This paper reviews general approaches for applying activated carbon (AC) amendments as an in situ sediment treatment remedy. In situ sediment treatment involves targeted placement of amendments using installation options that fall into two general approaches: 1) directly applying a thin layer of amendments (which potentially incorporates weighting or binding materials) to surface sediment, with or without initial mixing; and 2) incorporating amendments into a premixed, blended cover material of clean sand or sediment, which is also applied to the sediment surface. Over the past decade, pilot- or full-scale field sediment treatment projects using AC—globally recognized as one of the most effective sorbents for organic contaminants—were completed or were underway at more than 25 field sites in the United States, Norway, and the Netherlands. Collectively, these field projects (along with numerous laboratory experiments) have demonstrated the efficacy of AC for in situ treatment in a range of contaminated sediment conditions. Results from experimental studies and field applications indicate that in situ sequestration and immobilization treatment of hydrophobic organic compounds using either installation approach can reduce porewater concentrations and biouptake significantly, often becoming more effective over time due to progressive mass transfer. Certain conditions, such as use in unstable sediment environments, should be taken into account to maximize AC effectiveness over long time periods. In situ treatment is generally less disruptive and less expensive than traditional sediment cleanup technologies such as dredging or isolation capping. Proper site-specific balancing of the potential benefits, risks, ecological effects, and costs of in situ treatment technologies (in this case, AC) relative to other sediment cleanup technologies is important to successful full-scale field application. Extensive experimental studies and field trials have shown that when applied correctly, in situ treatment via contaminant sequestration and immobilization using a sorbent material such as AC has progressed from an innovative sediment remediation approach to a proven, reliable technology. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2015; 11:195–207. © 2014 The Authors. Published 2014 SETAC.

The fate and transport of hydrophobic organic chemicals (HOCs) is particularly complex in estuaries because of bidirectional longitudinal currents, density stratification, the tendency to trap sediments, and significant dilution in the downstream bay or ocean. Investigations of HOCs in estuaries are further complicated because HOCs typically enter from multiple sources. The distribution of contaminants in estuarine sediment beds reflect a time integration of a complex balance of time-and space-variable fate and transport processes and loading history. A unique opportunity to study HOC fate and transport exists in the Lower Passaic River (LPR), where a pesticide manufacturer was the dominant source of 2, 3,7,3,7, to the estuary and the distribution of this "tracer of opportunity" provides insights about fate and transport processes in estuarine systems. This paper presents observed sediment 2,3,7,8-TCDD patterns within the LPR and the adjacent Newark Bay, and interprets them in terms of fate and transport processes that likely distributed the contaminant from its dominant source, drawing upon other physical datasets as needed. Major observations include that estuarine transport processes have distributed 2,3,7,8-TCDD approximately 18 km upstream of the source and downstream across Newark Bay, and that, generally, HOC trapping processes within the LPR have been highly effective, particularly near the 2,3,7,8-TCDD source and in downstream areas. The present LPR surface sediment 2,3,7,8-TCDD distribution indicates spatially variable recovery, which appears broadly driven by historical net sedimentation patterns, though the dominant processes may be shifting as the system continues to evolve.

The lower Passaic River is an operable unit of the Diamond Alkali Superfund site at 80 and 120 Lister Avenue in Newark, New Jersey, USA. Between 1948 and 1969, the Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Company and its predecessors manufactured chemicals such as pesticides and phenoxy herbicides, including 2,4,5-trichlorophenol, which is a precursor to 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid, one of the primary components used to make the military defoliant Agent Orange. A by-product of this manufacturing process was 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD), and the site is considered the dominant source of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to the lower Passaic River and its environs. Several investigators have identified the ratio of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to total TCDD as a fingerprint for the site source. The present study presents data that establish polychlorinated dibenzodioxin/polychlorinated dibenzofuran (collectively, PCDD/F) congener and homolog fingerprints of soil and sump samples from the site. It then compares those fingerprints to the PCDD/F congener and homolog patterns in lower Passaic River sediments. The similarity of the patterns in lower Passaic River sediments to the site fingerprint indicates the site is the dominant source of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD in sediments within approximately the lower 14 miles of the lower Passaic River, excluding, for the purposes of the present discussion, Newark Bay. In addition, PCDD/F congener data indicate that the ratio of 1,3,7,8-TCDD to 2,3,7,8-TCDD is another marker of the site and corroborates the findings from the other fingerprints. Environ Toxicol Chem 2015;34:1485–1498. © 2015 The Authors. Published by SETAC.

No abstract

A fish‐consumption advisory is currently in effect in a seven‐mile stretch of the Grasse River in Massena, New York, due to elevated levels of PCBs in fish tissue. One remedial approach that is being evaluated to reduce the PCB levels in fish from the river is in situ capping. An in‐river pilot study was conducted in the summer of 2001 to assess the feasibility of capping PCB‐containing sediments of the river. The study consisted of the construction of a subaqueous cap in a seven‐acre portion of the river using various combinations of capping materials and placement techniques. Optimal results were achieved with a 1:1 sand/topsoil mix released from a clamshell bucket either just above or several feet below the water surface. A longer‐term monitoring program of the capped area commenced in 2002. Results of this monitoring indicated: 1) the in‐place cap has remained intact since installation; 2) no evidence of PCB migration into and through the cap; 3) groundwater advection through the cap is not an important PCB transport mechanism; and 4) macroinvertebrate colonization of the in‐place cap is continuing. Additional follow‐up monitoring in the spring of 2003 indicated that a significant portion of the cap and, in some cases, the underlying sediments had been disturbed in the period following the conclusion of the 2002 monitoring work. An analysis of river conditions in the spring of 2003 indicated that a significant ice jam had formed in the river directly over the capping pilot study area, and that the resulting increase in river velocities and turbulence in the area resulted in the movement of both cap materials and the underlying sediments. The pilot cap was not designed to address ice jam–related forces on the cap, as the occurrence of ice jams in this section of the river had not been known prior to the observations conducted in the spring of 2003. These findings will preclude implementation of the longer‐term monitoring program that had been envisioned for the pilot study. The data collected immediately after cap construction in 2001 and through the first year of monitoring in 2002 serve as the basis for the conclusions presented in this article. It should be recognized that, based on the observation made in the spring of 2003, some of these conclusions are no longer valid for the pilot study area.The occurrence of ice jams in the lower Grasse River and their importance on sediments and PCBs within the system are currently under investigation. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.