Trends In Regulatory Acceptance Of Risk-Based Cleanup Goals And Natural Attenuation For Site Closure

Since 1994, there has been a significant regulatory shift toward risk-based cleanup standards based on the site-specific risk of the more toxic and mobile compounds; namely, benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, and xylene (BTEX). This regulatory shift has been accompanied by a growing acceptance of natural attenuation as an important component of petroleum site remediation. This article briefly reviews regulatory progress toward risk-based remediation and describes the successful application of risk-based corrective actions (RBCAs) at two fuel contaminated sites on Air Force installations. By developing site-specific cleanup goals, and combining natural attenuation, source reduction, and land use controls, innovative risk-based closure plans have been implemented on these sites.     

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.     

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.     

Risk Assessment in Remediation: Accurately Accounting for Uncertainty

Cleanup levels at hazardous waste sites are typically developed based at least in pan on either generic or site-specific risk assessments. Risk assessment in its purest form should be a measure of the potential for a site to cause adverse effects and therefore should be used as the basis for cleanup. However, the process of risk assessment continues to be subject to problems, primarily related to inherent uncertainties in the exposure parameters and toxicity criteria that are the building blocks of the risk assessment. Criticism of risk assessments and risk-based decisions range from comments that the process inadequately protects human health to comments that the process is overly protective, and examples of both ends of the spectrum are readily available. Site remediation professionals should be aware of the issues related to uncertainty and understand the potential problems in order to ensure appropriate and effective site cleanup. © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.     

A dynamic methodology for estimating cleanup efforts for mercury in soil at gas utility gate stations

This article provides an overview of a dynamic methodology leading to the estimation of the level of mercury concentration in soil and soil cleanup volumes associated with a large number of gate stations suspected of having mercury in their soil. The methodology uses a unique screening approach that has been developed for relating measurements of volatile mercury near the surface to mercury concentration in the upper soil subsurface (about twelve inches deep). The screening approach was used in an effort to reduce the number of sites that are subject to extensive multimedia environmental sampling and analysis. The approach helps to focus on a small number of sites that are suspected of having the highest mercury concentration in soil, perform multimedia environmental sampling at these sites, use the field data to perform risk assessment, and determine the cleanup action levels and the volume of hot spots soil to be cleaned at these sites. The information obtained for the most contaminated sites is used to determine, if required, the level of cleanup for less contaminated sites.     

Risk assessment: A site-specific approach to establishing acceptable soil cleanup levels

In 1980 the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) was passed to instigate the cleanup of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. CERCLA necessitated the development of a set of criteria for estimating the severity of the contamination at these sites, the potential impact on human health and the environment, and establishing appropriate cleanup levels for the contaminated media. The risk assessment (RA) format was developed to meet these challenges. Though RAs vary dramatically in their scope, emphasis, and regulatory application, there are two primary objectives common to all RAs: (1) to evaluate potential risks to human health and the environment posed by the release of hazardous substances and (2) to evaluate and establish safe cleanup levels based primarily on the number and type of potential receptors, the toxicity and mobility of the contaminants, and the types of exposure pathways present. Achieving these objectives may be a relatively simple task or an extremely complex and difficult one depending on the type of material released and our understanding of its behavior in the environment, the site conditions, and the governing regulations. This article presents an approach for establishing acceptable cleanup levels for subsurface soils and illustrates the application of this approach to three different regulated sites.     

Cleanup levels for pcbs and their combustion products at an industrial facility

In 1991, a fire occurred at a foundry in western Pennsylvania. The fire started in capacitors that contained polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and subsequent sampling has indicated that PCBs and products of their incomplete combustion, the polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), were released as a result of the fire. This article develops and provides justification for site-specific cleanup levels for the PCBs, PCDDs, and PCDFs accidentally released into this industrial facility during the fire. Cleanup levels were calculated using standard risk assessment approaches and assumptions, and these riskbased values were compared with cleanup criteria used for other sites. Final criteria were established based on this comparison and a consideration of such site-specific factors as migration potential, industrial use patterns, and the small mass of material present.     

Cleanup levels for dioxin-contaminated soils

EPA's use of a 1 part per billion (ppb) level for dioxin contamination in residential soils is shown to be too high and not protective of public health. It was derived in a 1984 cancer risk assessment by another federal agency, but it is inconsistent with risk-based levels of 2 to 4 parts per trillion (ppt) obtained by using EPA's standard risk assessment methods. EPA has called the 1 ppb level a policy-based level, which correctly distinguishes it from a risk or health-based cleanup standard. The 1984 assessment is shown in this article to have considerable shortcomings. For over a decade, dioxins have been left in soils at levels posing health risks and sometimes at levels that EPA is legally required to address. Moreover, noncancer effects have been ignored, but recent work has shown them to support action at low ppt levels. To protect public health, be consistent with current scientific knowledge and other EPA policies, reduce confusion in the environmental management community, and be responsive to public demands for stringent dioxin cleanups, new EPA policy guidance for dioxin soil cleanups is needed, and key elements are presented in this article. In an ad hoc fashion, EPA Region 4 has recently used a 200 ppt dioxin cleanup level for residential soil, acknowledged to correspond to a one-in-ten-thousand cancer risk, at two Superfund sites, which environmental professionals should be aware of. This suggests a shift in EPA policy.     

Sensitivity analysis for setting soil cleanup standards

In recent years, many states have sought to set soil standards for hazardous waste sites. For example, Michigan and Oregon have had soil standards for several years, and within the last three years Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Texas have derived soil standards; while Illinois and several other states are in the process of developing soil standards. In general, soil cleanup standards are set to protect against leaching to groundwater and direct contact with soil. This article reviews several agencies' protocols and presents a sensitivity analysis of parameters used to establish these soil cleanup standards. Major issues examined in this article include land use (residential versus commercial/industrial) and exposure parameters used for deriving soil cleanup standards for direct contact. Soil cleanup standards are developed considering exposure routes such as ingestion, dermal contact, inhalation of vapors, and fugitive dust. Other factors such as chemical/physical properties are also considered. For example, many states use Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) or EPA Method 1312 Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) to derive soil standards protective of leaching to groundwater. The results indicate that factors such as leaching and certain exposure assumptions play a key role in determining soil cleanup standards. Exposure pathways were examined by performing a sensitivity analysis using a generic equation to consider exposure from ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of soil in deriving soil cleanup standards. The sensitivity analysis indicates that selection of exposure parameters such as toxicity values and soil-to-skin adherence factors contribute more substantially than others. These two factors are also among those values with the greatest uncertainty. Selection of exposure pathways is also important for the derivation of soil cleanup standards. For example, inhalation is the most significant exposure pathway for volatile organic compounds such as toluene, yet many states do not evaluate this exposure route. These findings are based on the mathematical models used by the agencies, and no judgments are made on the validity of the models. The results of this analysis can help focus attention on the most sensitive parameters as federal government reforms environment policies (i.e., CERCLA and RCRA) and the development of national soil cleanup standards is debated.     

Cost estimating of the closure/post-closure phase

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is beginning major environmental restoration projects of both active and inactive sites throughout the United States. The problems at the sites include contaminated soils, groundwater and surface waters, structures, and old waste disposal areas. IT Corporation, under the direction of the Office of Independent Cost Estimating (OICE) for DOE, developed a list of environmental problems at the sites and probable cleanup technologies and techniques that could be used. Estimated unit costs were then developed for these cleanup technologies, using available data and references. Some procedures developed were common to many or all cleanup projects. These included site characterization, remedial investigation (RI), feasibility studies (FS), and the closure/post-closure phase. The article will focus on cost estimating of the closure/post-closure phase of a cleanup project. The cost data provided are for budget level or check estimates. Site-specific conditions as well as items peculiar to the environmental industry, such as governmental regulations and community relations, can influence both the cost and duration of a cleanup project.     

Methodology and model for performance and cost comparison of innovative treatment technologies at wood preserving sites

Wood preserving facilities have used a variety of compounds, including pentachlorophenol (PCP), creosote, and certain metals, to extend the useful life of wood products. Past operations and waste management practices resulted in soil and water contamination at a portion of the more than 700 wood preserving sites in the United States (EPA, 1997). Many of these sites are currently being addressed under federal, state, or voluntary cleanup programs. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) has responded to the need for information aimed at facilitating remediation of wood preserving sites by conducting treatability studies, issuing guidance, and preparing reports. This article presents a practical methodology and computer model for screening the performances and comparing the costs of seven innovative technologies that could be used for the treatment of contaminated soils at user‐specified wood preserving sites. The model incorporates a technology screening function and a cost‐estimating function developed from literature searches and vendor information solicited for this study. This article also provides background information on the derivation of various assumptions and default values used in the model, common contaminants at wood preserving sites, and recent trends in the cleanup of such sites. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.     

Iowa's land recycling program: A case study

Voluntary cleanup programs for contaminated sites have been developed in several states over the last few years. Some of the advantages of these programs include developing a collaboration between site owners and regulators, implementing cleanup standards based upon site‐specific current and future risks, and enhancing the market conditions that can lead to development of properties to their highest productive use. This article offers a case study of the first site in Iowa to proceed through the state's voluntary cleanup program, the Land Recycling Program. It offers the step‐by‐step progress toward the client's goal of a site classification requiring no further action. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.     

A Slice of Guidance Provides Some Insight to Addressing Contaminated Sediments

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued guidance to improve cleanup risk management decisions at sites involving contaminated sediments. The guidance is titled Principles for Managing Contaminated Sediment Risks at Hazardous Waste Sites and is important because sediment cleanup decisions are often very technical and complex. While the guidance is not a step‐by‐step “how to” document, it does provide the framework for risk‐based decision making and national consistency. Although it does not answer the more technical questions associated with remediation, it will likely provide site managers with greater certainty related to their decisions and help determine what questions need to be asked for many complex issues. Additional and forthcoming EPA reports, seminars, and products will be useful in building upon this framework. This article provides an overview of the risk management principles presented in the guidance. © 2002 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.     

Yardsticks to Integrate Risk Assessment,Risk Management,and Groundwater Remediation

Remediation of contaminated sites has focused largely on restoration of groundwater aquifers. Often the stated remedial goal is to achieve conditions allowing unrestricted use and unrestricted exposure. Such total groundwater cleanup has occurred at some sites, but is the exception rather than the rule. At the same time, significant effort occurs to perform risk assessments for potential exposure to contaminants in groundwater at sites, both before and after remediation. The logical synergy between risk assessment and remediation is for risk management to seek opportunities for optimal use of groundwater based upon realistic expectations of cleanup technologies and the relevant acceptable residual (postremediation) levels of contaminants. This article explores an approach to improve this synergistic relationship between risk assessment, risk management, and remediation for groundwater cleanups. ©2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Accounting for Science and Uncertainty in Cleanup Levels: The Use of 1 μg/kg as the Cleanup Criterion for Dioxin in Soil

At hazardous waste sites, a 1 μg/kg (ppb) cleanup level has commonly been used for dioxin in residential soil. This article outlines reasons for the continued use of this value in site remediation. Dioxin, one of the most toxic compounds known, has been a focus of scientific study for many years. However, controversy continues to surround its regulation, with some scientists arguing that new scientific results support decreasing risk estimates for dioxin and others taking the opposite view. Part of this controversy appears to involve a decreasing emphasis on cancer and an increased concern about non-cancer and ecological impacts of dioxin. The 1 ppb soil cleanup level represents a reasonable generic value for dioxin, with higher or lower values required on a case-by-case basis to protect specific populations.     

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.     

Practical Perspectives of 1,4‐Dioxane Investigation and Remediation

1,4‐Dioxane (dioxane) is a contaminant of emerging concern that is classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a likely human carcinogen. Dioxane has been used as a minor or major ingredient in many applications, and is also generated as an unwanted by‐product of industrial processes associated with the manufacturing of polyethylene, nonionic surfactants, and many consumer products (cosmetics, laundry detergents, shampoos, etc.). Dioxane is also a known stabilizer of chlorinated solvents, particularly 1,1,1‐trichloroethane, and has been commonly found comingled with chlorinated solvent plumes. Dioxane plumes at chlorinated solvent sites can complicate site closure strategies, which to date have not typically focused on dioxane. Aggressive treatment technologies have greatly advanced and are clearly capable of achieving lower parts per billion cleanup criteria using ex situ advanced oxidation processes and sorption media. In situ chemical oxidation has also been demonstrated to effectively remediate dioxane and chlorinated solvents. Other in situ remedies, such as enhanced bioremediation, phytoremediation, and monitored natural attenuation, have been studied; however, their ability to achieve cleanup levels is still somewhat questionable and is limited by co‐occurring contaminants. This article summarizes and provides practical perspectives on dioxane analysis, plume stability relative to other contaminants, and the development of investigation tools and treatment technologies.     

When the Going Gets Tough,Communities Believe It's Time to Optimize and Adapt

The people who live in the communities where complex groundwater sites are located are as diverse as the country itself, but those who fight for the cleanup of our groundwater recognize that total cleanup may be difficult, if not impossible, in our lifetimes. Still, as explained in a December 2013 joint letter to US EPA, we want those who are responsible for environmental protection, be they polluters, developers, or regulatory agencies, to try harder before admitting defeat. In Mountain View, California, community activists have developed criteria for the adaptive cleanup of the Moffett‐MEW Regional Plume of TCE groundwater contamination that emphasizes areas with high contaminant mass, source areas, locations that reduce the need for long‐term vapor intrusion mitigation, properties where the detectable plume encroaches on residential areas, schools, and other sensitive uses, and areas planned for reuse. In many other communities, trust is the key to developing community support for remedial strategies. Communities that are listened to tend to feel more empowered. Empowered communities tend to offer more constructive advice. Decision makers tend to listen to communities that offer constructive advice. In summary, when the cleanup going gets tough, empowered communities believe that it is time to optimize and adapt, not to give up. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.