of Decision for the Upper and Lower Harbor Operable Unit New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site New Bedford, MA, USA. September.Google Scholar
  30. USEPA. 2000. EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Ketchikan Pulp Company, Ketchikan, AK, USA. Report number EPA/ROD/R10-00/035. March 29.Google Scholar
  31. USEPA. 2001. Methods for Collection, Storage and Manipulation of Sediments for Chemical and Toxicological Analyses: Technical Manual. October. EPA-823-B-01-002.
  32. USEPA. 2002a. Principles for Managing Contaminated Sediment Risks at Hazardous Waste Sites. OSWER Directive 9285.6-08. February 12, 2002. Accessed November 20, 2012.
  33. USEPA. 2002b. EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Hudson River PCBs. EPA/ROD/R02-02/013. February 1.Google Scholar
  34. USEPA. 2010. Five-Year Review Report Second Five-Year Review Report For Ketchikan Pulp Company Site Ketchikan, AK, USA. August.Google Scholar
  35. USEPA. 2005. Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites. EPA-540-R-05-012. December.Google Scholar
  36. USEPA. 2008. Sediment Assessment and Monitoring Sheet (SAMS) #1. Using Fish Tissue Data to Monitor Remedy Effectiveness. OSWER Directive 9200.1–77D.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karl E. Gustavson
    • 1
  • Marc S. Greenberg
    • 2
  1. 1.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development CenterArlingtonUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology InnovationEdisonUSA

Personalised recommendations