Contaminated Sediment Research and Development Needs

  • Danny D. Reible
  • Alicia J. Shepard
Chapter
Part of the SERDP ESTCP Environmental Remediation Technology book series (SERDP/ESTCP, volume 6)

Abstract

The complexity of contaminated sediment sites and the potentially enormous costs if remedies are not implemented effectively and efficiently drives a need for continued research and continuous improvement of technologies and practices for design, implementation and monitoring. The costs at contaminated sediment sites are largely driven by their size (both in terms of area of potentially impacted sediments and the volume of soil and water diluents) and the difficulties of working in the water environment. Research into methods to optimize removal technologies can provide incremental benefits by reducing the volume of the contaminated sediments that must be treated or disposed of. Research that can minimize the managed volume by accurate assessment of areas likely to exhibit significant risk can be extremely effective at containing costs. In addition, any methods that can lead to management of sediments in situ without the costs and complexity of removal and the incumbent onshore processing of sediments also provide effective cost containment. Finally, technologies that can aid assessment of the risks posed by contaminated sediments and aid prioritization of areas by risk can help contain costs at sediment sites. Moreover, these assessment technologies can also help assess the performance of remedies, demonstrating the successful achievement of remedial objectives and allowing closure of the remedial efforts.

Keywords

Clay Migration Toxicity Mercury Attenuation 

REFERENCES

  1. Admiraal DM, Garcia MH, Rodriguez JF. 2000. Entrainment response of bed sediment to time varying flows. Water Resour Res 36:335–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beachler MM, Hill DF. 2003. Stirring up trouble? Resuspension of bottom sediments by recreational watercraft. Lake Reserv Manag 19:15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bridges TS, Nadeau SC, McCulloch MC. 2011a. Accelerating program at contaminated sediment sites: Moving from guidance to practice. Integr Environ Assess Manag 8:331–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bridges TS, Gustavson KE, Schroeder P, Ells SJ, Hayes D, Nadeau SC, Palermo MR, Patmont C. 2011b. Dredging processes and remedy effectiveness: Relationship to the 4Rs of environmental dredging. Integr Environl Assess Manag 6:619–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burnett WC, Aggarwal PK, Aureli A, Bokuniewicz H, Cable JE, Charette MA, Kontar E, Krupa S, Kulkarni KM, Loveless A, Moore WS, Oberdorfer JA, Oliveira J, Ozyurt N, Povinec P, Privitera AMG, Rajar R, Ramessur RT, Scholten J, Stieglitz T, Taniguchi M, Turner JV. 2006. Quantifying, submarine groundwater discharge in the coastal zone via multiple methods. Sci Total Environ 367:498–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cetco. 2007. Organoclay Cap Performance Evaluation. McCormick and Baxter, Technical Report 834. Hoffman Estates, IL 60192 USA.Google Scholar
  7. Coumou D, Rahmstorf S. 2012. A decade of weather extremes. Nat Clim Chang 2:491–496.Google Scholar
  8. Einstein HA, Krone RB. 1962. Experiments to determine modes of cohesive sediment transport in salt water. J Geophys Res 67:1451–1464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ghosh U, Luthy RG, Cornelissen G, Werner D, Menzie CA. 2011. In-situ sorbent amendments: A new direction in contaminated sediment management. Environ Sci Technol 45:1163–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gschwend PM, MacFarlane JK, Reible DD, Lu X, Hawthorne SB, Nakles DV, Thompson T. 2011. Comparison of polymeric samplers for accurately assessing PCBs in porewaters. Environ Toxicol Chem 30:1288–1296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hanzawa H, Kishida T. 1981. Fundamental considerations of undrained strength characteristics of alluvial marine clays. Soils Found 21:39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Irvine KN, Perrelli MF, McCorkhill G, Caruso J. 2005. Sampling and modeling approaches to assess water quality impacts of combined sewer overflows: The importance of a watershed perspective. J Great Lakes Res 31:105–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnson N, Reible DD, Katz L. 2010. Biogeochemical changes and mercury methylation beneath an in-situ sediment cap. Environ Sci Technol 44:7280–7286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kostylev VE, Todd BJ, Fader GBJ, Courtney RC, Cameron GDM, Pickrill RA. 2001. Benthic habitat mapping on the Scotian Shelf based on multibeam bathymetry, surficial geology and sea floor photographs. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 219:121–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kirtay VJ. 2008. Rapid Sediment Characterization Tools. Technical Report 1970. SPAWAR Systems Center, San Diego, CA, USA. 45 p.Google Scholar
  16. Kraaij R, Mayer P, Busser FJM, Bolscher MVH, Seinen W, Tolls J. 2003. Measured pore-water concentrations make equilibrium partitioning work-a data analysis. Environ Sci Technol 37:268–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lampert DJ, Sarchet WV, Reible DD. 2011. Assessing the effectiveness of thin-layer sand caps for contaminated sediment management through passive sampling. Environ Sci Technol 45:8437–8443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Li N, Wania F, Lei YD, Daly GL. 2003. A comprehensive and critical compilation, evaluation, and selection of physical-chemical property data for selected polychlorinated biphenyls. J Phys Chem Ref Data 32:1545–1590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lu XX, Skwarski A, Drake B, Reible DD. 2011. Predicting bioavailability of PAHS and PCBS with porewater concentrations measured by solid-phase micro-extraction fibers. Environ Toxicol Chem 30:1009–1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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-ER-0622. Published by the Environmental Security Technology Testing and Certification Program (ESTCP), Arlington, VA, USA. 276 p.Google Scholar
  21. Maruya KA, Landrum PF, Burgess RM, Shine JP. 2010. Incorporating contaminant bioavailability into sediment quality frameworks. Integr Environ Assess Remediat 8:659–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McCauley DJ, DeGraeve GM, Linton TK. 2000. Sediment quality guidelines and assessment: Overview and research needs. Environ Sci Policy 3:S133–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McDonough KM, Fairey JL, Lowry GV. 2007. Adsorption of polychlorinated biphenyls to activated carbon: Equilibrium isotherms and a preliminary assessment of the effect of dissolved organic matter and biofilm loadings. Water Res 42:575–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McLinn EL, Stolzenburg TR. 2009. Ebullition-facilitated transport of manufactured gas plant tar from contaminated sediment. Environ Toxicol Chem 28:2298–2306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nadeau SC, Skaggs MM. 2007. Analysis of recontamination of completed sediment projects. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Remediation of Contaminanted Sediments, Savannah, GA, USA, January.Google Scholar
  26. NRC (National Research Council). 2001. A Risk Management Strategy for PCB-Contaminated Sediments. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA. 432 p.Google Scholar
  27. NRC. 2003. Environmental Cleanup at Navy Facilities: Adaptive Site Management National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA. 376 p.Google Scholar
  28. NRC. 2007. Assessing the Effectiveness of Dredging at Superfund Megasites. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA. 294 p.Google Scholar
  29. Palermo MR, Maynord S, Miller J, Reible DD. 1998. Guidance for In-Situ Subaqueous Capping of Contaminated Sediments. USEPA 905-B96-004. Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program, USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office.Google Scholar
  30. Patmont C, Palermo M. 2007. Case studies of environmental dredging residuals and management implications. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Remediation of Contaminated Sediments, Savannah, GA, USA, January. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, USA.Google Scholar
  31. Pavelsky TM, Smith LC. 2009. Remote sensing of suspended sediment concentration, flow velocity, and lake recharge in the Peace-Athabasca Delta, Canada. Water Resour Res 45:W11417, doi:  10.1029/2008WR007424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rakowska MI, Kupryianchyk D, Harmsen J, Grotenhuis T, Koelmans AA. 2012. In situ remediation of contaminated sediments using carbonaceous materials: A critical review. Environ Toxicol Chem 31:693–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reible DD, Lampert DJ, Constant D, Mutch Jr RD, Zhu Y. 2006. Active capping demonstration in the Anacostia River, Washington, DC. Remediat J 17:39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rodriguez JF, Admiraal DM, Lopez D, Garcia MH. 2002. Unsteady bed shear stresses induced by navigation: Laboratory observations. J Hydraul Eng 128:515–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shear NM, Schmidt CW, Huntley SL, Crawford DW, Finley BL. 1996. Evaluation of the factors relating combined sewer overflows with sediment contamination of the lower Passaic River. Mar Pollut Bull 32:288–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sun M, Yan F, Zhang RL, Reible DD, Lowry GV and Gregory KB. 2010. Redox control and hydrogen production in sediment caps using carbon cloth electrodes. Environ Sci Technol 44:8209–8215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005. Procedures for the Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks (ESBs) for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Metal Mixtures(Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Nickel, Silver and Zinc). EPA-600-R-02-011.USEPA, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  38. Van der War L, Jager T, Fleuren RHLJ, Barendregt A, Sinnige TL, van Gestel CAM, Hermens JLM. 2004. Solid phase microextraction as a tool to predict internal concentrations of soil contaminants in terrestrial organisms after exposure to a field-contaminated soil. Environ Sci Technol 38:4842–4848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wilson J, Rocha C. 2012. Regional scale assessment of submarine groundwater discharge in Ireland combining medium resolution satellite imagery and geochemical tracing techniques. Remote Sens Environ 119:21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yan F, Reible DD. 2012. PAH degradation and redox control in an electrode enhanced sediment cap. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 87:1222–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. You J, Landrum PF, Trimble TA, Lydy MJ. 2009. Availability of polychlorinated biphenyls in field-contaminated sediment. Environ Toxicol Chem 26:1940–1948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zhang T, Gannon SM, Nevin KP, Franks AE, Lovley DR. 2010. Stimulating the anaerobic degradation of aromatic hydrocarbons in contaminated sediments by providing an electrode as the electron acceptor. Environ Microbiol 12:1011–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Danny D. Reible
    • 1
  • Alicia J. Shepard
    • 2
  1. 1.University of TexasAustinUSA
  2. 2.HydroGeoLogic Inc.RestonUSA

Personalised recommendations