Brownfield Sites Remediation Technology Overview,Trends, and Opportunities in China

Over decades of economic development, China's industrialization has led to significant environmental issues due to unregulated discharges into air, water, and soil. As cities continue to expand (i.e., urbanization trend) and awareness/concerns about environmental pollution rises, many industrial facilities along the edge of or within the city boundaries have been relocated or closed. This urbanization trend leaves behind idled and abandoned land that is contaminated from the former industrial activities and unregulated discharges. China released its first nationwide soil quality survey in April 2014, and the survey suggests that soil conditions in China represent a significant challenge. China has encouraged local engineering firms to demonstrate soil treatment technologies through pilot‐scale studies, but the outcomes of many demonstrations have not been promising due to the lack of remediation experience and underdeveloped technical guidelines that are needed to guide the remediation processes. During the past decade, some local soil remediation experience has been established, but it is limited for certain technologies that address their primary contaminants of concern: heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants. In 2014, national technical guidelines were published regarding environmental investigation, risk assessment, monitoring, and remediation; however, regulations and funding systems are still underdeveloped. Thus, the remediation processes that should maximize economic and environmental benefits are not streamlined. This article provides an overview of the latest regulatory developments, remediation technologies applied, technology trends, and market opportunities in China. The provided information aims to allow international remediation practitioners to better understand and appreciate this unique and emerging remediation market, which is growing fast, and to highlight the importance of developing a sustainable model that not only provides for cleanup of the environment but also supports economic development. ©2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

The challenge of remediation technology development

A huge commercial environmental industry, currently estimated at some $130 billion in size in the United States alone, has sprung up to manage and remediate environmental problems. Hundreds of innovative remediation technologies are being developed under EPA's SITE program, which has provided R&D funding for more than 100 new treatment technologies. Despite the obvious demand, numerous regulatory, marketing, technical, and financial barriers have impeded progress in the field of remediation technology development. Developers of remediation technologies are faced with a significant challenge to overcome these barriers and successfully bring a technology to market. This article examines the barriers to technology development and offers strategic planning alternatives for long-term economic success and commercial viability of remediation technologies.     

Approaches for assessing hazards and risks to workers and the public from contaminated land

Many public agencies and private entities are faced with assessing the risks to humans from contamination on their lands. The United States Department of Energy (US DOE) and Department of Defense are responsible for large holdings of contaminated land and face a long‐term and costly challenge to assure sustainable protectiveness. With increasing interest in the conversion of brownfields to productive uses, many former industrial properties must also be assessed to determine compatible future land uses. In the United States, many cleanup plans or actions are based on the Comprehensive Environmental Responsibility, Compensation, and Liability Act, which provides important but incomplete coverage of these issues, although many applications have tried to involve stakeholders at multiple steps. Where there is the potential for exposure to workers, the public, and the environment from either cleanup or leaving residual contamination in place, there is a need for a more comprehensive approach to evaluate and balance the present and future risk(s) from existing contamination, from remediation actions, as well as from postremediation residual contamination. This article focuses on the US DOE, the agency with the largest hazardous waste remediation task in the world. Presented is a framework extending from preliminary assessment, risk assessment and balancing, epidemiology, monitoring, communication, and stakeholder involvement useful for assessing risk to workers and site neighbors. Provided are examples of those who eat fish, meat, or fruit from contaminated habitats. The US DOE's contaminated sites are unique in a number of ways: (1) huge physical footprint size, (2) types of waste (mixed radiation/chemical), and (3) quantities of waste. Proposed future land uses provide goals for remediation, but since some contamination is of a type or magnitude that cannot be cleaned up with existing technology, this in turn constrains future land use options, requiring an iterative approach. The risk approaches must fit a range of future land uses and end‐states from leave‐in‐place to complete cleanup. This will include not only traditional risk methodologies, but also the assessment and surveillance necessary for stewards for long‐term monitoring of risk from historic and future exposure to maintain sustainable protectiveness. Because of the distinctiveness of DOE sites, application of the methodologies developed here to other waste site situations requires site‐specific evaluation © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Sustainable Remediation Considerations for Treatment of 1,4‐Dioxane in Groundwater

1,4‐Dioxane remediation is challenging due to its physiochemical properties and low target treatment levels. As such, applications of traditional remediation technologies have proven ineffective. There are a number of promising remediation technologies that could potentially be scaled for successful application to groundwater restoration. Sustainable remediation is an important consideration in the evaluation of remediation technologies. It is critically important to consider sustainability when new technologies are being applied or new contaminants are being treated with traditional technologies. There are a number of social, economic, and environmental drivers that should be considered when implementing 1,4‐dioxane treatment technologies. This includes evaluating sustainability externalities by considering the cradle‐to‐grave impacts of the chemicals, energy, processes, transportation, and materials used in groundwater treatment. It is not possible to rate technologies as more or less sustainable because each application is context specific. However, by including sustainability thinking into technology evaluations and implementation plans, decisions makers can be more informed and the results of remediation are likely to be more effective and beneficial. There are a number sustainable remediation frameworks, guidance documents, footprint assessment tools, life cycle assessment tools, and best management practices that can be utilized for these purposes. This paper includes an overview describing the importance of sustainability in technology selection, identifies sustainability impacts related to technologies that can be used to treat 1,4‐dioxane, provides an approximating approach to assess sustainability impacts, and summarizes potential sustainability impacts related to promising treatment technologies. ©2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Nanoremediation and International Environmental Restoration Markets

Nanoscale zero‐valent iron (nZVI) is the most commonly used nanoremediation material. While there has been a reasonable level of application of nZVI technologies for in situ remediation in the United States, its utilization across Europe has been much more limited. There has been significant uncertainty about the balance between deployment risks and benefits for nanoparticles (NPs), which has affected the regulatory position in several countries. Some member states of the European Union (EU) take a strong precautionary view of the risks from the deployment of NPs into the subsurface, preventing the adoption of the technology. This article provides a risk–benefit assessment for nZVI based on published information and describes the steps that will be taken by a major European research project (NanoRem), as part of its work to provide a basis for better informed decision making in European environmental restoration markets. A key part of this process is dialogue between practitioners and researchers. NanoRem therefore has an active process of communication with different stakeholder networks (regulators, service providers, and site owners). NanoRem hopes to stimulate a consensus on appropriate use of nanoremediation and thereby stimulate effective technology transfer to the European remediation market. ©2015 The Authors     

Applying sustainable development principles to contaminated land management using the SuRF‐UK framework

In the past decade, management of historically contaminated land has largely been based on prevention of unacceptable risks to human health and the environment, to ensure a site is “fit for use.” More recently, interest has been shown in including sustainability as a decision‐making criterion. Sustainability concerns include the environmental, social, and economic consequences of risk management activities themselves, and also the opportunities for wider benefit beyond achievement of risk‐reduction goals alone. In the United Kingdom, this interest has led to the formation of a multistakeholder initiative, the UK Sustainable Remediation Forum (SuRF‐UK). This article presents a framework for assessing “sustainable remediation”; describes how it links with the relevant regulatory guidance; reviews the factors considered in sustainability; and looks at the appraisal tools that have been applied to evaluate the wider benefits and impacts of land remediation. The article also describes how the framework relates to recent international developments, including emerging European Union legislation and policy. A large part of this debate has taken place in the “grey” literature, which we review. It is proposed that a practical approach to integrating sustainability within risk‐based contaminated land management offers the possibility of a substantial step forward for the remediation industry, and a new opportunity for international consensus. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

1,4‐Dioxane: Emerging technologies for an emerging contaminant

The synthetic chemical, 1,4‐dioxane, is classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a probable human carcinogen. Between 2013 and 2015, the EPA detected 1,4‐dioxane in public drinking water supplies in 45 states at concentrations up to 33 µg/L and in groundwater from releases at hazardous waste sites across the United States. Although a Federal maximum contaminant level drinking water standard has not yet been proposed, state‐specific standards and criteria are as low as 0.3 µg/L. 1,4‐Dioxane is a recalcitrant chemical in that applications of conventional treatment technologies have had limited success in reducing concentrations in water to meet current and proposed health‐protective levels. Although mainly used as a stabilizer for the solvent 1,1,1‐trichloroethane, it has been used in other industrial processes and has been detected in a variety of consumer products, such as foods, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and detergents. The high aqueous solubility of 1,4‐dioxane coupled with limited solubility of chlorinated solvents typically found in conjunction with 1,4‐dioxane contamination is the primary reason for its treatment challenges. In the last several years, an alternative, cost‐effective technology has been developed that has demonstrated treatment to levels significantly lower than the Federal and state‐specific goals. This article provides a Federal and state‐by‐state summary of 1,4‐dioxane‐specific drinking water and groundwater concentration criteria and qualitative comparison of the effectiveness of conventional treatment technologies compared to the effectiveness of an alternative treatment technology. A case study is also provided to present details regarding the application of an alternative treatment technology at an active groundwater remediation site in California.     

Study of the future land use of a contaminated site: Preferences versus potential use

Worldwide, agencies with high levels of contamination are faced with decisions about remediation and restoration. These decisions should be informed by future land use and long‐term stewardship goals. In the United States, the Department of Energy has lands in some 34 states that require cleanup. They are involved in massive remediation and restoration efforts on lands from the Cold War legacy and wish to reduce their overall footprint. Understanding future land use preferences is essential for determining the nature and degree of remediation and restoration. The objective of this study was to examine future land use preferences for the Department of Energy's Los Alamos National Laboratory as a function of ethnicity for attendees at the Los Alamos Gun Show in New Mexico (1999), and to determine whether their own activity influences future land use preferences. The highest preferred future land uses for Los Alamos National Laboratory were hiking, camping, National Environmental Research Park, and birdwatching, followed by hunting and fishing. Increased nuclear waste storage and building homes and factories were rated the lowest. Further, hiking and camping were rated higher than at two other DOE sites. There were few ethnic differences, although American Indians rated camping, hiking, building houses, and returning the land to American Indians higher than did others, and Hispanics rated using it for a preserve as a higher preferred land use than all others. The differences, however, were not great. Relative ratings for using the land for hunting and fishing were directly related to individual frequency of hunting and fishing for both whites and Hispanics, indicating that people perceive the importance of land use by how they want to use it. Ratings for hiking and camping were not related to the number of days people hiked and camped, suggesting these are general preferences overall. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

1,4‐Dioxane Treatment Technologies

The chlorinated solvent stabilizer 1,4‐dioxane (DX) has become an unexpected and recalcitrant groundwater contaminant at many sites across the United States. Chemical characteristics of DX, such as miscibility and low sorption potential, enable it to migrate at least as far as the chlorinated solvent from which it often originates. This mobility and recalcitrance has challenged remediation professionals to redesign existing treatment systems and monitoring networks to accommodate widespread contamination. Furthermore, remediation technologies commonly applied to chlorinated solvent co‐contaminants, such as extraction and air stripping or in situ enhanced reductive dechlorination, are relatively ineffective on DX removal. These difficulties in treatment have required the industry to identify, develop, and demonstrate new and innovative technologies and approaches for both ex situ and in situ treatment of this emerging contaminant. Great strides have been made over the past decade in the development and testing of remediation technologies for removal or destruction of DX in groundwater. This article briefly summarizes the fate and transport characteristics of DX that make it difficult to treat, and presents technologies that have been demonstrated to be applicable to groundwater treatment at the field scale.  ©2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Alternatives to incineration in remediation of soil and sediments assessed

Contamination of soil and sediment by pollutants represents a major environmental challenge. Remediation of soil during the original Superfund years consisted primarily of dig and haul, capping, or containment. The 1986 amendments to CERCLA—SARA—provided the incentive for treatment and permanent remedies during site remediation. Thermal treatment, which routinely achieves the low cleanup criteria required by RCRA land-ban regulations, became one of the major technologies used for cleanup under the concept of ARAR. As the remediation industry matured and recognized specific market niches in soil remediation, a number of new technologies emerged. Thermal desorption, bioremediation, soil vapor extraction, soil washing, and soil extraction are being used on sites at which the technology offers advantages over incineration. In addition, a continuing stream of emerging technologies is being presented that requires careful evaluation relative to existing cleanup methods. Each of these technologies offers a range of options for achieving appropriate cleanup criteria, application to different soil matrices, cost, time of remediation, and public acceptability. Balancing cleanup criteria defined by regulation or risk assessment with technology cost and capability affords the opportunity to solve these problems with appropriate balance of cost and protection of human health and the environment.     

铁活化过硫酸盐修复石油烃污染土壤的研究进展

分析了Fe~0、Fe~(2+)和Fe~(3+)活化过硫酸盐氧化石油烃的机理,介绍了土壤中石油烃污染物降解的影响因素以及总结了铁活化过硫酸盐修复石油烃污染土壤技术的不足。指出应以铁活化过硫酸盐原位修复作为土壤中高浓度有机污染物的前处置方法,再结合微生物或植物修复等技术,以减少对土壤理化性质的影响;另外,检测仪器的发展有利于土壤修复技术的应用。     

Ten years later: The progress and future of integrating sustainable principles,practices, and metrics into remediation projects

In 2009, the Sustainable Remediation Forum released a white paper entitled “Integrating sustainable principles, practices, and metrics into remediation projects” (Ellis & Hadley, 2009, Remediation, 19, pp. 5–114). Sustainable remediation was a relatively new concept, and the white paper explored a range of approaches on how sustainability could be integrated into traditional remediation projects. This paper revisits the 2009 white paper, providing an overview of the early days of the evolving sustainable remediation practice and an assessment of the progress of sustainable remediation over the last 10 years with a primary focus on the United States. The current state of the sustainable remediation practice includes published literature, current practices and resources, applications, room for improvement, international progress, the virtuous cycle that applying sustainable remediation creates, and the status of the objectives cited in the 2009 white paper. Over the last decade, several sustainable remediation frontiers have emerged that will likely be a focus in advancing the practice. These frontiers include climate change and resiliency, weighting and valuation to help better consolidate different sustainable remediation metrics, programmatic implementation, and better integration of the societal impacts of sustainable remediation. Finally, as was the case for the 2009 white paper, this paper explores how sustainable remediation may evolve over the next 10 years and focuses on the events and drivers that can be significant in the pace of further development of the practice. The events and drivers include transformation impacts, societal influences, and the continued development of new technologies, approaches, and tools by remediation practitioners. The remediation industry has made significant progress in developing the practice of sustainable remediation and has implemented it successfully into hundreds of projects. While progress has been significant, an opportunity exists to implement the tenets of sustainable remediation on many more projects and explore new frontiers to help improve the communication, integration, and derived benefits from implementing sustainable remediation into future remediation projects.     

Treatment technology for remediation of wood preserving sites: Overview

This is the first in a series of five articles describing the applicability, performance, and cost of technologies for the remediation of contaminated soil and water at wood preserving sites. Site‐specific treatability studies conducted under the supervision of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL), from 1995 through 1997 constitute much of the basis for the evaluations presented, although data from other treatability studies, literature sources, and actual site remediations have also been included to provide a more comprehensive evaluation of remediation technologies. This article provides an overview of the wood preserving sites studied, including contaminant levels, and a summary of the performance of the technologies evaluated. The subsequent articles discuss the performance of each technology in more detail. Three articles discuss technologies for the treatment of soils, including solidification/stabilization, biological treatment, solvent extraction and soil washing. One article discusses technologies for the treatment of liquids, water and nonaqueous phase liquids (NAPLS), including biological treatment, carbon adsorption, photolytic oxidation, and hydraulic containment. The reader should be aware that other technologies including, but not limited to, incineration, thermal desorption, and base catalyzed dehalogenation, also have application for treating contaminants on wood preserving sites. They are not discussed in these five articles since the focus was to evaluate lesser known and hopefully lower cost approaches. However, the reader should include consideration of these other technologies as part of any evaluation or screening of technologies applicable to remediation of wood preserving sites.     

End‐state land uses,sustainably protective systems,and risk management: A challenge for remediation and multigenerational stewardship

This article discusses creating a sustainably protective engineered and human management system in perpetuity for sites with long‐lived radiological and chemical hazards. This is essential at this time because the federal government is evaluating its property as assets and attempting to reduce its holdings, while seeking to assure that health and ecosystems are not put at risk. To assist those who have a stake in the remediation, management, and stewardship of these and analogous privately owned sites, this article discusses current end‐state planning by reviewing the federal government's accelerated efforts to reduce its footprint and how those efforts relate to sustainability. The article also provides a list of questions organized around six elements of risk management and primary, secondary, and tertiary disease and injury prevention. Throughout the article, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is used as an example of an organization that seeks to reduce its footprint, manage its budget, and be a steward of the sites that it is responsible for. However, the approach and questions are appropriate for land controlled by the Department of Defense (DOD), the General Services Administration (GSA), and other public and private owners of sites with residual contamination. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

地下水原位修复渗透性反应墙反应介质的改良与展望

渗透性反应墙(PRBs)是倍受关注的地下水原位修复技术之一,具有高效廉价、安装简便、维护简单等优点。详细总结了零价铁、活性炭、无机矿物材料和生物质材料等PRBs反应介质的结构、性能、适用范围、改良方法及增强吸附机制,介绍了PRBs技术在国内外地下水原位修复领域的工程应用实例,指出研发可再生型反应介质、深入研究复杂体系的污染物去除主导机制以及开展多介质混合、多种原位修复技术集成应用研究将是今后PRBs的主要研究方向。     

Phytoremediation of Hazardous Wastes: Potential Regulatory Acceptability

Phytoremediation has received attention recently, due to promising field test results that indicate potential cost savings when compared with conventional treatments. The various plant-based technologies that comprise the category phytoremediation have some similarities, many differences, and different possible applications. Each application will be site specific and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by a regulator. A treatment remedy must be “protective of human health and the environment, maintain protection over time, and minimize untreated waste” (40 CFR 300.430). The regulator's view of phytoremediation is the same as for any proposed remediation technology and asks the basic questions, “Why do you think this technology will decrease risk to human health and the environment, and how will you show that it works?” This article reviews issues related to acceptance of the technology and discusses some of the regulations that may be applicable to phytoremediation.     

An evaluation of permeable reactive barrier projects in California

Permeable reactive barriers made of zero‐valent iron (ZVI PRBs) have become a prominent remediation technology in addressing groundwater contamination by chlorinated solvents. Many ZVI PRBs have been installed across the United States, some as research projects, some at the pilot scale, and many at full scale. As a passive and in situ remediation technology, ZVI PRBs have many attractive features and advantages over other approaches to groundwater remediation. Ten ZVI PRBs installed in California were evaluated for their performance. Of those ten, three are discussed in greater detail to illustrate the complexities that arise when quantifying the performance of ZVI PRBs, and to provide comment on the national debate concerning the downgradient effects of source‐zone removal or treatment on plumes of contaminated groundwater. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Debunking myths about sustainable remediation

Sustainable remediation concepts have evolved during the decade 2007–2017. From the establishment of the first Sustainable Remediation forum (SURF) in 2007, to publication of ASTM and ISO standards by 2017. Guidance has been developed around the world to reflect local regulatory systems, and much has been learned in applying sustainability assessment to contaminated site management projects. In the best examples, significant improvements in project sustainability have been delivered, including concurrent reduction of the environmental footprint of the remediation program, improved social performance, and cost savings and/or value creation. The initial advocates for the concept of sustainable remediation were quickly supported by early adopters who saw its potential to improve the remediation industry's performance, but they also had to overcome some inertia and scepticism from other parties. During the debates and discussions that occurred at numerous international conferences and SURF workshops around the world, various opinions were formed and positions stated. Some proved to be correct, others not so. With the recent publication of ISO Standard 18504 and the benefit of a decade's‐worth of hindsight on sustainable remediation programs implementation and project delivery, this paper summarizes a number of myths and misunderstandings that have been stated regarding sustainable remediation and seeks to debunk them. Sustainable remediation assessment shows us how to manage unacceptable risks to human health and the environment in the best, that is to say the most sustainable, way. It provides the contaminated land management industry a framework to incorporate sustainable development principles into remediation projects and deliver significant value for affected parties and society more broadly. In dispelling some myths about sustainable remediation set out in this paper, it is hoped that consistent application of ISO18504/SuRF‐UK (or equivalently robust guidance) will facilitate even wider use of sustainable remediation around the world.     

A systematic approach to estimating the assessment phase of a remediation project

Environmental assessment consists of scientific studies to define contamination at a potential release site or sites and to evaluate the risk posed to human health and the environment. These studies are performed within a prescribed regulatory framework. There is a high degree of uncertainty associated with preparing cost and schedule estimates for activities such as site characterization, risk assessment, and evaluation of remediation alternatives. This article describes the approach that Sandia National Laboratories is using to meet the challenge of estimating the assessment phase of its Environmental Restoration Project. Emphasis is placed on lessons learned, with examples given to illustrate the approach.     

Managing contaminated sites and the role of domestic and international forums

Domestic and international cooperation in the field of contaminated‐site management has increased dramatically in the past decade. The expected benefits of this cooperation include the reduction of duplication in remediation efforts, the coordination of contaminated‐site research, improved synergy between various stakeholders, enhanced policy development, and better information dissemination and technology transfer. This article identifies and briefly discusses key domestic and international collaborations, partnerships, and networks relating to contaminated‐site management and remediation. Also provided is information on how the forums can be accessed. Common themes identified across the forums discussed in this article include (1) the development and demonstration of innovative technologies, (2) the use of risk assessment, (3) the use of toxicology, bioavailability, and ecotoxicity testing, and (4) the increasing need to find holistic approaches for managing contaminated sites, such as guaranteed remediation programs and transfer of environment liability, and the need for understanding implications of remediation financing mechanisms. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.