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.     

Hazardous Substance Research Centers program: An incubator for remediation research

The Hazardous Substance Research Center (HSRC) was established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to assist in the implementation of Superfund and to address major hazardous substance environmental problems at a regional level. Over the past 12 years, the HSRC program has produced more than 1,200 peer‐reviewed technical articles, 27 patents and licenses, 21 new technologies for the remediation marketplace, and provided technical assistance to more than 300 communities. Research, technology transfer, and training are conducted by five regional multi‐university centers, which focus on different aspects of hazardous substance management. Areas of focus include urban environments, contaminated sediments, natural remediation and restoration technologies, abandoned mine lands, and chlorinated solvents in groundwater. This article provides an overview of the five HSRC programs including current areas of research, field studies, and technology transfer Internet links to access research results and remediation technology information. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Cost Evaluation for Selected Remediation Technologies

Relatively little data are available to document the historical cost for using common remediation technologies, and site managers often must rely on information from technology vendors and predictive models, which may not accurately reflect the experiences of previous technology users. To help address these concerns, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted an evaluation of data on historical costs of common remediation technologies. Cost curves were developed for four technologies, showing the relationship between cost for remediation and quantity of material treated. Although costs are known to be highly site‐specific and affected by many factors, the curves are useful in illustrating the variability of historical costs and the economies of scale for treating relatively large quantities of material. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Using an integrated approach for quantifying VOC source areas for site remediation

Locating and quantifying free-phase volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the subsurface represent one of the more difficult challenges facing hazardous waste site remediation programs. Successful remediation programs require reliable data on the size and extent of potential VOC contamination sources. Improving subsurface quantification of VOCs requires a large number of reliable low-cost samples. Satisfying this objective relies on improved sampling techniques, field analysis of samples, and a modified quality assurance program. This paper describes an integrated approach using conventional split-spoon samplers, microcore sampling, hexane extractions, and a field gas chromatograph with an autosampler as part of a technical demonstration for innovative remediation technologies. Using this approach, it was possible to delineate a subsurface source of free-phase VOCs at a cost of $15 per sample. The distribution of dense nonaqueous phase liquid determined by this sampling approach agreed with the conceptual model for the site.     

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.     

Reducing costs by using value engineering on superfund projects

This article informs the remediation community about value technology and how the technologies of remediation and value engineering (VE) have been successfully combined. The article describes to the practitioner how the first value engineering study on Superfund work was initiated by the Corps of Engineers for EPA.     

New paradigms for hazardous waste engineering

Today's hazardous waste engineering practice is based on the premise that the current technologies for conducting hazardous waste remediation are sufficient to solve most problems. The premise is false: Except for simple sites, the current practice cannot deliver answers with the required accuracy and precision. This article describes the huge uncertainties present in complex hazardous waste remediation efforts. It also discusses the “observational” method, which originated in the geotechnical engineering field, as a means of coping with these uncertainties during site characterization and remediation. The article includes case-study examples illustrating the use of the observational method at hazardous waste sites.     

Choosing the most effective hazardous waste landfill cover

Determining the appropriate criteria and designs for hazardous waste landfill covers has spawned much discussion within the environmental remediation arena. Very little reliable comparison of various technologies exists. Researchers at Los Alamos National Laboratory studied the relative hydrologic performance of four landfill cover designs—two capillary barrier designs, one modified EPA RCRA design, and one control cover. Monitoring the fate of natural precipitation for nearly four years showed that the covers with barrier layers more effectively reduced deep percolation than the control cover. Although none entirely eliminated deep percolation, the RCRA cover, incorporating a clay hydraulic barrier, most effectively controlled it. The two capillary barriers reduced deep percolation, but significant amounts were still produced. Over 90 percent of all percolation through the covers, and lateral flow within the covers, occurred during February through May each year, primarily as a result of snowmelt, early spring rains, and low evapotranspiration. The study also showed that gravel mulch surface treatments (70- to 80-percent ground cover) reduced runoff and erosion. Despite additional shrubs planted on one, the two plots receiving the gravel mulch treatments exhibited equally enhanced amounts of evapotranspiration.     

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.     

SITE Program Success: Cost Savings to Government and Increased Revenue for Technology Vendors

The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program is a program mandated by Congress through the 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). The original Superfund allowed no provisions for research and development of needed remediation technologies. Problems arose when the demand for involved, complex treatment could not be met by the traditional contain, haul, and dispose process that hazardous waste handlers had become familiar with. In response to the increasing complexity of hazardous waste site remediation, SARA called for an “Alternative or Innovative Treatment Technology Research and Demonstration Program.” As a result, EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and the Office of Research and Development established the SITE program. This article is a historical analysis of the unique cost savings of the SITE program.     

Best management practices for environmental restoration programs

Based on a review of hundreds of environmental restoration program optimization reviews, this article describes management tools found in successful and efficient remediation programs. Projects that consistently struggled to achieve their objectives were observed to be missing certain, or to have inadequately used, these tools. The tools are articulated as best practices because when they are present and actively used, project shortcomings were minimal. Priority objectives for site owners and project managers include improving efficiency and effectiveness through performance management, reducing resource usage and energy consumption, ensuring protectiveness, and reducing uncertainty in management decision making. Restoring environmental resources damaged by historic waste management practices began in earnest in the late 1960s and early 1970s with the broad recognition of the problems caused by environmental discharges and spills when wastes are not managed appropriately. Under new regulations, soil and groundwater remediation projects could be, and were, conducted within a defined framework. The number and variety of restoration projects that were launched resulted in a slew of projects progressing through the stages of characterization, decision, and cleanup, and more were added to the cleanup process each year. In the 1990s, the Department of Defense noted that many cleanup efforts were projected to incur substantial operational, maintenance, and monitoring costs for decades into the future. This was correctly perceived as an opportunity to optimize those systems and programs, minimize costs, and reduce health and environmental risks. The best practices outlined in this article address management tools that were identified in optimization efforts that led to effective and efficient environmental remediation projects. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Recycling and reuse of industrial wastes in Taiwan

Eighteen million metric tons of industrial wastes are produced every year in Taiwan. In order to properly handle the industrial wastes, the Taiwan Environmental Protection Administration (Taiwan EPA) has set up strategic programs that include establishment of storage, treatment, and final disposal systems, establishment of a management center for industrial wastes, and promotion of recycling and reuse of industrial wastes. The Taiwan EPA has been actively promoting the recycling and reuse of industrial wastes over the years. In July 1995 the Taiwan EPA amended and promulgated the Criteria for the Industrial Waste Storage, Collection and Processing Facility, July, 1995 that added articles related to general industrial waste recycling and reuse. In June 1996 the Taiwan EPA promulgated the Non-listed General Industrial Waste Reuse Application Procedures, June, 1996, followed by the Regulations Governing the Permitting of Hazardous Industrial Waste Reuse, June 1996, setting up a full regulatory framework for governing industrial waste reuse. To broaden the recycling and reuse of general industrial wastes, the Taiwan EPA has listed 14 industrial waste items for recycling and reuse, including waste paper, waste iron, coal ash, tempered high furnace bricks (cinder), high furnace bricks (cinder), furnace transfer bricks (cinder), sweetening dregs, wood (whole/part), glass (whole/part), bleaching earth, ceramics (pottery, brick, tile and cast sand), individual metal scraps (copper, zinc, aluminum and tin), distillery grain (dregs) and plastics. As of June 1999, 99 applications for reuse of industrial wastes had been approved with 1.97 million metric tons of industrial wastes being reused.     

Managing contaminated sites and the role of domestic and international forums

Domestic and international cooperation in the field of contaminated‐site management has increased dramatically in the past decade. The expected benefits of this cooperation include the reduction of duplication in remediation efforts, the coordination of contaminated‐site research, improved synergy between various stakeholders, enhanced policy development, and better information dissemination and technology transfer. This article identifies and briefly discusses key domestic and international collaborations, partnerships, and networks relating to contaminated‐site management and remediation. Also provided is information on how the forums can be accessed. Common themes identified across the forums discussed in this article include (1) the development and demonstration of innovative technologies, (2) the use of risk assessment, (3) the use of toxicology, bioavailability, and ecotoxicity testing, and (4) the increasing need to find holistic approaches for managing contaminated sites, such as guaranteed remediation programs and transfer of environment liability, and the need for understanding implications of remediation financing mechanisms. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.     

Mad cow and related diseases: Challenges for waste management

Mad cow disease and related transmissible spongiform encephalopathy diseases (TSEs) in both animals and humans have received worldwide attention. Interestingly, the issue of managing biohazardous wastes, for which TSE agents are an issue, has received little attention by environmental professionals. The burial of wastes associated with mad cow and related diseases may eventually lead to unusual challenges for remediation professionals. The core challenge is that medical researchers have confirmed the incredible difficulty in destroying TSE infectious agents or pathogens, generally called prions. Risk reduction is certainly possible with treatment technologies, but complete elimination of risk by reliable and verifiable destruction of all TSE agents is probably infeasible. Proving the efficacy of any waste treatment method for TSE-infected wastes is not practical because there is no commercially available test for TSE pathogens (although one is expected soon) and in only a few cases is there a reasonable surrogate approach. These circumstances have contributed to some biohazardous waste managers discounting the TSE issue. The goal of this article is to more thoroughly analyze available information and various risks to identify useful implications for alternative waste management technologies. A number of prudent actions can be taken in recognition of the TSE problem, including more careful assessment of treatment technologies, avoiding any reuse or recycling of waste treatment residues, using air pollution control systems to avoid releases of materials possibly containing infectious agents, and using wastewater pretreatment prior to sewer disposal.     

Quantitative assessments of municipal waste management systems: Using different indicators to compare and rank programs in New York State

The primary objective of waste management technologies and policies in the United States is to reduce the harmful environmental impacts of waste, particularly those relating to energy consumption and climate change. Performance indicators are frequently used to evaluate the environmental quality of municipal waste systems, as well as to compare and rank programs relative to each other in terms of environmental performance. However, there currently is no consensus on the best indicator for performing these environmental evaluations. The purpose of this study is to examine the common performance indicators used to assess the environmental benefits of municipal waste systems to determine if there is agreement between them regarding which system performs best environmentally. Focus is placed on how indicator selection influences comparisons between municipal waste management programs and subsequent system rankings. The waste systems of ten municipalities in the state of New York, USA, were evaluated using each common performance indicator and Spearman correlations were calculated to see if there was a significant association between system rank orderings. Analyses showed that rank orders of waste systems differ substantially when different indicators are used. Therefore, comparative system assessments based on indicators should be considered carefully, especially those intended to gauge environmental quality. Insight was also gained into specific factors which may lead to one system achieving higher rankings than another. However, despite the insufficiencies of indicators for comparative quality assessments, they do provide important information for waste managers and they can assist in evaluating internal programmatic performance and progress. To enhance these types of assessments, a framework for scoring indicators based on criteria that evaluate their utility and value for system evaluations was developed. This framework was used to construct an improved model for waste system performance assessments.     

Solidification/stabilization for remediation of wood preserving sites: Treatment for dioxins,PCP, creosote,and metals

This article discusses the use of solidification/stabilization (S/S) to treat soils contaminated with organic and inorganic chemicals at wood preserving sites. Solidification is defined for this article as making a material into a freestanding solid. Stabilization is defined as making the contaminants of concern nonmobile as determined from a leaching test. S/S then combines both properties. For more information on S/S in general the reader should refer to other publications (Connors, J.R. [1990]). Chemical fixation and solidification of hazardous wastes. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; US Environmental Protection Agency. [1993a]. Engineering bulletin solidification/stabilization of organics and inorganics (EPA/540/S‐92/015); Wiles, C.C. [1989]. Solidification and stabilization technology. In H.M. Freeman [Ed.], Standard handbook of hazardous waste treatment and disposal. New York: McGraw Hill) as this article addresses only wood preserving sites and assumes basic knowledge of S/S processes. For a more general discussion of wood preserving sites and some other remedial options, the reader may wish to refer to a previous EPA publication (US Environmental Protection Agency. [1992a]. Contaminants and remedial options at wood preserving sites [EPA/600/R‐92/182]). This article includes data from the successful remediation of a site with mixed organic/inorganic contaminants, remediation of a site with organic contaminants, and detailed treatability study results from four sites for which successful formulations were developed. Included are pre‐ and post‐treatment soil characterization data, site vaines. ileizdot‐ names (in some cases), treatment formulas used (generic aridproprietary), costs, recommendations, and citatioiis to inore detailed refer‐ en ces. The data presen ted iiidica te that dioxins, pentachlorophepi 01 (PCP), creosote, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbom (PAHsI, and metals can be treated at moderate cost by the use of S/S techuologp.     

1,4‐Dioxane: Emerging technologies for an emerging contaminant

The synthetic chemical, 1,4‐dioxane, is classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a probable human carcinogen. Between 2013 and 2015, the EPA detected 1,4‐dioxane in public drinking water supplies in 45 states at concentrations up to 33 µg/L and in groundwater from releases at hazardous waste sites across the United States. Although a Federal maximum contaminant level drinking water standard has not yet been proposed, state‐specific standards and criteria are as low as 0.3 µg/L. 1,4‐Dioxane is a recalcitrant chemical in that applications of conventional treatment technologies have had limited success in reducing concentrations in water to meet current and proposed health‐protective levels. Although mainly used as a stabilizer for the solvent 1,1,1‐trichloroethane, it has been used in other industrial processes and has been detected in a variety of consumer products, such as foods, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and detergents. The high aqueous solubility of 1,4‐dioxane coupled with limited solubility of chlorinated solvents typically found in conjunction with 1,4‐dioxane contamination is the primary reason for its treatment challenges. In the last several years, an alternative, cost‐effective technology has been developed that has demonstrated treatment to levels significantly lower than the Federal and state‐specific goals. This article provides a Federal and state‐by‐state summary of 1,4‐dioxane‐specific drinking water and groundwater concentration criteria and qualitative comparison of the effectiveness of conventional treatment technologies compared to the effectiveness of an alternative treatment technology. A case study is also provided to present details regarding the application of an alternative treatment technology at an active groundwater remediation site in California.     

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.