Nanotechnology for site remediation

As a remediation tool, nanotechnology holds promise for cleaning up hazardous waste sites cost‐effectively and addressing challenging site conditions, such as the presence of dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs). Some nanoparticles, such as nanoscale zero‐valent iron (nZVI) are already in use in full‐scale projects with encouraging success. Ongoing research at the bench and pilot scale is investigating particles such as self‐assembled monolayers on mesoporous supports (SAMMS™), dendrimers, carbon nanotubes, and metalloporphyrinogens to determine how to apply their unique chemical and physical properties for full‐scale remediation. There are many unanswered questions regarding nanotechnology. Further research is needed to understand the fate and transport of free nanoparticles in the environment, whether they are persistent, and whether they have toxicological effects on biological systems. In October 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) prepared a fact sheet entitled “Nanotechnology for Site Remediation,” and an accompanying list of contaminated sites where nanotechnology has been tested. The fact sheet contains information that may assist site project managers in understanding the potential applications of this group of technologies. This article provides a synopsis of the US EPA fact sheet, available at http://clu‐in.org/542F08009 , and includes background information on nanotechnology; its use in site remediation; issues related to fate, transport, and toxicity; and a discussion of performance and cost data for field tests. The site list is available at http://clu‐in.org/products/nanozvi . © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

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

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

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.     

Operating windows to assess whether monitored natural attenuation is a technically feasible remediation option for BTEX‐contaminated groundwater

When used in combination with source management strategies, monitored natural attenuation (MNA) is likely to be a technically feasible remediation option if the contaminant persistence time along the flow path is less than (a) the transport time to the compliance point and (b) the time available for groundwater remediation objectives to be achieved. Biodegradation is often the most significant natural attenuation process for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) in groundwater. While BTEX transport rates increase with groundwater velocity, examination of data obtained from the published literature for seven sites undergoing MNA revealed significant positive correlations between groundwater velocity and first‐order biodegradation rates for toluene (r = 0.83, P < 0.05), ethylbenzene (r = 0.93, P < 0.01), m‐ and p‐xylene (r = 0.96, P < 0.01), and o‐xylene (r = 0.78, P < 0.05). This is attributed to increased dispersion at higher velocities leading to more mixing of electron acceptors with the contaminant plume. There was no positive correlation between groundwater velocity and first‐order biodegradation rates for benzene due to noise in the relationship caused by variations in (a) the concentrations of electron acceptors in the uncontaminated groundwater and (b) the proportions of benzene in the total BTEX concentration in the source area. A regression model of the relationship between groundwater velocity and the first‐order biodegradation rate can be used to delineate operating windows for groundwater velocity within which the contaminant persistence time is less than the transport and remediation times for a given source concentration, target concentration, distance to compliance point, retardation factor, and remediation time. The operating windows can provide decision makers with a rapid indication of whether MNA is likely to be a technically feasible remediation option at a given site. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

New perspectives in the use of horizontal wells for assessment and remediation

Remediation technologies can sometimes be established, but are not prevalent, for a variety of reasons; however, they can be subject to the forces of change. In some cases, creative economics promotes new uses, but also process improvements can drive new applications and levels of acceptance. This is what is happening with the deployment of horizontal wells for site assessment and remediation. In essence, decreasing costs and a strategic shift, which can be characterized as “greater flexibility,” are two factors that have brought about a resurgence of horizontal well systems. The latter is specifically tied to moving from monolithic single well systems to segmented well systems and this article explains how this is a next‐generation advancement in site assessment and remediation. As one example, nested, discrete horizontal profiling brings additional accuracy to assessment at sites, especially those challenged by access issues and also provides more directed treatment operations with a unique flexibility in dynamic groundwater systems. Also, with horizontal nested well systems, conceptual site models can be significantly enhanced with new perspectives and, depending on the situation, may provide significant economic advantages in deployment. Finally, this technological advancement creates a new paradigm in contrast, or rather as an adjunct, to vertical profiling and high‐resolution site characterization. In fact, it opens up a new strategic approach that can be called high‐resolution contaminant distribution, because flexible horizontal segmented well systems can be used to navigate “up the spine of the plume” providing discretized data sets that illuminate contaminant distribution in new ways.     

NYSDEC's DER‐31/Green Remediation Policy Influences Tool Development and Global Program

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Division of Environmental Remediation (DER) issued a program policy focused on the overall sustainability of hazardous waste site cleanups on August 11, 2010. This DER‐31/Green Remediation program policy (DER‐31) was issued in accordance with 6 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) Part 375 Environmental Remediation Programs. DER‐31 represents one of the first government‐issued green and sustainable remediation (GSR) policies in the United States. Consistent with other DER policies, DER‐31's provisions are broadly considered to be an expectation/requirement. GSR experts from within AECOM's Remediation Services (RS) Practice Area developed and implemented a GSR program designed to comply with DER‐31 provisions and have now broadly incorporated GSR into our New York remediation projects. Lessons learned from this experience in New York have influenced AECOM's global GSR program and implementation procedures and prompted the development of a new GSR tool (GSRx^TM) for identifying and assessing GSR best management practices (BMPs), which has also been employed globally. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Closing the mass balance at chlorinated solvent sites: Sources and attenuation processes

Using detailed mass balance and simple analytical models, a spreadsheet‐based application (BioBalance) was developed to equip decision makers with a predictive tool that can provide a semiquantitative projection of source‐zone concentrations and provide insight into the long‐term behavior of the associated chlorinated solvent plume. The various models were linked in a toolkit in order to predict the composite impacts of alternative source‐zone remediation technologies and downgradient attenuation processes. Key outputs of BioBalance include estimates of maximum plume size, the time frame for plume stabilization, and an assessment of the sustainability of anaerobic natural attenuation processes. The toolkit also provides spatial and temporal projections of integrated contaminant flux and plume centerline concentrations. Results from model runs of the toolkit indicate that, for sites trying to meet traditional, “final” remedial objectives (e.g., two to three orders of magnitude reduction in concentration with restoration to potable limits), “dispersive” mechanisms (e.g., heterogeneous flow and matrix diffusion) can extend remedial time frames and limit the benefits of source remediation in reducing plume sizes. In these cases, the removal of source mass does not result in a corresponding reduction in the time frame for source remediation or plume stabilization. However, this should not discourage practitioners from implementing source‐depletion technologies, since results from the toolkit demonstrate a variety of measurable benefits of source remediation. Model runs suggest that alternative, “intermediate” performance metrics can improve and clarify source remediation objectives and better monitor and evaluate effectiveness. Suggested intermediate performance metrics include reduction in overall concentrations or mass within the plume, reduction of flux moving within a plume, and reduction in the potential for risk to a receptor or migration of a target concentration of contaminant beyond a site boundary. This article describes the development of two key modules of the toolkit as well as illustrates the value of using intermediate performance metrics to evaluate the performance of a source‐remediation technology. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Injecting remediation compounds—How you inject is equally as important as what you inject

The injection of remediation compounds has rapidly become a widely accepted approach for addressing contaminated sites. One of the most fundamental questions surrounding the use of in situ remediation has been “What compound are you injecting at your site?” With the advances in the industry's understanding and acceptance of the in situ remediation process remediation professionals are now asking a follow‐up question that has become equally important to the success of a project: “How are you injecting a compound at your site?” This article discusses advances in field applications for in situ remediation and injecting remediation compounds. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Towards an international standard: The ISO/DIS 18504 standard on sustainable remediation

Sustainable remediation is the elimination and/or control of unacceptable risks in a safe and timely manner while optimizing the environmental, social, and economic value of the work. Forthcoming International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Standard on Sustainable Remediation will allow countries without the capacity to develop their own guidance to benefit from work done over the past decade by various groups around the world. The ISO standard has progressed through the committee draft (ISO/CD 18504) and draft international standard (ISO/DIS 18504) stages. The risk‐based approach to managing the legacy of historically contaminated soil and groundwater has been incorporated into policy, legislation, and practice around the world. It helps determine the need for remediation and the end point of such remediation. Remediation begins with an options appraisal that short lists strategies that could deliver the required reduction in risk. A remediation strategy comprises one or more remediation technologies that will deliver the safe and timely elimination and/or control of unacceptable risks. The ISO standard will help assessors identify the most sustainable among the shortlisted, valid alternative remediation strategies. Practitioners presenting case studies claiming to constitute sustainable remediation should now report how they have aligned their work with the new standard. Indicators are used to compare alternative remediation strategies. The simplest metric that allows a characteristic to act as an indicator should be chosen. Weightings indicators can become a contested exercise and should only be undertaken where there is a clear desire for it by stakeholders and a clear need for it in identifying a preferred strategy. The simplest means of ranking alternative remediation strategies should be adopted.     

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.     

Framework for integrating sustainability into remediation projects

The US Sustainable Remediation Forum (SURF) created this Framework to enable sustainability parameters to be integrated and balanced throughout the remediation project life cycle, while ensuring long‐term protection of human health and the environment and achieving public and regulatory acceptance. Parameters are considerations, impacts, or stressors of environmental, social, and economic importance. Because remediation project phases are not stand‐alone entities but interconnected components of the wider remediation system, the Framework provides a systematic, process‐based approach in which sustainability is integrated holistically and iteratively within the wider remediation system. By focusing stakeholders on the preferred end use or future use of a site at the beginning of a remediation project, the Framework helps stakeholders form a disciplined planning strategy. Specifically, the Framework is designed to help remediation practitioners (1) perform a tiered sustainability evaluation, (2) update the conceptual site model based on the results of the sustainability evaluation, (3) identify and implement sustainability impact measures, and (4) balance sustainability and other considerations during the remediation decision‐making process. The result is a process that encourages communication among different stakeholders and allows remediation practitioners to achieve regulatory goals and maximize the integration of sustainability parameters during the remediation process. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Historical analysis of monitored natural attenuation: A survey of 191 chlorinated solvent sites and 45 solvent plumes

A survey of experts in the application of natural attenuation was conducted to better understand how monitored natural attenuation (MNA) is being applied at chlorinated solvent sites. Thirty‐four remediation professionals provided general information for 191 sites where MNA was evaluated, and site‐specific data for 45 chlorinated solvent plumes being remediated by MNA. Respondents indicated that MNA was precluded as a remedy at only 23 percent of all sites where evaluated as a remedial option. Leading factors excluding MNA as a remedial approach were the presence of an expanding plume and an unreasonably long estimated remediation time frame. MNA is being used as the sole remedy at about 30 percent of the sites, and 33 percent are implementing MNA in conjunction with source zone remediation. The remaining sites are implementing MNA with plume remediation (13 percent), source containment (9 percent), or some other strategy (16 percent). © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Debunking myths about sustainable remediation

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

Integrating Remediation and Reuse to Achieve Whole‐System Sustainability Benefits

This perspective article was prepared by members of the Sustainable Remediation Forum (SURF), a professional nonprofit organization seeking to advance the state of sustainable remediation within the broader context of sustainable site reuse. SURF recognizes that remediation and site reuse, including redevelopment activities, are intrinsically linked—even when remediation is subordinate to or sometimes a precursor of reuse. Although the end of the remediation life cycle has traditionally served as the beginning of the site's next life cycle, a disconnect between these two processes remains. SURF recommends a holistic approach that brings together remediation and reuse on a collaborative parallel path and seeks to achieve whole‐system sustainability benefits. This article explores the value of integrating remediation into the reuse process to fully exploit synergies and minimize the costs and environmental impacts associated with bringing land back into beneficial use. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Sustainable remediation at the Massachusetts Military Reservation

When does remediation do more harm than good? After conducting a sustainability analysis on a large pump‐and‐treat site at the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR), the Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment (AFCEE) found evidence suggesting that the remediation systems were creating more pollution than they were remediating. For several years, the AFCEE/MMR has had an aggressive “better, cheaper, faster” optimization program intended to expedite aquifer restoration, reduce costs to the taxpayers, and reduce cleanup time frames. An initial sustainability analysis was conducted in 2005 as part of this program. The analysis identified several concerns, one of which was the indirect generation of air emissions from conventional fossil fuel–based power plants used to power the remediation systems. In addition to the environmental impact of these air emissions, the cost of electricity continues to increase. The AFCEE/MMR evaluated options for addressing both of these concerns and opted to employ renewable energy technology in the form of a utility‐scale wind turbine. This case study presents a more sustainable approach to remediation at the MMR through the use of renewable energy, in the form of a 1,500‐kW wind turbine. Power costs for operating the treatment systems, which processed up to 16 million gallons per day, amounted to over $2.2 million in 2008. The wind turbine is anticipated to reduce the program's electricity costs and offset air emissions, generated indirectly through the use of electricity from fossil fuel–based power plants, by approximately 25 to 30 percent. Based on a range of utility cost projections and an estimate of the turbine's energy production, the $4.6 million project is anticipated to have a payback period between six and eight years. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. *

1 This article is a U.S. Government work and, as such, is in the public domain of the United States of America.

     

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.     

Remediation process optimization: A status report

There are hundreds of contaminated sites with remediation systems that require evaluation and modification to accomplish cleanup goals. These systems are operating well past projected cleanup schedules, cost more than projected to operate, and may not be as protective of human health and the environment as planned. Remediation process optimization (RPO) is an effective method to assess the progress of a system toward achieving cleanup goals within desired time frames and to make the necessary changes in order to reach those goals. Eight main components to the RPO process are evaluated during a review and an implementation plan of recommended changes to the system is developed. Follow‐up and tracking are essential to successful RPO programs. In this article, the authors present a summary of a recent Technical and Regulatory (TechReg) Guidance Document (Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council [ITRC], 2004) and related Technology Overview Series on Advanced Topics in RPO (ITRC, 2006) in a distilled form. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

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.     

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.     

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.