Sediment Dredging at Superfund Megasites Assessing the Effectiveness (2007) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix C: Summary of Remedial Action Objectives, Cleanup Levels (Numerical Remedial Goals), and Their Achievement at Sediment-Dredging Sites
Appendix C: Summary of Remedial Action Objectives, Cleanup Levels (Numerical Remedial Goals), and Their Achievement at Sediment-Dredging Sites
Pages 274-294
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 274... ...
Appendix C Summary of Remedial Action Objectives, Cleanup Levels (Numerical Remedial Goals) , and Their Achievement at Sediment-Dredging Sites Note: For additional details on sites, see Table 3-1.
|
From page 275... ...
Appendix C 275 Comments and Lessons Learned: Advances in dredging technology highlighted ability to dredge sediment accurately. Importance and difficulty of characterizing contaminant sediment deposits accurately.3 Importance of backfilling.
|
From page 276... ...
276 Sediment Dredging at Superfund Megasites Stated Cleanup Levels: No chemical specific cleanup levels given. "The primary cleanup target was the removal of sediment in the area of the former USS coke plant to ‘hard bottom,' or the underlaying shale bedrock.
|
From page 277... ...
Appendix C 277 Site: Commencement Bay―Head of Hylebos, Tacoma, WA Stated Remedial Action Objectives (Related to Sediment Removal) : Achieve "acceptable sediment quality in a reasonable time frame." Acceptable sediment quality is defined as "the absence of acute or chronic adverse effects on biological resources or significant human health risks." Reasonable time frame was further defined to be a period of 10 years to allow for natural recovery (via sedimentation)
|
From page 278... ...
278 Sediment Dredging at Superfund Megasites Were Remedial Action Objectives Achieved? Not confirmed through biologic sampling, but long-term monitoring has shown continued (10 years)
|
From page 279... ...
Appendix C 279 in adjacent areas, which required placement of additional thin layer of clean material. Biologic monitoring conducted as part of wider LDW site indicates increases in fish-tissue contaminant concentrations at project site (see text)
|
From page 280... ...
280 Sediment Dredging at Superfund Megasites Site: Harbor Island―Lockheed Shipyard, Seattle, WA Stated Remedial Action Objectives (Related to Sediment Removal) : "Reduce concentrations of hazardous substances to levels which will have no adverse effect on marine organisms by eliminating the exposure pathways associated with residual concentrations of these contaminants.
|
From page 281... ...
Appendix C 281 to characterize debris. Experienced contractors successfully completed sediment handling with careful site management and successfully reduced contaminant loss.
|
From page 282... ...
282 Sediment Dredging at Superfund Megasites contractors successfully completed sediment handling with careful site management to reduce contaminant loss. Implementation of BMPs throughout process train.
|
From page 283... ...
Appendix C 283 Comments and Lessons Learned: These cleanup criteria were apparently used to delineate area for remediation. In practice, chemical analyses were not used to verify removal of contaminated sediments.
|
From page 284... ...
284 Sediment Dredging at Superfund Megasites Comments and Lessons Learned: Baseline monitoring, although extensive, is not sufficient to inform long-term monitoring because it began after dredging had begun at the site. Thin layer of highly contaminated sediment and residuals have limited success at reaching 1 ppm.
|
From page 285... ...
Appendix C 285 completely, and residual layer was left. Post-dredging concentrations were similar to that before dredging.17 Site: Fox River (SMU 56/57)
|
From page 286... ...
286 Sediment Dredging at Superfund Megasites Enhance recolonization of surface sediments to support a healthy marine benthic infaunal community with multiple taxonomic groups (EPA 2000b)
|
From page 287... ...
Appendix C 287 indicates that sediment cleanup levels have been maintained although pore water exceedances and toxicity20 remain. Were Remedial Action Objectives Achieved?
|
From page 288... ...
288 Sediment Dredging at Superfund Megasites dredging in 1995 eliminates insight into concentration changes over time. No apparent trend in fish concentrations after dredging.
|
From page 289... ...
Appendix C 289 Site: Grasse River, NY Stated Remedial Action Objectives (Related to Sediment Removal) : Not a CERCLA remedy.
|
From page 290... ...
290 Sediment Dredging at Superfund Megasites Were Remedial Action Objectives Achieved? Results indicate reductions in transport26 and fish-tissue concentrations.27 Comments and Lessons Learned: Ability to overdredge.
|
From page 291... ...
Appendix C 291 Were Cleanup Levels Achieved? Average cleanup concentration level was met; it is unclear whether mass-removal goal was met.29 Were Remedial Action Objectives Achieved?
|
From page 292... ...
292 Sediment Dredging at Superfund Megasites Site: Marathon Battery, Hudson River, Cold Spring, NY Stated Remedial Action Objectives (Related to Sediment Removal) : Reduce cadmium in sediments to protect aquatic organisms and protect human health.
|
From page 293... ...
Appendix C 293 sediments; and to protect marine life by preventing direct contact with hot-spot area sediments. Stated Cleanup Levels: Short-term hot-spot goal, 4,000 ppm total PCBs (EPA 1990a)
|
From page 294... ...
294 Sediment Dredging at Superfund Megasites Dates of Remediation: 1996-1997. Were Cleanup Levels Achieved?
|
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.