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.     

Transuranic waste remediation in Idaho: Pit 9, failed contracts,and lawsuits

The U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE) remediation responsibilities include its Idaho National Laboratory. In 1989, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency placed the Idaho site on its National Priority List for environmental cleanup. The site's contamination legacy from operations included inactive reactors and other structures, spent nuclear fuel, high‐level liquid radioactive wastes, calcined radioactive wastes, and transuranic wastes. Documents governing cleanup include a 1995 Settlement Agreement between the US DOE and the US Navy as responsible parties, and the State of Idaho. The Subsurface Disposal Area contains buried transuranic wastes, lies above the East Snake River Plain Aquifer, and could be the “site's most nettlesome cleanup issue,” according to an outside observer. This article describes the technical and legal difficulties that have been encountered in remediating this area. © 2010 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.     

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.     

Environmental assessment and remediation: Estimating the costs of uncertainty

Current cost estimates for the assessment and remediation of environmental contamination at facilities operated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) are based largely on assumptions, with a resulting high level of uncertainty. Therefore, consistent and reliable methods for estimating the uncertainty inherent in the estimates are of vital importance. This article presents an approach and format for estimating contingency in DOE's Environmental Restoration Program. The method involves an analysis of risk factors having a potential to affect the cost of the major elements in the estimate. Application of the contingency analysis to a project site is included in the discussion.     

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.     

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.     

How changing regulations determine biotreatment options for petroleum wastes

Remediation of refinery wastes is regulated by three major federal environmental statutes: the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); other statutes apply, but to a lesser degree. During the past two years, RCRA's rules have effectively outlawed the passive biological treatment of primary refinery waste sludges in waste ponds and lagoons, even though the law recommends active biological treatment as the second stage in the waste treatment train. RCRA's land disposal restrictions may also outlaw land farming treatment for the bottom sludges involved in crude oil storage. Since 1980, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency listed an initial group of five waste streams as hazardous, the agency has listed two more waste streams and twenty-five organic constituents, several found in petroleum wastes. Now it is about to list fourteen more petroleum refining wastes and is studying the addition of fifteen more waste streams. Treatment standards and restrictions have also been promulgated. This article explores the biotreatment techniques and technologies that are still available to petroleum and environmental engineers.     

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.     

Formerly utilized sites remedial action program “completed” sites: Lessons for long‐term stewardship

The Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) covers inactive commercial, federal, and university facilities that once supported activities of the Manhattan Project or Atomic Energy Commission. Current responsibilities, established by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), are split between the U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The MOU distinguishes between facilities remediated before 1997 (“completed” sites) and those where remediation remained to be completed at that time. This article evaluates activities conducted at completed sites with regard to considerations for long‐term stewardship, which is defined by the US DOE as all activities necessary to protect human health and the environment after remediation is considered complete. Experience with these FUSRAP sites provides “lessons learned” for the requirements of satisfactory long‐term stewardship. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Look at groundwater quality to set VOC cleanup levels

In 1981, the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) discovered groundwater contamination by solvents and chromium at the Phoenix Goodyear Airport (PGA), just outside the city of Phoenix. ADHS and the U.S. EPA sampled the site for the next two years, finding that eighteen of their wells were contaminated with trichloroethene (TCE), six exceeding ADHS's action level of five micrograms per liter (μg/l). In 1983, the PGA site was added to the National Priorities List, and, in 1984, EPA began a $3 million remedial investigation, focusing on soils and groundwater. This article discusses how that investigation inspired the authors to develop a stream-lined evaluation method for PGA's volatile organic compounds (VOCs), the process for establishing VOC cleanup levels, and the $26 million of remediation work needed to be done at the site. The heart of this effort is a computer program called VLEACH, loosely standing for VOC-LEACHing, which anticipates the influence of VOCs on PGA's groundwater, even as remediation proceeds.     

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.     

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.     

An ecologically oriented database to guide remediation and reuse of contaminated sites

This article presents a database developed to determine the potential reuse of contaminated sites for primarily ecologically and culturally based activities. The database consists of 172 quantitative and qualitative measures of on‐site land suitability, ecological, cultural, and recreational value, and off‐site suitability, economic, and demographic information. Using sites owned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) as a case study, the article evaluates the quality of available data and suggests ways of using it for planning ecologically sensitive remediation activities and future land use. This type of database can be developed and used by anyone who needs to select, review, or evaluate site remediation and future land use options. Also discussed are the challenges associated with compiling and using data that has been generated by many sources over several years. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Rethinking groundwater monitoring at the Hanford Site

Groundwater monitoring at Department of Energy's (DOE's) Hanford Site is a large, expensive undertaking serving multiple purposes, including compliance with regulations and DOE orders, remediation efforts under CERCLA, and sitewide risk evaluations. Like most large Federal facilities, the monitoring program currently in place has evolved and grown overtime as new requirements were established and groups were assigned to address them. DOE and its regulators simultaneously awakened to the fact that there was a need to reevaluate the monitoring activities at Hanford, to better integrate the program, to avoid duplicative sampling, to improve everyone's understanding of the performance of the network, and to evaluate whether adequate data could be collected for lower cost. This paper describes the approch that was developed to guide the rethinking effort with direct and extensive involvement of DOE, EPA, Washington Department of Ecology, Indian Tribes, and DOE Contractors, and how this approach was applied to a large portion of the site. Both the human element of the process (cultural change), as well as some of the technical details associated with the effort, including a flexible application of EPA's data quality objectives process, are discussed.     

Treatment technologies for 1,4‐Dioxane: Fundamentals and field applications

1,4‐Dioxane is a synthetic industrial chemical frequently found at contaminated sites where 1,1,1‐trichloroethane was used for degreasing. It is a probable human carcinogen and has been found in groundwater at sites throughout the United States. The physical and chemical properties and behavior of 1,4‐dioxane create challenges for its characterization and treatment. It is highly mobile and has not been shown to readily biodegrade in the environment. In December 2006, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) prepared a report titled “Treatment Technologies for 1,4‐Dioxane: Fundamentals and Field Applications.” The report provides information about the chemistry of dioxane, cleanup goals, analytical methods, available treatment technologies, and site‐specific treatment performance data. The information may be useful to project managers, technology providers, consulting engineers, and members of academia faced with addressing dioxane at cleanup sites or in drinking water supplies. This article provides a synopsis of the US EPA report, which is available at http://cluin.org/542R06009 . © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Case study: An innovative approach to chemical landfill remediation

This article presents a case history of hazardous waste landfill remediation activities at General Electric's Silicone's (GES's) manufacturing facility in Waterford, New York. The approach presented describes the development of the remedial program and its subsequent modification in achieving regulatory compliance goals, providing environmental benefit, and satisfying business considerations and budgetary constraints.     

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.     

Treatment technologies for mercury in soil,waste, and water

Mercury occurs naturally in the environment and can be found in elemental (metallic), inorganic, and organic forms. Modern uses for mercury include chemical manufacturing, thermometers, and lighting (mercury vapor and fluorescent lamps). The chemical and allied products industry group is responsible for the largest quantity of mercury used in the United States. Mercury, particularly the organic methylmercury form, is a potent neurotoxin capable of impairing neurological development in fetuses and young children and of damaging the central nervous system of adults. Mercury regulations span multiple federal and state environmental statutes, as well as multiple agency jurisdictions. In August 2007, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (US EPA's) Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) published a report titled “Treatment Technologies for Mercury in Soil, Waste, and Water.“ The report identifies eight treatment technologies and 57 projects, 50 of which provide performance data. This information can help managers at sites with mercury‐contaminated media and generators of mercury‐contaminated waste and wastewater to identify proven and effective mercury treatment technologies; screen technologies based on application‐specific goals, characteristics, and costs; and apply experiences from sites with similar treatment challenges. This article provides a synopsis of the US EPA report, which is available at http://clu‐in.org/542R07003 . © 2007 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.