Directionally drilled horizontal wells offer cost savings and technical advantages over alternative soil and groundwater remediation systems

Directionally drilled horizontal wells offer the opportunity for significant cost savings and technical advantages over alternative trenched well and vertical well soil and groundwater remediation systems in many cases. The magnitude of the cost savings is a function of the remediation technology deployed and the values placed on the reduction of site impacts, dramatic reduction in the time required to achieve site remediation goals and requirements, the ability of horizontal well remediation to easily treat normally recalcitrant contaminants such as MTBE, and the ability to drill under paved areas, operating plants, residential areas, landfills, lagoons, waterways, ponds, basins, and other areas that are normally difficult or impossible to access with conventional drilling or trenching methods. In addition to improvements in site access capabilities, horizontal wells have been found capable of addressing contaminants that vertical wells do not readily treat, even with the same remediation technology deployed, especially if air‐based remediation technologies are deployed. With biosparging, for example, greater treatment capabilities of horizontal wells over vertical wells are attributed to greater oxygen flux over a broader area, a larger treatment zone, and extremely prolonged residence of groundwater contaminants in the aerobic treatment area, typically months or years. This article describes the use of directionally drilled horizontal wells for application of a variety of treatment technologies and includes costs of various options with a detailed comparison of biosparging options. © 2002 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.     

A method to compare groundwater cleanup technologies

DuPont has developed a method to compare, on a consistent economic basis, in situ remediation technologies. The methodology employs a template site with a perchloroethylene plume 1000 ft long by 400 ft wide, and incorporates various aquifer thicknesses and depths. Variables considered in the methodology include duration of the remediation; estimated engineering and flow/transport modeling costs; equipment costs; and operation, maintenance, and monitoring costs. In this article, substrate-enhanced anaerobic bioremediation, intrinsic bioremediation, in situ permeable reactive barriers, and pump-and-treat systems are evalutated. Cost metrics include present cost, cost per pound of contaminant removed, and cost per 1000 gals treated, using a discounted cash-flow analysis. Costs of the remedial alternatives increase starting from intrinsic bioremediation, to substrate-enhanced anaerobic bioremediation, to a biological substrate-enhanced anaerobic barrier, to in situ permeable reactive barriers, to pump-and-treat systems with air stripping and carbon adsorption.     

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。     

Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of new environmental technologies

The purpose of this article is to present a framework for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of innovative technologies for environmental characterization, remediation, monitoring, and waste management. The authors describe the steps involved in actually using the methodology to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis. They provide basic techniques for designing a fair comparison, developing scenarios, choosing a baseline technology, assessing relative performance, evaluating life-cycle costs, and calculating cost savings. Examples are used to illustrate these concepts and a case study is presented involving a new remediation technology called in-situ air stripping.     

Cost-effective contaminant plume delineation using multilevel drive point samplers

Over the past several years, environmental professionals have sought new and innovative field techniques to allow on-site plume delineation and in-field location of monitoring wells. One technique adopted for site characterization is the multilevel drive point sampler (MLDPS). This technology allows sampling of soil gas and groundwater and measurement of aquifer permeability. MLDPSs offer a cost-effective solution to the high cost of plume delineation by providing in-field data for decisions on monitoring well location and depth. MLDPS technologies can increase the effectiveness of monitoring well installation programs, decrease the cost of site characterization, and accelerate the time between initial site assessment and implementation of a remediation program. MLDPS technologies offer distinct advantages over other field techniques, and a cost comparison is offered. A case study describing application of the MLDPS to the delineation of a TCE-contaminated plume is described.     

Developing Life‐Cycle Environmental Response Costs for Leaking Underground Storage Systems at Service Station Sites

Leaking underground storage tank systems at service stations have resulted in tens of thousands of petroleum releases and associated groundwater chemical plumes often extending hundreds of feet off‐site. Technical and engineering approaches to assess and clean up releases from underground tanks, product lines, and dispensers using technologies such as soil vapor extraction, air sparging, biostimulation, and monitored natural attenuation are well understood and widely published throughout the literature. This article summarizes life‐cycle environmental response costs typically encountered using site‐specific cost estimation or metric‐based cost categories considering the overall complexity of site conditions: (1) simple sites where response actions require smaller scale assessments and/or remediation and have limited or no off‐site impacts; (2) average sites where response actions require larger scale assessments and/or remediation typical of petroleum releases; (3) complex sites where response actions require greater on‐site and/or off‐site remediation efforts; and (4) mega sites where petroleum plumes have impacted public or private water supplies or where petroleum vapors have migrated into occupied buildings. Associated cleanup cost estimates rely upon appropriate combinations of individual work elements and the duration of operation, maintenance, and monitoring activities. These cost estimates can be offset by state reimbursement funds, coverage in purchase agreements, and insurance policies. A case study involving a large service station site portfolio illustrates the range of site complexity and life‐cycle environmental response costs. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Understanding technology trends for remediation projects

Success of future environmental remediation projects depends on applying knowledge gained from completed projects. This article examines the trends in technology implementation, quantifies the impact of different remediation technologies on project costs and execution risks, and quantifies the economies of scale experienced by remediation projects. Actual project data from remediation projects conducted by the private sector and government organizations form the basis of the analysis.     

Using community relations to reduce costs during remediation projects

Almost everyone who has been involved in a site remediation project has seen schedules slip and costs escalate due to political pressure from the public or the press. While focusing on remediation technologies and containment techniques to control costs, many organizations have neglected a major cost driver—public opinion. This article examines community relations from the perspective of an organization trying to control costs during a site remediation project. It details the strong correlation between the cost of a site cleanup and the level of public dissatisfaction and provides an organization with specific strategies on how to use proven communications techniques to lower costs. Examination of several case studies is provided, including a study involving a site in which community representatives actively worked to reduce project costs. It is clear that any responsible cleanup must be protective of public health and the environment. But it is becoming increasingly apparent that wise allocation of available resources has a profound effect on the program's ability to ensure public and environmental safety. In many cases, it has been proven that some costly cleanups—for example, involving excavation—sometimes actually increase risk by creating an exposure pathway where none existed before. In turn, such cleanups waste resources that are needed elsewhere. The challenge in dealing with this complicated issue is to help stakeholders understand the true ramifications of the choices that are faced at each site. If these stakeholders feel uninformed, powerless, or excluded from the process, it is likely that they will be unable to enter a productive discussion. The community relations programs outlined in documents such as a Superfund guidance can be helpful in familiarizing the community with site-related issues and with gathering public input. These activities act as a baseline for the programs discussed in this article. However, existing programs are not focused on providing a strategic advantage in reaching cleanup solutions and balancing health and environmental considerations with economic considerations.     

Sustainable soil remediation by refrigerated condensation at sites with “high‐concentration” recalcitrant compounds and NAPL: Two case studies

Remediation of recalcitrant compounds at sites with high concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or nonaqueous‐phase liquids (NAPLs) can present significant technical and financial (long‐term) risk for stakeholders. Until recently, however, sustainability has not been included as a significant factor to be considered in the feasibility and risk evaluation for remediation technologies. The authors present a framework for which sustainability can be incorporated into the remediation selection criteria focusing specifically on off‐gas treatment selection for soil vapor extraction (SVE) remediation technology. SVE is generally considered an old and standard approach to in situ remediation of soils at a contaminated site. The focus on off‐gas treatment technology selection in this article allows for more in‐depth analysis of the feasibility evaluation process and how sustainable practices might influence the process. SVE is more commonly employed for recovery of VOCs from soils than other technologies and generally employs granular activated carbon (GAC), catalytic, or thermal oxidation, or an emerging alternative technology known as cryogenic‐compression and condensation combined with regenerative adsorption (C3–Technology). Of particular challenge to the off‐gas treatment selection process is the potential variety of chemical constituents and concentrations changing over time. Guidance is available regarding selection of off‐gas treatment technology (Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, 1996; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006). However, there are common shortcomings of off‐gas treatment technology guidance and applications; practitioners have rarely considered sustainability and environmental impact of off‐gas treatment technology selection. This evaluation includes consideration of environmental sustainability in the selection of off‐gas treatment technologies and a region‐specific (Los Angeles, California) cost per pound and time of remediation comparisons between GAC, thermal oxidation, and C3–Technology. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Advanced site diagnostic tool 3D‐CSIA for in situ remediation

In situ remediation is inherently considered “green remediation.” The mechanisms of destruction by in situ technologies, however, are often unseen and not well understood. Further, physical effects of amendment application affect concentration data in an identical manner as the desired reactive mechanism. These uncertainties have led to the weight‐of‐evidence approach when proving viability: multiple rounds of data collection, bench studies, pilot studies, and so on. Skipping these steps has resulted in many failed in situ applications. Traditional assessment data are often tangential to the desired information (e.g., “Is contaminant being destroyed or just being pushed around and diluted?” and “What is the mechanism of the destruction and can it be monitored directly?”). An advanced site diagnostic tool, “Three‐Dimensional Compound Specific Stable Isotope Analysis” (3D‐CSIA), can assess the viability of in situ technologies by providing definitive data on contaminant destruction that are not concentration‐related. The 3D‐CSIA tool can also locate source zones and apportion remediation cost by identifying plumes of different isotope signatures and fractionation trends. Further, use of the 3D‐CSIA tool allows remediation professionals to evaluate effectiveness of treatment and make better decisions to expedite site closure and minimize costs. This article outlines the fundamentals of advanced site diagnostic tool 3D‐CSIA in detail, and its benefit is highlighted through a series of case studies at chlorinated solvent–contaminated sites. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

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.     

有机污染土壤原位化学氧化药剂投加方式的综述

原位化学氧化技术是修复有机污染土壤最经济有效的技术之一。药剂的投加与分散技术是原位化学氧化修复技术的核心。药剂投加与分散方式的选择与污染场地的土壤渗透性、特征水平、污染深度、氧化剂性质、修复费用等相关。阐述了直压式注射法、注射井法、土壤置换法和高压-旋喷注射法等药剂投加与分散技术的适用性、控制参数及优缺点等,引用工程实例对药剂投加与分散技术在原位化学氧化修复过程中的应用情况进行了论证。     

Removal,Handling, and Thermal Desorption Treatment Techniques for Manufactured Gas Plant Wastes

Due to the nature of contamination typically found at former MGP (manufactured gas plant) sites, excavation and thermal desorption of MGP wastes has proven to be an effective method for the remediation of MGP‐contaminated soil. The use of on‐site thermal desorption enables MGP sites to be quickly remediated at a low cost. Tar pits, holders, and other underground storage structures typically contain coal tar residuals and waste from former operations, and the areas around these structures are often significantly contaminated. Thus, excavation techniques, odor and vapor management, and material preparation for the treatment method are important factors to consider when developing a site remediation strategy. This article reviews typical excavation and handling methods associated with the remediation of former MGP sites and discusses the treatment of MGP wastes using on‐site thermal desorption technology. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.     

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.     

Estimating Social Impacts of a Remediation Project Life Cycle With Environmental Footprint Evaluation Tools

This article presents a methodology to calculate the social cost of sustainability metrics with environmental footprint evaluation tools. Measuring the impacts of a remediation project on society is challenging because the methods by which these impacts can be measured have not been established. To perform a complete sustainability assessment of a project's life cycle, costs borne by society in terms of environmental, economic, and community impacts must be evaluated. Two knowledge gaps have been identified among the sustainability assessments currently being performed during a remediation project's life cycle: (1) lack of methodologies available to evaluate impacts on the socioeconomic aspects of remediation and (2) lack of sustainability assessments conducted during the site characterization stage. Sustainability assessments were conducted on two case studies using the methodology proposed in this article: one during the site characterization stage and the other during remedial action. The results of this study demonstrated that costs borne by society from a remediation project are significant and metric specific. This study also highlighted the benefits of conducting a sustainability assessment at the site characterization stage using environmental footprint analysis tools, cost benefit analysis, and an evaluation of costs borne by society. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Using wind to power a groundwater circulation well—preliminary results

In areas of the country where the U.S. Department of Energy has classified the available wind resources as Class 3 or greater, the use of wind turbines to provide power to relatively small remediation systems such as groundwater circulation wells may be technically and economically feasible. Groundwater circulation wells are a good candidate technology to couple with renewable energy, because the remediation system removes contamination from the subject aquifer with no net loss of the groundwater resource, while the wind turbine does not create potentially harmful air emissions. Wind data collected in the vicinity of the former Nebraska Ordnance Plant Superfund site were used to select a wind turbine system to provide a portion of the energy necessary to power a groundwater circulation well located in an area of high trichloroethylene groundwater contamination. Because utility power was already installed at the remediation system, a 10 kW grid inter‐tie wind turbine system supplements the utility system without requiring batteries for energy storage. The historical data from the site indicate that the quantity of energy purchased correlates poorly with the quantity of groundwater treated. Preliminary data from the wind turbine system indicate that the wind turbine provides more energy than the remediation system treatment components and the well submersible pump require on a monthly average. The preliminary results indicate that the coupling of wind turbines and groundwater circulation wells may be an attractive alternative in terms of the system operation time, cost savings, and contaminant mass removal. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

State-of-the-art VOC abatement from soil-venting operations

The development of treatment technologies to limit the discharge of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into the atmosphere has proceeded apace with the increasing use of soil venting for the remediation of contaminated soil. This article surveys the commonly-used emission control systems that have developed under air pollution control regulations in California. Emphasis is on equipment operating characteristics, typical performance results (destruction efficiencies of VOCs), and operating costs. A recently commercialized process for treating halogen-containing VOCs is described, and some operating and cost data are included.     

Risk communication as a key component of a successful remediation project

Decisions made during the course of investigating and remediating a contaminated site, as well as the technology used, are most often driven exclusively by physical, technical, and health-based concerns. Additionally, in both determining and managing the potential risks posed by a remediation project, the focus tends to be placed primarily on health risks. However, a contaminated site and its remediation are neither static over time nor do they exist in a vacuum. Other elements of risk associated with the site and remedial activities include continuing regulatory oversight and compliance, public and agency relations, remedial technology costs, current and future land-use issues, and future technological/regulatory risks. Agencies, consultants, contractors, and facility management must consider these other non-health-related elements of risk. Additionally, efforts made to communicate a project's decisions, technologies, and risks are often made in a defensive or reactive posture, resulting in ineffective communication and an alienated, angry, or distrustful public. Proactive risk communication, as well as public involvement in the remedial process, are critical to the success of any remedial activity.     

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.