1 Starting Soon Remedy Selection for Contaminated Sediments

1 Starting Soon: Remedy Selection for Contaminated Sediments ITRC Remedy Selection for Contaminated Sediments (CS 2, 2014) http: //www. itrcweb. org/contseds_remedy-selection/ Download Power. Point file • Clu-in training page at http: //www. clu-in. org/conf/itrc/Cont. Sed. Rem/ • Under “Download Training Materials” Download flowchart for reference during the training class • http: //www. cluin. org/conf/itrc/Cont. Sed. Rem/ITRCSediment. Remedy. Evaluation. pdf Using Adobe Connect • Related Links (on right) § Select name of link § Click “Browse To” • Full Screen button near top of page Follow ITRC

2 Welcome – Thanks for joining this ITRC Training Class Remedy Selection for Contaminated Sediments http: //www. itrcweb. org/contseds_remedy-selection/ Sponsored by: Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (www. itrcweb. org) Hosted by: US EPA Clean Up Information Network (www. cluin. org)

3 Housekeeping Course time is 2¼ hours This event is being recorded Trainers control slides • Want to control your own slides? You can download presentation file on Clu-in training page Questions and feedback • Throughout training: type in the “Q & A” box • At Q&A breaks: unmute your phone with #6 to ask out loud • At end of class: Feedback form available from last slide § Need confirmation of your participation today? Fill out the feedback form and check box for confirmation email and certificate Copyright 2017 Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, 50 F Street, NW, Suite 350, Washington, DC 20001

4 ITRC (www. itrcweb. org) – Shaping the Future of Regulatory Acceptance ITRC Team on Contaminated Sediments Disclaimer • Full version in “Notes” section • Partially funded by the U. S. government § ITRC nor US government warranty material § ITRC nor US government endorse specific products ITRC CS-2, 2014: Appendix B: Team Contact List ITRC materials available for your use – see usage policy Available from www. itrcweb. org • Technical and regulatory guidance documents • Online and classroom training schedule Follow ITRC • More…

5 Meet the ITRC Trainers Kendrick Jaglal Sara Michael CAL-EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control Cypress, CA 714 -816 -1983 smichael@dtsc. ca. gov Steve Clough Haley & Aldrich, Inc. Manchester, NH 603 -391 -3341 sclough@ haleyaldrich. com O'Brien & Gere Syracuse, NY 315 -956 -6465 Kendrick. Jaglal@obg. com Tamara Sorell Brown and Caldwell Andover, MA 978 -983 -2046 tsorell@brwncald. com Rick Beach GZA Philadelphia, PA 267 -464 -3621 Richard. Beach@gza. com

6 Poll Question: What is Your Experience Level with Contaminated Sediment Management? On a scale of 1 to 5, how much knowledge and experience do you have related to contaminated sediment sites? 1 = sediments expert 3 = some knowledge/confidence 5 = little or no experience Meco Ditch, Wilmington, Delaware

7 Sediment Contamination and Fish Advisories in the U. S. No statewide freshwater advisories Statewide advisories for freshwater Statewide advisories for lakes Statewide coastal advisories Source: EPA National Fish Tissue Advisory Database - 2011

8 ITRC Contaminated Sediments – Bioavailability Team ITRC’s Incorporating Bioavailability Considerations into the Assessment of Contaminated Sediment Sites (ITRC CS-1, 2011) http: //www. itrcweb. org/contseds-bioavailability/

9 Why Develop this ITRC Sediment Remediation Guidance? Sediment sites are unique and often very complex • Multiple sources, contaminants, habitats and waterway use • Increased challenges • Evaluation and selection of optimal remedy can be complicated Absence of remedy selection framework and comparison in current literature Move Forward: • Advance existing technologies • Present new technologies • Often requires a multidisciplinary approach Meco Ditch, Wilmington, DE

10 Why Use This Guidance? To assist in determining appropriate data necessary to select a remedy: (Monitored Natural Recovery (MNR) /Enhanced MNR (EMNR), In-Situ, Capping, Dredging/Removal) To evaluate best known practices and alternatives It’s a springboard to the latest information For its Framework for site-specific evaluation For its Technology Assessment Guidelines TAG To address applicability of remedial technologies To guide you through alternative evaluation and remedy selection For its 80+ case studies Take note: This guidance does NOT address variability of requirements among local, state and federal or tribal regulations.

11 Sediment Remedy Evaluation Framework 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Review characteristics Zone mapping Screening Technology evaluation Develop alternatives Evaluate alternatives Figure 2 -1. Decision matrix flow chart

12 Advantages of Web Document First and foremost…functionality • On-line comprehensive resource Technology selection • Driven by site-specific data Technology Assessment Guidelines • Advice from national experts Remedial alternative evaluation • By zone • Technologies in combination Site-specific worksheets TAG

13 Advantages of Today’s Training Provides • Overview of full document content • Guidance on functionality built into the document • Examples and guidance on how to use the decision framework most effectively Enables you to ask questions of ITRC Contaminated Sediment Team members about this document. . today. . using the interactive question pod.

14 What you can do after this training! Identify • Site characteristics • Data needs Evaluate • Favorable technology(s) • Applicable alternatives Apply • Your expert know-how NVF-Yorklyn facility, Yorklyn, DE

15 Assumptions Nature and extent of contaminants of concern (COCs) has been characterized sufficiently in conjunction with a conceptual site model (CSM) Completed human and ecological risk assessments confirm that site risks are unacceptable Other environmental endpoints (receptors) to be protected have been identified Contaminant loading has been controlled or determined Remedial action objectives (RAOs) have been established with stakeholder input

16 Introduction to Example Site Hypothetical urban waterway Industrial site • COCs are PCBs, lead, chlordane Multiple site characteristics/features • • Bulkheads Soft sediments Habitat areas Debris/infrastructure Assumptions – remember ! • • Remedial Investigation (RI) completed Remedial action objectives (RAOs) developed Receptors are benthic invertebrates and fish Sources are sufficiently identified, evaluated, and controlled Example Site

17 Training Outline Introduction Remedy Selection and Evaluation Framework 1. Review of site characteristics 2. Remedial zone identification and mapping 3. Screening of remedial technologies 4. Evaluation of remedial technologies interactive worksheet available for download 5. Development of remedial action alternatives 6. Evaluation of remedial action alternatives Monitoring Stakeholder Concerns and Summary

18 Step 1: Review Site Characteristics Often requires additional data Supplemental RI or PDIs to support the CSM • • Physical Sediment Contaminant Land waterway use Section 2. 4

19 Characteristics Considered in Remedy Selection: Physical Infrastructure • Bulkheads, pilings Bathymetry • Debris fields, dams Hydrodynamics • Tides, scour, channel sinuosity Slope stability • Littoral zone GW/SW interaction Habitat • Submerged aquatic vegetation

20 Characteristics Considered in Remedy Selection: Sediment Geotechnical • Grain size distribution Potential for resuspension • Sed. Flume testing Sediment consolidation • Important to cap design Benthic community structure • Supports fish and wildlife Benthic Community Oxidized Zone Anoxic Zone Photo courtesy Germano & Associates, Inc.

21 Characteristics Considered in Remedy Selection: Contaminant Background Upstream influences Contaminant type Ebullition Distribution Bioavailability Exposure Bioaccumulation Biomagnification

22 Characteristics Considered in Remedy Selection: Land Waterway Current and anticipated use • Land • Waterway Site access Watershed characteristics Sensitive habitat and species Cultural/archeological resources

23 Step 2. Remedial Zone Identification and Mapping May help support the development of multiple remedial alternatives. Identify zones based on site-specific characteristics (e. g. lower energy deposition vs. higher energy erosion). High energy erosion Low energy deposition Section 2. 5 2.

24 Approach for Zone Identification Start with identification of contaminant distribution Evaluate other distinguishing characteristics Number of zones will always be site-specific (i. e. very simple to highly complex, depending on lines-of-evidence) Conceptual Example x Depositional Zone flu r e at w d un one Z Gro

25 Zone Delineation Example Simple grid, uniform bathymetry Multiple lines-of-evidence (MLE): Porewater and biological responses of various metrics used to determine mixed remedy

26 Example Site: Benchmark Screening PCBs 2 – 60 61 – 600 601 – 27, 000 Lead 3 – 35 36 – 128 129 – 950 Chlordane 0. 02 – 3. 24 – 17. 60 17. 61 – 660. 00

27 Example Site: Continuing Example with Only Zone 3 Bulkhead area Soft sediment and habitat area Debris and sediment deposition area

28 Step 3: Screening of Remedial Technologies Table 2 -3 provides a downloadable spreadsheet containing questions pertaining to each remedial technology Filling the cells with specific data will help you evaluate remedial technologies and determine their applicability The exercise may also help eliminate one or more technologies from further consideration Section 2. 6

29 Initial Screening of Remedial Technologies Worksheet Table 2 -3: spreadsheet with questions on each remedial technology (a process of elimination)

30 Rows for Enhanced Monitored Natural Recovery (EMNR)

31 Screening Worksheet – Table 2 -3 Work through the Initial Screening tab which also includes questions addressing • • • In situ treatment Conventional capping Amended capping Dry excavation Wet excavation (dredging) Click to Generate Remedial Technology Evaluation Worksheet Bottom of spreadsheet generates next worksheet for remedial technology evaluation

32 Training Outline Introduction Remedy Selection and Evaluation Framework 1. Review of site characteristics 2. Remedial zone identification and mapping 3. Screening of remedial technologies 4. Evaluation of remedial technologies interactive worksheet available for download 5. Development of remedial action alternatives 6. Evaluation of remedial action alternatives Monitoring Stakeholder Concerns and Summary

33 Poll Question: What technologies have you utilized in your work? Monitored natural recovery Enhanced monitored natural recovery In situ treatment Conventional caps Amended (reactive) caps Hydraulic dredging Mechanical dredging Excavation (dry)

34 Step 4: Evaluation of Remedial Technologies Detailed section on each technology Determine most favorable technology(ies) Technology Assessment Guidelines help evaluate applicability Section 2. 7

35 Technology Summary Monitored Natural Recovery (MNR) and Enhanced MNR (EMNR) (Section 3) In-situ treatment (Section 4) Conventional and amended Capping (Section 5) Removal (Section 6) – hydraulic, mechanical and dry excavation Each section • • Describes technology Recent developments Technology Assessment Guidelines Case Studies TAG

36 Monitored Natural Recovery (MNR) & Enhanced MNR (EMNR) MNR • Relies on natural processes: burial, mixing, dispersion, degradation Suspended Sediment Natural Deposition Contaminated EMNR • Uses the application of technologies to enhance natural recovery processes § Thin layer cap § Amendments Section 3 Mixing of Activated Carbon (AC) Layer by Bioturbation

37 In Situ Treatment approaches • Biological, chemical, physical Combinations Keys to success • Proper amendment selection Caisson • Delivery method • Recognize limitations Sediments Evolving technology Source: Clu-in. org • Activated carbon developed • Solidification/stabilization in Gowanus Canal Record of Decision (ROD) Section 4

38 Capping Placement of clean material over sediment in order to: • Stabilize • Isolate contaminated sediment • Physically separate benthic community from sediment Armoring to protect cap may be necessary Amendments available Habitat considerations Section 5

39 Removal Most common technology employed • Dredging § Hydraulic § Mechanical • Excavation Support processes • Dewatering/ conditioning • Transport • Disposal • Beneficial use Section 6 4 Rs: resuspension, residuals, release & risk

40 TAG Technology Assessment Guidelines Quantitative and qualitative guidelines of characteristics provided in technology sections Based on simplified models, relationships and experience Site-specific information Intended to be used as practical guidelines in a weight of evidence approach, not as pass/fail criteria

41 Technology Evaluation Table 2 -4. Summary of key site characteristics for remedial technologies and links to Technology Assessment Guidelines MNR Sediment Deposition Rate H 3. 4. 1. 2

42 TAG Technology Assessment Guideline in blue font

43 Technology Evaluation Table 2 -4. Summary of key site characteristics for remedial technologies and links to Technology Assessment Guidelines Removal Dredging Hydraulic Presence of Hard Bottom H 6. 6. 6

44 TAG Technology Assessment Guideline in blue font

45 Example Site: Zone 3 Table 2 -5: Remedial Technology Evaluation Worksheet MNR Sediment Deposition Rate Presence of Debris Net deposition rate positive for MNR Removal Dredging Hydraulic Could be a significant problem for hydraulic dredge, and increase resuspension Complete for all characteristics and all zones, use notes if helpful. BE THOROUGH!

46 Example Site: Zone 3 Table 2 -5: Remedial Technology Evaluation Worksheet Technology Summary Examples

47 Example Site: Zone 3 Table 2 -5: Remedial Technology Evaluation Worksheet Generate report after worksheet completed Evaluation Report. More information in next section

48 Questions and Answers Follow ITRC

49 Training Outline Introduction Remedy Selection and Evaluation Framework 1. Review of site characteristics 2. Remedial zone identification and mapping 3. Screening of remedial technologies 4. Evaluation of remedial technologies interactive worksheet available for download 5. Development of remedial action alternatives 6. Evaluation of remedial action alternatives Monitoring Stakeholder Concerns and Summary

50 Step 5: Development of Remedial Action Alternatives Evaluate remedial technologies based on site specific characteristics Technologies deemed most favorable based are assembled into remedial action alternatives Remedial alternatives can be assembled for single or multiple zones Section 2. 8

51 Example Site: Review – Identification of Remedial Zones Initial identification is based on contaminant distribution • Three areas identified Refine remedial zones based on site specific conditions • Remedial Zone 1 – no subdivision needed • Remedial Zone 2 – three sub zones identified based on contaminant type, groundwater discharge and habitat considerations • Remedial Zone 3 – three sub zones identified based on infrastructure, sediment strength and presence of debris Focus on Remedial Zone 3

52 Example Site: Remedial Zone 3 – MNR/EMNR and Capping Favored Bulkhead area Soft sediment and habitat area Debris and sediment deposition area • Zones with extensive infrastructure and/or debris make dredging unfavorable • Sediment deposition rates favorable for MNR/EMNR • Soft sediment may require special cap design • Habitat area favors less invasive technologies • Some contaminants amenable to in-situ treatment • Sediment deposition will improve capping performance

53 Example Site: Review - Technology Screening Technology Remedial Zone 3 Bulkhead Area Remedial Zone 3 Soft Sediment Habitat Area Remedial Zone 3 Debris and Deposition Area MNR Retained EMNR Retained In-Situ Treatment Retained Conventional Capping Retained Reactive Capping Retained Excavation (Dry) Eliminated Dredging (Wet) Retained

54 Example Site: Results of Technology Evaluation

55 Example Site: Remedial Alternative Development Consider a range of alternatives covering retained remedial technologies • MNR/EMNR, treatment, reactive and conventional capping and mechanical dredging effective for Remedial Zone 3 Remedial alternatives should be evaluated to ensure that they meet RAOs • MNR generally does not meet RAOs within a reasonable time frame for Remedial Zone 3 The most favorable alternatives should be retained for detailed analysis • Dredging along bulkhead is not implementable

56 Example Site: Remedial Alternative Development Remedial Zone Treatment and MNR/EMNR Based Capping and Treatment Based Dredging and Capping Based Remedial Zone 3 – Bulkhead Area In-Situ Treatment Conventional Cap Reactive Cap Remedial Zone 3 – Soft Sediment In-Situ Treatment Conventional Cap Dredge and cap residuals Remedial Zone 3 – Depositional Area EMNR In-Situ Treatment Conventional Cap

57 Step 6: Evaluation of Remedial Action Alternatives Evaluate remedial action alternatives according to appropriate regulatory framework Typically requires evaluation of • Long-term effectiveness, short-term impacts, implementability and cost • Exact criteria is dependent on regulatory requirements Incorporate modifying criteria • community concerns and sustainability Section 2. 9

58 Evaluation Principles and Criteria Focus on achieving RAOs and net risk reduction • Estimate degree of risk reduction at completion and over time • Recognize that MNR is likely a component of all sediment remedies Maximize long term risk reduction while minimizing short term impacts • Active remediation can increase short term impacts • Less aggressive alternatives may not achieve long term remedial goals

59 Risk Reduction and Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) Predicted Tissue Concentration (mg/kg) Predicted Fish Tissue Concentration vs. Cost (Time = 0) Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 meet remedial goal (0. 05 mg/kg tissue concentration) more quickly but at greater cost. Cost ($ Millions) Figure 2 -2. Risk reduction (represented by fish tissue concentration) versus cost of various alternatives. Source: Modified from Bridges et al. 2012, Figure 1.

60 Risk Reduction and RAOs: Years to Achieve Protectiveness Concentration (ug/kg) 400 Alt. 1 Long-term reductions may become indistinguishable between alternatives but recognize uncertainty in long term predictions. 300 200 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Remedial Goal 100 0 0 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 10 20 30 40 50 Years from Beginning of Construction 60 Figure 2 -4. Estimated final concentration of COPC after implementation to demonstrate long-term effectiveness of each alternative

61 Evaluation Principles and Criteria Address areas of contamination that may be an ongoing source • Address in-water sediment sources that limit MNR effectiveness • Addressing more in-water sediment sources through active remediation will generally increase the effectiveness of MNR Acknowledge and manage uncertainty • Adaptive management frameworks • Interim and contingent remedies Balance cost against overall effectiveness • Costs should be proportional to overall effectiveness

Weighted Benefits and Associated Cost by Alternative Weighted Benefits by Criteria 6 90 80 5 Permanence Protectiveness 70 4 60 50 3 40 2 30 Permanance Long-Term Effectiveness Short Term Risk 20 1 0 Cost (SM) 62 10 Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alternative 0 Figure 2 -5. Weighted benefits and associated cost by alternative. Implementability Concerns of the Community

63 Evaluation Principles and Criteria Address specific regulatory requirements • Threshold, balancing and modifying criteria Manage risk • Uncertainty and cost Recognize role of complementary regulatory programs to address watershed contributions Incorporate green and sustainable remediation concepts • Environmental, social, and economic impacts • See also ITRC’s Green and Sustainable Remediation: A Practical Framework (GSR-2, 2011) Incorporate habitat and resource restoration • Mitigation and restoration

64 Example Site: Remedial Alternative Evaluation Remedial Zone Preferred Alternative Evaluation Outcome Remedial Zone 3 – Bulkhead Area Conventional Cap Conventional cap is sufficient to meet RAOs. In-situ treatment may not achieve RAOs due to low target cleanup levels. Remedial Zone 3 – Soft Sediment In-Situ Treatment In-situ treatment will meet cleanup goals, reduces short term habitat impacts, and is easily implementable. Remedial Zone 3 – Depositional Area EMNR will achieve cleanup goals, is implementable and cost effective.

65 Training Outline Introduction Remedy Selection and Evaluation Framework 1. Review of site characteristics 2. Remedial zone identification and mapping 3. Screening of remedial technologies 4. Evaluation of remedial technologies interactive worksheet available for download 5. Development of remedial action alternatives 6. Evaluation of remedial action alternatives Monitoring Stakeholder Concerns and Summary

66 Monitoring: Critical Component of any Remedial Action Understand baseline conditions Measure important variables during construction • For example: turbidity associated with resuspension during remedy implementation Determine whether remedy performed as expected • For example: surface sediment concentrations post remedy Evaluate effectiveness • For example, reduction in fish tissue concentrations over time Section 7

67 Monitoring Timeline Delineation, risk, remedial footprint Pre-remediation values for selected metrics Data to determine if construction-specific performance metrics and controls (e. g. , water, suspension) are met Surface sediment concentrations to show cleanup levels were met Long-term data to show progress toward meeting RAQs (e. g. , fish tissue, eco recovery)

68 Objectives and Measures Establish monitoring program objectives State the questions that need to be answered to meet objectives • Baseline • Construction • Post remediation Determine measures needed to satisfy monitoring program objectives § Performance Define sampling units and monitoring boundaries Specify how data will be used to satisfy the objectives Consider Uncertainty Design the monitoring program § Effectiveness Determine measures needed to answer the stated questions • Physical properties • Concentrations of contaminants in sediment, water, and biota or surrogates • Biological characteristics

69 Boundaries and Measurements Establish monitoring program objectives Boundaries • Explain where, what and when monitoring Determine measures needed to satisfy monitoring program objectives measurements must represent § Map the zones or portions of the environment for which a separate conclusion is desired § Specify portion of physical environment from which one or more samples may be taken § Timeframe for comparisons to evaluate performance Define sampling units and monitoring boundaries Specify how data will be used to satisfy the objectives How measures are used • Document how every measurement taken Consider Uncertainty will be used to answer a stated question § How will data be summarized § What findings will result in an action? Design the monitoring program

70 Data Confidence and Design Establish monitoring program objectives Determine measures needed to satisfy monitoring program objectives Define sampling units and monitoring boundaries State the confidence desired in seeing changes of a specified magnitude • Based on expected performance of remedy • Based on desire to avoid consequences of incorrect findings (over or under estimate of remedy performance) Design the monitoring program • Type and location of samples to represent Specify how data will be used to satisfy the objectives Consider Uncertainty Design the monitoring program the areas of interest. • Frequency and number of samples per sampling event required to provide desired confidence

71 Example Monitoring Measures Monitoring Phase Monitoring Objectives Monitoring Measures and Example Measurements Baseline Monitoring Establish site-specific baseline conditions prior to remedial action Sediment, Pore Water, Water Column, Tissue - contaminant concentrations; bioavailability / bioaccumulation; equilibrium partitioning of contaminants; geochemical profile: suspended solids, AVS-SEM, TOC, DO, chloride, phosphate, sulfate, nitrite, ammonia, etc. Sediment - grain size, bathymetry, drift Removal /isolation / reduction in contaminant concentrations; control of sediment resuspension; achievement of projectspecific criteria (e. g. , dredge depth, cap thickness, project schedule/budget) Sediment, Water Column resuspension of solids, basic water quality parameters Sediment - cap, dredge, or sedimentation thickness (as appropriate) by side scan sonar, bathymetry Achievement of projectspecific remedial action criteria within project time schedule; improvement of human health and environmental quality; restoration / rehabilitation of natural resources Sediment, Pore Water, Water Column, and Tissue - decreasing trend in surface sediment/pore water/surface water contaminant concentrations and/or bioavailability over time, decrease in tissue concentrations for eco receptors, stabilization of geochemistry Construction Monitoring Long-Term Monitoring of Remedy Performance and Effectiveness Chemical Physical Porewater - expression Water column - temp, turbidity, demand analyses Water quality - changes in temp, turbidity, p. H, DO Sediment - changes in grain size, bathymetry, drift, resuspension over time Porewater - changes in expression, contaminant equilibrium partitioning Water quality - changes in turbidity, DO, BOD, ORP Biological Aquatic, Benthic and Shoreline Habitats - habitat type and quality, species biodiversity, community populations, contaminant bioaccumulation impacts Habitat Impacts - presence of endangered species, noise impacts during bird nesting or fish migration/spawning windows Habitat Rehabilitation and Restoration - aquatic, benthic and shoreline surveys of species biodiversity, species diversity and mortality, population size, aquatic toxicity, bioaccumulation impact, sustainability, and habitat quality

72 Poll Questions Have you been involved in assessing performance based on fish tissue analyses? • Yes • No If you have been involved in a fish tissue analysis, did it include. . . • Mercury • Methlymercury • Neither

20 18 20 17 20 16 20 15 20 14 20 13 20 12 20 11 20 10 20 09 20 08 Mercury in bass tissue, whole body (ug/kg) 1600 400 1200 300 800 200 400 100 0 0 Mercury in surface sediment (mg/kg) 73 Fish Tissue and Surface Sediment Mercury Remediation Monitoring Cap constructed

74 Training Outline Introduction Remedy Selection and Evaluation Framework 1. Review of site characteristics 2. Remedial zone identification and mapping 3. Screening of remedial technologies 4. Evaluation of remedial technologies interactive worksheet available for download 5. Development of remedial action alternatives 6. Evaluation of remedial action alternatives Monitoring Stakeholder Concerns and Summary

75 Stakeholder Concerns – Chapter 8 Public Trust Doctrine • State governments must manage and protect certain natural resources for the sole benefit of their citizens, both current and future. • The public resource concept is therefore critical to remedial decisions at sediment sites. Risk reduction alone may not return the resource to fishable and swimmable conditions, which are the goals of the Clean Water Act Partnerships on remedial decisions are beneficial A long-term view of water shed is beneficial Section 8

76 Stakeholder Concerns – Watershed View Bioaccumulative and endocrine disruptor compounds are significant contributors to regional sediment impacts and fish advisories. (e. g. Great Lakes, Chesapeake, coastal fisheries systems) Groundwater and sediment interactions transport contamination to aquatic environments (i. e. hyporheic zone) A clean sediment environment is equally important for economic, recreational, and subsistence fishing for tribal and community health See Chapter 8 for additional information

77 Stakeholder Concerns – Regional Ecosystems Cumulative impact of multiple sediment sites affect regional aquatic ecosystems. Clean sediments form the base of a sustainable food web for aquatic organisms, wildlife, and people. Identify and engage stakeholders early and often !

78 Course Summary Remedy Selection Framework (Chapter 2): 1. Site-characteristics 2. Defining remedial zones 3. Preliminary screening 4. Detailed evaluation of site-specific data (Chapters 3 – 6) § Technology Overviews and Technology Assessment Guidelines TAG 5. Development of remedial action alternatives § Technology Assessment Guidelines/Weight of Evidence TAG 6. Evaluation of remedial action alternatives Worksheets to compile/compare site-specific data/information Monitoring concerns/considerations (Chapter 7) Public and tribal stakeholder viewpoints (Chapter 8) Technology overviews (Chapters 3 – 6): • Links to recommended/relevant publications • Technology Assessment Guidelines TAG

79 Course Summary (Continued) Advantages of the Guidance: • Online and interactive…point, click…go • Covers all available remedial technologies • Technology selection/evaluation is driven by site-specific data • Provides Technology Assessment Guidelines technology evaluations • Case Studies TAG to inform NOW – we believe you have enhanced decision making capabilities to better: • Identify essential site specific data and information • Evaluate the particulars of technologies • Apply current and emerging methods and technologies

80 Follow ITRC Thank You 2 nd question and answer break Links to additional resources • http: //www. clu-in. org/conf/itrc/Cont. Sed. Rem/resource. cfm Feedback form – please complete • http: //www. clu-in. org/conf/itrc/Cont. Sed. Rem/feedback. cfm Need confirmation of your participation today? Fill out the feedback form and check box for confirmation email and certificate.