{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029133284777858703, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008011653313911144, 'mean_word_length': 5.229024943310658, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Appendix A: Updated Assessment of In Situ Treatment Techologies | Revised Corrective Measures Study Report - October 2010

submitted by the General Electric Company (GE) for the Rest of River in May 2007 presented a review and evaluation of in situ treatment technologies for sediment and soil. That section provided a justification for the screening of such technologies from further consideration in the Corrective Measures Study (CMS). A copy of that section is attached as Attachment A-1. As part of the development of the Revised CMS Report, GE conducted a review of current innovative in situ treatment technologies for PCBs in sediment and soil to update the discussion included in the CMS Proposal Supplement. As with the prior review, potential in situ treatment options were evaluated using available information from several EPA websites (including EPA's Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation [SITE] Program, Clu-in, and the Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable) and various other project and vendor websites. The information summarized below includes data and/or updates from projects that have become available since development of the CMS Proposal Supplement, and should be considered along with the information provided in the CMS Proposal Supplement (Attachment A-1). Sediment In situ treatment technologies (biological, physical, and chemical) for sediment sites continue to be under development, but none has been implemented full-scale at a PCB site. Research on in situ biological treatment of sediments is continuing, but at this time, it is unclear whether the limitations of this technology (as described in the CMS Proposal Supplement) can be overcome and, if so, when. The same is true for in situ chemical treatment technologies. However, since submittal of the CMS Proposal Supplement, several efforts have been made to evaluate the effect of the application of activated carbon (AC) on bioavailability of contaminants in sediment. Laboratory studies by Sun and Ghosh (2008) have focused on the effects of AC amendment on bio-uptake reduction in PCB-containing sediment at four sites in the Great Lakes Area of Concern – Niagara River (NY), Grasse River (NY), and two locations on the Milwaukee River (WI). Results from these studies indicate that application of AC can reduce the aqueous dissolved PCB concentrations and bioavailable PCBs, Appendix A resulting in reductions of PCB bioaccumulation by benthic organisms and, in turn, of PCB transfer up the food chain. Specifically, results from these studies showed that " [a]ctivated carbon addition at 0.5 times [the] native organic carbon to the sediments reduced PCB bioaccumulation by 42% for Niagara River sediment, 85% for Grasse River sediment, 74% …