Hanford remediation at 20 years: A glass half‐empty

The U.S. Department of Energy's (US DOE's) responsibilities for its former national nuclear weapons complex include remediation of the Hanford Site in Washington State. In 1989, the site's primary mission shifted from nuclear weapons material production to cleanup of the extensive radioactive and chemical contamination that represented the production legacy. Cleanup is governed by the Tri‐Party Agreement (TPA), between the US DOE, as responsible party, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Washington State Department of Ecology, as joint regulators. Nearly 20 years have passed since the TPA was signed, but the Hanford remediation is expected to require decades longer. This article covers the cleanup progress to date and challenges that remain, particularly from millions of gallons of highly radioactive liquid wastes and proposals to bring new wastes to Hanford. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Remediation,land use,and risk at Rocky Flats,and a comparison with Hanford

US Department of Energy (US DOE) responsibilities for its former national atomic weapons complex include remediation of the Rocky Flats facility near Denver, Colorado. In 1993, the site's primary mission shifted from “production'' of plutonium components for atomic weapons to cleanup of extensive radioactive and chemical contamination representing the legacy of production activities. Remediation was governed by the agreements between the US DOE as the responsible party and the US Environmental Protection Agency and the state of Colorado as joint regulators. In 1995, the Rocky Flats Future Use Working Group issued its final report, recommending among other features that long‐term cleanup reduce contamination levels to background. This article describes the circumstances that led the US DOE to complete the Rocky Flats cleanup more quickly and makes comparisons to the situation at the US DOE's Hanford site. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Remediation and review: Developing groundwater strategy at the hanford site

The U.S. Department of Energy's (US DOE's) environmental challenges include remediation of the Hanford Site in Washington State. The site's legacy from nuclear weapons “production” activities includes approximately 80 square miles of contaminated groundwater, containing radioactive and other hazardous substances at levels above drinking water standards. In 1998, the U.S. General Accounting Office (US GAO), the auditing arm of Congress, concluded that groundwater remediation at Hanford should be integrated with a comprehensive understanding of the “vadose zone,” the soil region between the ground surface and groundwater. The US DOE's Richland Operations Office adjusted its program in response, and groundwater/vadose‐zone efforts at Hanford have continued to develop since that time. Hanford provides an example of how a federal remediation program can be influenced by reviews from the US GAO and other organizations, including the US DOE itself. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Remediation,land use,and risk at Hanford

U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE) remediation responsibilities include the Hanford site in Washington State. Cleanup is governed by the Tri‐Party Agreement (TPA) between the US DOE as the responsible party and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Washington State Department of Ecology as joint regulators. In 2003, the US DOE desired to implement a “Risk‐Based End State” (RBES) policy at Hanford, with remediation measures driven by acceptable risk standards using exposure scenarios based on the 1999 Hanford Comprehensive Land‐Use Plan. Facing resistance from regulators and stakeholders, the US DOE solicited public input on its policy. This led to a Hanford Site End State Vision in 2005 and a commitment that the TPA would continue to control remediation. This article describes how regulator and public participation modified RBES to an end‐state vision. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Nuclear waste disposition and site remediation: U.S. department of energy,state governments,and other stakeholders dialogue

Remediation responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) encompass a vast national complex of highly contaminated former weapons facilities. During the mid‐1990s, DOE announced its intentions to consolidate some waste types at specific sites. At about the same time, organizations and public officials around DOE sites urged a National Dialogue, designed to develop comprehensive solutions to the Department's needs for waste disposition ( transportation, treatment, and storage). Recent opposition from citizens and elected officials in Nevada and Washington State has presented obstacles to DOE's plans. Additionally, chairs of nine site‐specific advisory boards recommended that DOE support a National Stakeholder Forum, similarly designed to develop solutions to disposition needs. This article reviews the chronology of DOE's disposition efforts, along with public and state reactions and recommendations. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Expert software that matches remediation site and strategy

Expert software-based decision support is speeding the process of defining environmental hazards and identifying remedial responses for the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) hazardous waste cleanup projects throughout the United States. Pacific Northwest Laboratories' (PNL) Remedial Action Assessment System (RAAS), and associated Technology Information System (TIS), written for Macintosh computers (soon for PC-compatible computers), sort through an encyclopedic data base to help environmental engineers prepare the most appropriate remedial strategy. The system has been available to DOE and other U.S. government engineers since last year and will soon be commercially available.     

Citizen board issues and local newspaper coverage of risk,remediation, and environmental management: Six U.S. nuclear weapons facilities

We examined site‐specific advisory board (SSAB) minutes and local newspaper coverage of the Fernald, Hanford, Idaho, Oak Ridge, Rocky Flats, and Savannah River sites of the U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE) in order to determine the importance of risk‐related issues related to remediation and other forms of environmental management. About one‐third of SSAB issues were risk‐related, and these were disproportionately major issues at meetings. The media focused on risks associated with remediation and other forms of waste management. The analysis implies that contractors and government officials need to establish and maintain communications with advisory panels and accentuate these contacts well in advance of contemplated new actions. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Environmental cleanup of the nation's former nuclear weapons sites: Unprecedented public‐private challenges at the largest facilities

In 1994, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) initiated a contract reform program intended to strengthen oversight capabilities and encourage the creation of contract and incentive structures, which would effectively facilitate the treatment of onsite contamination and waste. The remedia‐tion and disposal of these legacy wastes is the core of the Department's environmental manage‐ment mission (Government Accountability Office [GAO], 2003). Despite a concerted effort toward achieving the goals of the reform, progress has been slow. Many projects continue to necessitate cost and time extensions above those originally agreed upon. Although the Department insti‐tuted an accelerated cleanup program in 2002, promising to shave some $50 billion and 35 years from its earlier cost and schedule projections, there have been delays in critical project areas that call into question the attainability of the proposed reductions (GAO, 2005). Numerous explana‐tions have been offered as to why achieving these goals has proven so difficult, many of which have concluded that flawed contracting practices are to blame. This article concludes that the root of the problem is much deeper and that the organizational criticisms aimed at DOE are as much a legacy as the waste itself. Although the focus of this article is on large former nuclear weapons sites, these types of contracting and organizational issues are often found at other gov‐ernment and private complex hazardous waste sites. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

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.     

Translating a remediation technology into the required air,water, and rcra permits

Because remediation techniques and technologies are themselves generally viewed as contaminant source by hazardous waste laws and regulations, permits are required to use them, even if it is only to contain or remove a site's principal contaminants. Referring to such major environmental laws as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, RCRA, TSCA, and CERCLA, this article outlines the steps needed to translate cleanup projects into the appropriate permits.     

Proven methods for managing public perception of cleanups

Negative public perceptions can dramatically increase site remediation costs or even bring projects to a grinding halt. Public opposition and ensuing political pressure are two damaging, but often ignored, obstacles that confront remediation managers. This article discusses these and other public management issues, recommending tactics proven for maintaining positive working relationships with a site's human neighbors, the media (electronic and print), government officials, regulatory agencies, and other concerned groups to allow site cleanup to proceed without intervention, opposition, or unnecessary delay. It illustrates its warnings about public and political hostility with case histories from Superfund, RCRA, and other cleanup sites, recounting how corporate management won the public's confidence and kept their projects on time and within budget.     

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.     

Rocky Flats,plutonium, and controversy: Citizen activists provide institutional memory

The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) selected Rocky Flats, east of the Rocky Mountains, as the site to fabricate “plutonium pits,” triggers for H‐bombs, and operations began in 1952. Press reports revealed the plant's connection to atomic weapons in 1956. Denver is downwind and “downslope” by about 16 miles. As western suburbs moved closer to Rocky Flats over time, plant accidents sent plutonium and other contaminants offsite. In 1989, armed agents of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Federal Bureau of Investigation raided the facility, and the plant operator, Rockwell International, subsequently pleaded guilty to criminal environmental violations. By this time, the U.S. Department of Energy had inherited responsibility for Rocky Flats and atomic weapons production. In 1993, the primary mission at Rocky Flats became cleanup of contamination from plutonium and other hazardous substances. Under Energy's “Accelerated Cleanup” plan, remediation was certified complete in 2005 by the Department's cleanup regulators, EPA, and the Colorado Department of Public Health. But planned uses for the “buffer zone” around the facility's central industrial area, and for off‐site areas continued to generate public controversy. This article examines the controversy and reports on general “stewardship” concepts for long‐term waste management.     

Superfund site remediation by landfilling—overview of landfill design,operation, closure,and postclosure issues

This article discusses the appropriateness of using landfills as part of remediating hazardous chemical and Superfund sites, with particular emphasis on providing for true long‐term public health and environmental protection from the wastes and contaminated soils that are placed in the landfills. On‐site landfilling or capping of existing wastes is typically the least expensive approach for gaining some remediation of existing hazardous chemical/Superfund sites. The issues of the deficiencies in US EPA and state landfilling approaches discussed herein are also applicable to the landfilling of municipal and industrial solid “nonhazardous” wastes. These deficiencies were presented in part as “Problems with Landfills for Superfund Site Remediation” at the US EPA National Superfund Technical Assistance Grant Workshop held in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in February 2003. They are based on the author's experience in investigating the properties of landfill liners and the characteristics of today's landfills, relative to their ability to prevent groundwater pollution and to cause other environmental impacts. Discussed are issues related to both solid and hazardous waste landfills and approaches for improving the ability of landfills to contain wastes and monitor for leachate escape from the landfill for as long as the wastes in the landfill will be a threat. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

National monument locations and remediation of World War II battle sites

In December 2008, George W. Bush established the World War II Valor in the Pacific National Monument, including eight locations connected with World War II fighting. The executive proclamation designating the monument briefly described the individual sites, mentioning remaining battlefield debris. World War II battle locations in Hawaii and Alaska are currently designated for remediation under different programs of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or Department of Defense (DOD). The Pearl Harbor Naval Complex is a “Superfund” National Priority List site. Former military locations in the Aleutian Islands, involved in Japanese occupation and the U.S. offensive to regain control, are included in DOD's Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) remediation program. These monument sites, the regulatory frameworks of the applicable programs, and the current cleanup status are described. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Field testing of particulate matter continuous emission monitors at the DOE Oak Ridge TSCA incinerator. Toxic Substances Control Act

A field study to evaluate the performance of three commercially available particulate matter (PM) continuous emission monitors (CEMs) was conducted in 1999-2000 at the US Department of Energy (DOE) Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Incinerator. This study offers unique features that are believed to enhance the collective US experience with PM CEMs. The TSCA Incinerator is permitted to treat PCB-contaminated RCRA hazardous low-level radioactive wastes. The air pollution control system utilizes MACT control technology and is comprised of a rapid quench, venturi scrubber, packed bed scrubber, and two ionizing wet scrubbers in series, which create a saturated flue gas that must be conditioned by the CEMs prior to measurement. The incinerator routinely treats a wide variety of wastes including high and low BTU organic liquids, aqueous, and solid wastes. The various possible combinations for treating liquid and solid wastes may present a challenge in establishing a single, acceptable correlation relationship for individual CEMs. The effect of low-level radioactive material present in the waste is a unique site-specific factor not evaluated in previous tests. The three systems chosen for evaluation were two beta gauge devices and a light scattering device. The performance of the CEMs was evaluated using the requirements in draft Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Performance Specification 11 (PS11) and Procedure 2. The results of Reference Method 5i stack tests for establishing statistical correlations between the reference method data and the CEMs responses are discussed.     

Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide: Version III

The U. S. Army Environmental Center (USAEC) is leading an effort to update the Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide, Third Edition under the auspices of the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR). Its purpose is to create a comprehensive “Remediation Technologies Yellow Pages” for use by those responsible for environmental cleanup. The Guide is being produced as a multiagency cooperative effort published under the FRTR. Members of this effort include USAEC, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center (NFESC), the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of the Interior (DOI), and the Interstate Technologies Regulation Cooperative (ITRC). This article provides a comprehensive look at environmental technology information provided in the electronic user-defined Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide.     

Recent developments in cleanup technologies

A recent draft report from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory in Ada, Oklahoma, entitled ?General Methods for Remedial Operation Perforrmance Evaluation,”? establishes protocols for evaluating and optimizaing the performance of groundwater pump-and-treat systems (EPA 1992). For the first time, EPA proposes guidelines for determining when these systems can be terminated, regardless of whether a site's remediation goals are met. This column reviews the chemical and physical limits of pump-and-treat technology and discusses how these protocols can improve pump-and-treat performance and determine when it may be time to pull the plug.     

Triad case study: Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton

The U.S. Navy Public Works Center (PWC) Environmental Department, San Diego, California, is home to the Navy West Coast Site Characterization and Analysis Penetrometer System (SCAPS). SCAPS has been extensively used at several Navy sites since 1995 to provide real‐time, high‐density data sets. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Triad approach provided an ideal framework for optimizing the use of the Navy SCAPS during a volatile organic compound (VOC) source investigation at Installation Restoration Site 1114 at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. All three elements of Triad—systematic planning, dynamic work strategy, and use of real‐time measurement tools—were implemented to manage decision uncertainty and expedite the site management process. The investigation was conducted using the Navy SCAPS, outfitted with a cone penetrometer, membrane interface probe, and a direct sampling ion trap mass spectrometry detector, which allowed for real‐ time collection of over 690 feet of continuous lithologic information and VOC concentration data. These data were used collaboratively with 24‐hour turnaround US EPA 8260B VOC groundwater results from temporary direct‐ push wells to support the conclusion of a limited source area. Implementation of the Triad approach for this investigation provided an expedited high‐density data set and a refined conceptual site model (CSM) in real time that resulted in cost savings estimated at $2.5M and reduction of the site characterization and cleanup schedule by approximately three years. This project demonstrates how the US EPA's Triad approach can be applied to streamline the site characterization and cleanup process while appropriately managing decision uncertainty in support of defensible site decisions. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Contaminant dynamics: Key to remedial performance and regulatory relief

Remediation results depend on thorough consideration of all the forces that influence contaminant behavior, including how the contaminant is distributed and the site's hydrogeology, as well as the physical, chemical, and biological factors involved in contaminant mobility and persistence. This information supports a cleanup project's initial investigation, helping decide the goals of the later remediation method, the usefulness of specific technologies, and the method's ultimate performance. This article discusses how the principal environmental and chemical processes influence contaminant fate and transport and explores four case histories that illustrate how that influence can help predict whether a project's goals are achievable, whether the project is needed at all, and whether those goals were actually achieved.