DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A – Unlimited Distribution (RSTI‐1808) 

A cost effective in situ approach for concurrent evaluation of site-specific sediment remedy performance and

recontamination potential G. Rosen1, I Rivera-Duarte1, J Carilli1, M Colvin1, J Guerrero1, J Conder2, M Jalalizadeh2, M

Vanderkooy3, R Adams4, D Moore5, B Chadwick6, K. Markillie7

1Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific, San Diego, CA; 2Geosyntec Consultants, Huntington Beach, CA); 3Geosyntec Consultants, Guelph, Ontario, Canada; 4Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA; 5US Army Engineer

Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS; 6Coastal Monitoring Associates, San Diego, CA; 7NAVFAC Pacific, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, HI

Remedy and Recontamination Assessment (RARA)

2

SERDP SEED Project ER-2537 (Dr. Bart Chadwick, lead), followed by NESDI 522 (Rosen/Rivera) and NAVFAC Pacific support (Markillie)– Direct measurement of recontamination potential– Concurrent assessment of impacts of a range of remedies– Increased realism compared to laboratory treatability studies – Reduced cost & complexity compared to large field scale pilot studies– Improved selection of appropriate remedy/remedies on site-specific basis

Prototype Design

3

Remedy and Recontamination Assessment (RARA) arrays to evaluate treatment performance in situ1

– Concurrent evaluation of a range of remedies

– Multiple lines of evidence including physical, chemical, biological

– Direct measurement of recontamination/recovery potential

– Low cost alternative or predecessor to pilot studies

Organismchambers

Benthic Community Sample

Sediment cores

Passive samplers

Case Studies

4

San Diego Bay Chollas Creek TMDL Site 303(d) listed, degraded benthic community 5 month study Natural sediment and clean sand thin layer capping

compared with unamended/relocated site sediment

Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard Complex Superfund site DU N-2 low contamination & deposition = No

action, MNR, EMNR, or limited AC under pier areas Natural sediment including two dredged materials

locally sourced, clean sand, and/or AC

San Diego Bay

Pearl Harbor

Case Study 1: San Diego Bay

5

3 treatments– Chollas Creek sediment– Chollas capped with 20 cm clean sand– Chollas capped with 20 cm clean sediment

Deployed pier-side SSC-Pacific test facility in San Diego Bay

3 sampling periods– Initiation

• Bulk Sediment (site and treatment materials)• Benthic Community (site sediment)

– Mid-point (~30 days post-deployment)• Clam & Passive Samplers

– Final (~90 days post-deployment)• Bulk Sediment• Sediment Traps• Clam & Passive Samplers• Benthic Community• Download of ADCP and WQ data

San Diego Bay Field Deployment

6

San Diego Bay Mid-Point Event

7

San Diego Bay Final Recovery

8

San Diego Bay Results – Bulk & Trap Sediments

9

Copper

Zinc

PCB

San Diego Bay Results – SiREM SP3™ (PE Passive Sampler)

10

PCB

San Diego Bay Results – Benthic Community

11

Relative Benthic Index

Control (C) Clean Sand (S) Low TOC (LC) High TOC (HC) AquaGate (AC)

Case Study 2: Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard Treatments

– Unamended (Control) site sediment– Clean sand (QuikRete #1113)– Low TOC: Dredged material from Confined Disposal Facility (Waipio Peninsula)– High TOC: Dredged material sourced from West Loch– AC: AquaGate+PAC™ mixed into top 2” of site sediment

0.7 <0.1 0.4 1.0 3.0TOC (%)

12

Case Study 2: Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard

13

25

Cap

Site sediment

Time 0 Treatment Data Examples

Example slides from Ignacio’s Time 0 set?

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

LOW TOC HIGH TOC SAND ACTIVATED CARBON CONTROL

Baselin

e Bu

lk Sed

imen

t (µg

/Kg)

Total PCBs Bulk Sed PRG

> 2m

< 2m

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

LOW TOC HIGH TOC SAND ACTIVATED CARBON CONTROLBa

selin

e Bu

lk Sed

imen

t (mg/Kg

)

Lead Bulk Sed PRG

Site sediment (Control) concentrations close to PRG, illustrating why this site is applicable for MNR/EMNR

ND ND

ND = Non Detect

14

Time 0 Treatment Data Examples

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

LOW TOC HIGH TOC SAND ACTIVATED CARBON CONTROL

Baselin

e Bu

lk Sed

imen

t (%)

Total Organic Carbon Bulk Sed

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LOW TOC HIGH TOC SAND ACTIVATED CARBON CONTROL

Baselin

e Bu

lk Sed

imen

t (%)

%Fines Bulk Sed

*

*Estimated based on recent studies. Note AC has significant greater binding capacity than natural TOC.15

30%

86%

64%

92%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

ENR HC LC AC

Redu

ctio

n in

[Cfre

ePC

B] fr

om

Untre

ated

Sed

imen

t(%

)

Treatment

A

B

C

A

74% 76%65%

92%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

ENR HC LC AC

Redu

ctio

n in

[Cfre

ePC

B] fr

om

Untre

ated

Sed

imen

t(%

)

Treatment

AA, B

BB

(Sand) (Sand)

PCB Cfree ReductionT= 2 months

AC performance is as expected with other lab and field demonstrations: ~90% reduction in availability HC is similar to AC in reducing PCB availability LC and ENR (Sand) less effective 2- and 10-month time points concur in terms of remedial efficacy 10-month monitoring indicates better remedial performance for all remedies, which were helped by an “MNR boost” of a

layer of cleaner sediment that deposited after the 2-month time period

Charts present average (SD) % reduction in PCB Cfree from untreated.  Within each figure, averages with the same letter are not statistically different (α = 0.05).

T = 10 months

16

Nephtys (Polychaete) Tissue tPCBs (10 months)

All treatments significantly lower than Control (site sediment) AC performance is as expected with other lab and field demonstrations: ~90% reduction HC, LC, and Sand (EMNR) similar in reduction of PCB availability Generally minimal differences in Benthic Community Metrics

020

4060

8010

0

Treatment

Perc

ent r

educ

tion

in P

CBs

vs.

Con

trol (

%)

Activated Carbon High Carbon Low Carbon Sand

17

Summary

18

RARA approach has been successfully demonstrated in two major US DoD harbors, and shows promise towards providing a cost effective in situ assessment of remedy performance under varying recontamination pressure:– $100-200K vs $1-2M+ for pilot scale studies– Temporal changes in sediment surface and pore water chemistry– Sediment deposition and contaminant loading via deposition– Bioavailability/bioaccumulation of sediment associated contaminants– Benthic community response/recovery

Next Steps

19

Transition to applications for EMNR and reactive amendments at these or other future remediation sites

Potential incorporation of additional parameters/instrumentation (i.e. new SPI technology, sediment tracers, etc.)

Diver-less deployment/recovery

Acknowledgements

20

Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) NAVFAC Pacific SSC-Pacific: Ken Richter, Brad Davidson, Ernie Arias San Diego State University Foundation: Nick Hayman, Jake Munson Geosyntec Consultants: Melissa Grover University of Michigan: Dr. Allen Burton and Shelly Hudson

Related Presentations*2:15 p.m. Tuesday Platform Session (B3. MNR and Enhanced MNR)

Gunther Rosen et al., Use of Natural Sediments Towards Enhanced Monitored Natural Recovery

*8:00 a.m. Tuesday Platform Session (B1. Cap Design and Monitoring) David Moore et al, Use of Dredged Material for Contaminated Sediment Source Control

*8:00 a.m. Wednesday Platform Session (D4. Contaminant Bioavailability and Uptake) Jason Conder et al., Situ Chemical Availability Recontamination Grab Observation (ESCARGO) for Rapid Assessment of Sediment Amendments

21