Net impact of remediation

Following years of progress in designing and executing cleanups of contaminants at waste sites, the U.S. Air Force, state regulatory groups, and others are crafting methods to evaluate broader considerations of risk in remedial decisions. Integrating worker and climate risks into remediation efforts may confer significant benefits, but challenges exist to identifying, assessing, and accounting for them in the remedial process. For sites where future risk posed by contamination far exceeds the risk posed to workers who may be exposed to the contaminants during the remedial process, limiting the range of decision inputs to those presented by the site conditions made sense and provided a net benefit to human health and the environment. There are other sites, however, where future risk posed by the in situ contamination are at levels comparable to the real risks posed to workers, ecology, and even emerging concerns about climate change. For these sites, a net risk reduction cannot be assumed to be a result of remedial action, challenging the remedial community to develop new approaches to ensure positive results. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

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.     

Communication at inactive hazardous waste sites

The remediation of inactive hazardous waste sites frequently involves a protracted negotiation with the respective state or federal agency and the entity responsible for creating the site and paying the costs. At orphaned sites, decisions are made almost exclusively by agency staff. Most of remedial decisions are made with little input or participation by the interested public. The public usually receives information in a highly technical and difficult-to-understand format after decisions are made. This ineffective form of communication can lead to mistrust and delays or changes in the remediation process. Effective public participation requires multidirectional modes of communication that provide for active and full involvement by all interested parties. At the present time, most agencies pay minimal attention to the needs of the interested public, often leaving area residents suspicious and dissatisfied with the overall program. There is an opportunity to significantly improve the public participation component of the federal Super-fund program through reauthorization. Subtle changes in the program can result in a significant increase of the public's sense of participation and overall satisfaction.     

Sustainable Remediation and Decision Analysis Practices at an Onshore Gas Well Site

Strategies for remediation of drilling mud wastes at a typical deep sour gas well site in the foothills of Alberta were assessed in terms of financial and social costs and benefits, in alignment with established sustainable remediation and decision analysis principles. Managers of contaminated sites containing historical drilling wastes are challenged with managing liability through several regulatory changes over time. Excavation and disposal of the contaminated soil from the site was the only means of securing regulatory release, with the nearest landfill located 150 km away. A perception exists that in many cases excavation and disposal inflicts unnecessary levels of site intrusiveness and public disturbance when other options achieving a similar risk end point may do so for lower social cost. The study tested this hypothesis to ascertain whether the currently accepted solution is the best option when the wider costs and benefits to society and the environment are included. Eight remedial strategies were assessed using cost–benefit analysis, including using environmental economics techniques to quantify social and environmental impacts. The economic model showed that methods such as capping in‐place or engineered encapsulation were superior to full excavation and disposal from financial and sustainability perspectives. Quantified external costs and benefits such as road damage, greenhouse gas emissions, public nuisance and safety, and community amenity value were influential in identifying superior options. It was demonstrated that $0.2 million of societal costs could be avoided by choosing capping over landfill disposal. This represents substantial implications when viewed in the context of this and other operators’ portfolios of hundreds of abandoned wells in the area. ©2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Using risk assessment to achieve cost-effective property transfers and site closures for former UST sites

Risk assessment has been increasingly applied as a tool in making risk management decisions that affect cleanup of contaminated sites, property transactions, and liability issues. As a site-specific evaluation, risk assessment takes into account the unique characteristics and intended future uses for site property in evaluating chemical concentrations which may remain in place without risk to public health and the environment. The results of a risk assessment can be used to determine reuse options for a property, facilitate site closure, and reduce liabilities (Copeland and Robles, 1994; Copeland et al., 1993a). This article describes the risk assessment process, the role of risk assessment in determining the need for remedial action and identifying site-specific cleanup goals, and the cost effectiveness of applying risk assessment in remedial decisions. Because of the prevalence of former UST sites throughout the United States, this article focuses on risk assessment and remediation of UST sites. However, the process can be applied at sites where other chemicals have been released. Three case studies are presented to illustrate the application of risk assessment in achieving cost-effective site closure at sites containing leaking underground storage tanks.     

Risk assessment and accepted regulatory cleanup levels

The determination of cleanup levels at a CERCLA or RCRA site is often the single most important decision made by risk managers. This decision can have a major impact on the costs and time required for remediation, as well as on the selection of remedial technologies. The object of this article is to provide a critical review of the methods used by regulatory agencies and the regulated community to calculate chemical-specific cleanup goals for inactive hazardous waste sites, focusing on those cleanup goals that are designed to protect human health from the effects of chemicals. In addition to this analysis of historical methods that have been used, this article discusses some innovative solutions to the problem of calculating cleanup levels and presents an analysis of controversial topics related to cleanup levels currently under debate by regulatory agencies, industry, environmentalists, and legislative bodies.     

Cover design for radioactive and AMD-producing mine waste in the Ronneburg area, eastern Thuringia

At the former uranium mining site of Ronneburg, large scale underground and open pit mining for nearly 40 years resulted in a production of about 113,000 tonnes of uranium and about 200 million cubic metres of mine waste. In their present state, these materials cause risks to human health and strong environmental impacts and therefore demand remedial action. The remediation options available are relocation of mine spoil into the open pit and on site remediation by landscaping/contouring, placement of a cover and revegetation. A suitable vegetated cover system combined with a surface water drainage system provides long-term stability against erosion and reduces acid generation thereby meeting the main remediation objectives which are long-term reduction of radiological exposure and contaminant emissions and recultivation. The design of the cover system includes the evaluation of geotechnical, radiological, hydrological, geochemical and ecological criteria and models. The optimized overall model for the cover system has to comply with general conditions as, e.g. economic efficiency, public acceptance and sustainability. Most critical elements for the long-term performance of the cover system designed for the Beerwalde dump are the barrier system and its long-term integrity and a largely self-sustainable vegetation.     

Fast-track remediation for redevelopment of a former integrated steel mill site

Remedial action was initiated and completed on an approximately 500-acre brownfield site in southern California within a period of five months during the summer of 1995. Remedial actions included design and construction of an approximately 14-acre cap, including a synthetic membrane; design, construction, and testing of an in-situ soil vapor extraction system; excavation, on-site treatment, and off-site disposal of approximately 7,000 cubic yards of residual waste and affected soil; and verification sampling, analysis, and health risk screening in 20 units of a former integrated steel mill. Completion of remedial action on this portion of the mill site within this time frame was required due to site redevelopment plans which included construction of an auto raceway with scheduled races in early 1997. Rapid remedial action was possible only through simultaneous completion of multiple remediation tasks. This could be done only with continuous communication and close coordination among the site owner, lead regulatory agency, and contractors.     

Best Available Treatment Technologies Applied to Groundwater Circulation Wells

Groundwater circulation wells (GCWs) are a quasi‐in‐situ method for remediating groundwater in areas where remediation techniques that limit the water available for municipal, domestic, industrial, or agricultural purposes are inappropriate. The inherently resource‐conservative nature of groundwater circulation wells is also philosophically appealing in today's culture, which is supportive of green technologies. Groundwater circulation wells involve the circulation of groundwater through a dual‐screen well, with treatment occurring between the screens. The wells are specifically designed so that one well screen draws in groundwater and the second returns the groundwater after it has been treated within the well. Historically, the treatment has been performed with specialized equipment proprietary to GCW vendors. Two full‐scale pilot systems at a formerly used Defense Superfund site in Nebraska used best available technologies for treatment components. A multiple‐tray, low‐profile air stripper typically used for pump‐and‐treat remediation systems was successfully adapted for the GCW pilot system located in a trichloroethylene (TCE) hot spot. An ultraviolet water disinfection system was successfully adapted for the GCW pilot system located in a hot spot contaminated with the explosive compound hexhydro‐1,3,5‐trinitro‐1,3,5‐triazine (RDX). The pilot systems showed that GCW technology is competitive with a previously considered pump‐and‐treat alternative for focused extraction, and the regulatory community was supportive of additional GCW applications. A remedial design for the site includes 12 more GCW systems to complete focused remediation requirements. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Use of mixed technologies to remediate chlorinated DNAPL at a Brownfields site

A former chlorofluorocarbon manufacturing facility in northern New Jersey was purchased for redevelopment as a warehousing/distribution center as part of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's Brownfields redevelopment initiative. Soil and groundwater at the site were impacted with dense nonaqueous‐phase liquids (chlorinated organic compounds) and light nonaqueous‐phase liquids (petroleum hydrocarbons). The initial remedial strategy (excavation and offsite disposal) developed by prior site owners would have been cost‐prohibitive to the new site owners and made redevelopment infeasible. Mixed remedial technologies were employed to reduce the cost of remediation while meeting regulatory contaminant levels that are protective of human health and the environment. The most heavily impacted soils (containing greater than 95 percent of the contaminant mass) were excavated and treated onsite by the addition of calcium oxide and lime kiln dust coupled with physical mixing. Treated soils were reused onsite as part of the redevelopment. Residual soil and groundwater contamination was treated via in situ injections of emulsified oil to enhance anaerobic biodegradation, and emulsified oil/zero‐valent iron to chemically reduce residual contaminants. Engineering (cap) and administrative (deed restriction) controls were used as part of the final remedy. The remedial strategy presented in this article resulted in a cost reduction of 50 percent of the initial remedial cost estimate. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Radiological risks and cleanup costs: A remediation case study

Potential health risks and cleanup costs are primary factors for measuring the effectiveness of a remediation project concerning a site contaminated with residual radioactive materials. Demanding cleanup of a contaminated site to its original condition, while eliminating any health risks after cleanup, can require prohibitive costs. However, by setting practical remediation objectives and by performing realistic but conservative risk assessments, health risks can be acceptable and cleanup costs can be reasonable. This article uses the South-Middle and Southeast Vaults Decontamination and Demolition Project at Argonne National Laboratory to demonstrate how negligible health risks can result after cleanup with minimal cleanup costs. Substantial cost savings of approximately $2 million was realized by implementing in-place decontamination and demolition (D&D) on the basis of acceptable risk, instead of requiring cleanup of the site to its original condition. By using the RESRAD computer program as a modeling tool, we show the maximum projected radiation dose (0.1 mrem per year) and the potential lifetime cancer risk (on the order of 10⁶) to an individual from exposure to the residual radioactivities are negligibly small. In addition to aiding in the selection of a preferred remediation alternative, results of the RESRAD modeling were also used to guide the implementation of the selected alternative to reduce exposures from the dominant pathway and to ensure that exposures from all pathways would be as low as reasonably achievable.     

Do remediation experts have what it takes to explain empirical uncertainty?

Words matter in risk communication, and experts’ choice of words is critical when remediation risks are being explained to nonexperts. In risk communication studies, communication gaps between experts and nonexperts are investigated but there is lack of primary research. An Australian project addresses this shortcoming through research into communication about the risks of contaminated land remediation, and this paper provides some of its findings. Seventeen experts completed a questionnaire about the meaning of some scientific terms, and analysis found that they have capacity to improve communication through their selection and use of language. When experts undertake risk communication, the language they use may increase or reduce communication gaps. When the topic is uncertainty about health risks, communication gaps about the extent of uncertainty may reduce the effectiveness of social engagement, leading to unintended consequences such as cost overruns. This situation makes for a good case study since remediation is about benefit as well as risk, and communication about benefit, while desirable, may not always be achievable. The study suggests how to improve risk communication by exploring the accuracy, clarity, and depth of expert language. It identifies attributes of language that can bridge gaps in knowledge and understanding and characterizes them as integration mechanisms. These are defined as knowledge forms and mental processes that support cooperation between different epistemic communities to achieve mutually agreed outcomes. Two integration mechanisms are suggested. Bridging content addresses communication gaps through the selection of content (what knowledge is selected). Bridging process addresses communication gaps through the use of language (how knowledge is explained). Bridging content and bridging process can be expressed through cognitive and experiential platforms, or a blending of both, so whether words are positioned in the science‐based or mental model of risk communication, a utility value can be found in their quality, whether reflected by accuracy or the power to communicate meaning.     

A risk-based approach to how clean is clean

Clearly defined remedial action objectives are a key factor in successful remediation programs. Chemical-specific cleanup criteria are critical components of remedial action objectives. A common risk-based approach can be applied for developing cleanup criteria for remediations under CERCLA, RCRA, and TSCA. This approach involves four steps: identify regulatory requirements; identify chemical-specific cleanup guidelines from previous cleanups; evaluate site-specific risk considering mitigating factors for a given site; select the final cleanup criteria based on information from the first three steps. To describe this approach, this paper presents a case study on a PCB cleanup conducted under TSCA. An objective risk-based approach was used to capitalize on the flexibility built into EPA's PCB cleanup guidelines. EPA granted an exemption to the stated policy on the basis of competing risk factors using a comparative risk-assessment approach. Similarly, risk assessment can be used to take advantage of regulatory flexibility in the selection of applicable or appropriate and relevant requirements (ARARs) under CERCLA, or in the selection of media protection standards under RCRA.     

On-site analytical support: A cost-effective alternative to fixed laboratory services

Two recent projects involving soils remediation at Superfund sites in southern New Jersey and northeastern Pennsylvania exemplify the power of “real time” field analytical support in reducing time and expense during a project's remedial phase. The remediation efforts at both of these CERCLA sites were supported by ERM-FAST on-site analytical facilities which, in a “real-time” scenario, achieved all data quality objectives (DQOs), met all regulatory agency requirements, and satisfied the client's needs. Both of these sites offer illustrations of the effectiveness of field analysis for vastly differing site contaminants. The client benefited from substantial savings on analytical cost as well as the savings realized through efficient and effective process and schedule management.     

Institutional controls for future land use at active installation restoration program (IRP) sites

One of the strategies now in vogue in hazardous waste cleanup is basing remedial strategies on future land use. The initial thrust of CERCLA for permanent and complete remedies has given way, pushed by concepts like “brownfields” and base closure and reuse, to strategies often based on “institutional controls” that attempt to stabilize future land uses at a site based on residual risk. The heart of this concept is that instead of removing all wastes from a site, some wastes can safely remain so long as in the future the site is not used in such a way that the residual contamination poses an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment. “Institutional controls” is a term for land use management strategies that do not rely on engineering approaches to reduce risk, but rather seek to ensure that the site is not used in an inappropriate way in the future. This article cautions that such a strategy has inherent residual risks that must be understood by those involved in implementing hazardous waste cleanups and those responsible for future uses of contaminated property. Simply put, institutional controls are only as good as the processes that are in place to ensure they are respected in the future. This presents particular problems for active duty installations because most of the protections commonly available to private sector sites are not useful at active installations. This article discusses an initiative by the Air Combat Command to develop a handbook on instituting and maintaining land restrictions. It will also discuss that effort in light of the April 21 EPA Region IV guidance on assuring Land Use Controls at Federal Facilities. This article is based on a paper and presentations given at the 1998 ACC Environmental Training Symposium.     

Evaluation of remedial countermeasures using the analytic network process

The aim of this paper is to present an evaluation method to aid decision makers in the prioritization and selection of appropriate countermeasures at the planning stage of site remediation. We introduced a hierarchical network (hiernet) decision structure and applied the Analytic Network Process (ANP) supermatrix approach to measure the relative desirability of the remedial alternatives using the decision maker's value judgment as input. A simplified illustrative example is presented to elucidate the process, as it is being applied to evaluate the feasible remedial countermeasures of a contaminated site caused by uncontrolled landfill. Four decision models derived from the generalized hiernet were examined to describe the effect of hierarchic functional dependence, inner dependence and feedback cycle on the derivation of the priority weights. The ANP could provide a more flexible analytical framework to break down one's judgment through a more elaborate structure in a systematic way to understand the complexity of the decision problem. The proposed method therefore may not only aid in selecting the best alternative but also may help to facilitate communication to understand why an alternative is preferred over the other alternatives through the analysis of the derived weights and its underlying decision structure.     

Developing Effective Decision Support for the Application of “Gentle” Remediation Options: The GREENLAND Project

Gentle remediation options (GRO) are risk management strategies/technologies that result in a net gain (or at least no gross reduction) in soil function as well as risk management. They encompass a number of technologies, including the use of plant (phyto‐), fungi (myco‐), and/or bacteria‐based methods, with or without chemical soil additives or amendments, for reducing contaminant transfer to local receptors by in situ stabilization, or extraction, transformation, or degradation of contaminants. Despite offering strong benefits in terms of risk management, deployment costs, and sustainability for a range of site problems, the application of GRO as practical on‐site remedial solutions is still in its relative infancy, particularly for metal(loid)‐contaminated sites. A key barrier to wider adoption of GRO relates to general uncertainties and lack of stakeholder confidence in (and indeed knowledge of) the feasibility or reliability of GRO as practical risk management solutions. The GREENLAND project has therefore developed a simple and transparent decision support framework for promoting the appropriate use of gentle remediation options and encouraging participation of stakeholders, supplemented by a set of specific design aids for use when GRO appear to be a viable option. The framework is presented as a three phased model or Decision Support Tool (DST), in the form of a Microsoft Excel‐based workbook, designed to inform decision‐making and options appraisal during the selection of remedial approaches for contaminated sites. The DST acts as a simple decision support and stakeholder engagement tool for the application of GRO, providing a context for GRO application (particularly where soft end‐use of remediated land is envisaged), quick reference tables (including an economic cost calculator), and supporting information and technical guidance drawing on practical examples of effective GRO application at trace metal(loid) contaminated sites across Europe. This article introduces the decision support framework. ©2015 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     

Remediation of metal-contaminated sites using plants

Heavy metal contamination of soil resulting from anthropogenic sources poses a significant challenge in many industrialized societies. The current technologies employed for removal of heavy metals often involve expensive ex-situ processes requiring sophisticated equipment and removal, transportation, and purification of the soil. Generally, in-situ remedial technologies are favored to ex-situ methods for detoxification, neutralization, degradation, or immobilization of contaminants. In-situ bioremediation is increasingly favored because of its effectiveness and low cost. A new type of bioremediation, known as vegetative remediation or “phytoremediation,” uses metal-tolerant hyperaccumulator plants to take up metal ions from soils and store them in their aboveground parts. To select the appropriate phytoremediation technology, one must understand the technical feasibility, cost effectiveness, and availability of the suitable plant species. Equally important is determining whether the site's soil conditions are optimal to enhance or restore the soil biological activity. Before phytoremediation can be exploited on a contaminated site, greenhouse-scale confirmatory testing is necessary to measure plant uptake and correlate shoot metal concentrations to available soil metals. These tests also validate that the harvesting and subsequent disposal of metal-containing plant tissues are environmentally safe and manageable.