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.     

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.     

Brownfield Sites Remediation Technology Overview,Trends, and Opportunities in China

Over decades of economic development, China's industrialization has led to significant environmental issues due to unregulated discharges into air, water, and soil. As cities continue to expand (i.e., urbanization trend) and awareness/concerns about environmental pollution rises, many industrial facilities along the edge of or within the city boundaries have been relocated or closed. This urbanization trend leaves behind idled and abandoned land that is contaminated from the former industrial activities and unregulated discharges. China released its first nationwide soil quality survey in April 2014, and the survey suggests that soil conditions in China represent a significant challenge. China has encouraged local engineering firms to demonstrate soil treatment technologies through pilot‐scale studies, but the outcomes of many demonstrations have not been promising due to the lack of remediation experience and underdeveloped technical guidelines that are needed to guide the remediation processes. During the past decade, some local soil remediation experience has been established, but it is limited for certain technologies that address their primary contaminants of concern: heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants. In 2014, national technical guidelines were published regarding environmental investigation, risk assessment, monitoring, and remediation; however, regulations and funding systems are still underdeveloped. Thus, the remediation processes that should maximize economic and environmental benefits are not streamlined. This article provides an overview of the latest regulatory developments, remediation technologies applied, technology trends, and market opportunities in China. The provided information aims to allow international remediation practitioners to better understand and appreciate this unique and emerging remediation market, which is growing fast, and to highlight the importance of developing a sustainable model that not only provides for cleanup of the environment but also supports economic development. ©2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Incorporating ecology and ecological risk into long‐term stewardship on contaminated sites

The long‐term management of environmental contamination will be a major activity at many sites in the foreseeable future. While human health issues often drive decisions about cleanup, restoration, and long‐term stewardship, ecological considerations are also major driving forces and are of paramount importance to the public. Incorporation of ecological considerations into decisions about environmental protection, both short term and long term, requires (1) understanding public perceptions of ecological values, including aesthetics and existence values, (2) understanding contamination issues within a context of the structure and functioning of ecosystems, (3) developing bioindicators of ecological health (including human), (4) developing indicators of ecosystem functioning, and (5) developing and implementing a biomonitoring plan before, during, and after remediation so that adverse effects can be ascertained before they become irreversible. Both remediation/restoration and long‐term stewardship goals must be informed by public policy mandates that include public participation and healthy human and ecological systems. This article examines these issues as they relate to cost‐effective, long‐term protection of human and ecological health on contaminated lands. © 2002 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.     

How shell cleaned up a 400,000-gallon oil spill

On April 23, 1988, approximately 9,500 barrels (400,000 gallons) of San Joaquin Valley crude oil leaked from an aboveground storage tank at Shell Oil Company's Martinez Manufacturing Complex in Martinez, California and entered Suisun Bay, an important recreation area. This article describes the remediation techniques Shell used to protect and clean up the Bay's oiled marshes, sloughs, rocky shores, marinas, and sandy beaches, and discusses the main methods of oil spill response, site-specific factors that must be considered in choosing remediation techniques, the interaction between Shell and government agencies, and the costs associated with the spill. The cleanup's total cost was approximately $8.3 million, which did not include private claims and claims handling costs; Shell also signed a separate consent decree for $19.75 million with the state of California and the federal government. This spill and its aftermath emphasize the need for preparation that facilitates response actions, improves the chances for cooperation between responsible parties and government agencies, minimizes the time needed for remediation, lowers cleanup costs, and limits natural resource damage claims and penalties.     

Accelerating environmental cleanup at DOE sites: Monitored natural attenuation/enhanced attenuation—A basis for a new paradigm

The U.S. Department of Energy is conducting a project to accelerate remediation through the use of monitored natural attenuation and enhanced attenuation for chlorinated ethenes in soils and groundwater. Better monitoring practices, improved scientific understanding, and an advanced regulatory framework are being sought through a team effort that engages technology developers from academia, private industry, and government laboratories; site cleanup managers; stakeholders; and federal and state regulators. The team works collaboratively toward the common goals of reducing risk, accelerating cleanup, reducing cost, and minimizing environmental disruption. Cutting‐edge scientific advances are being combined with experience and sound environmental engineering in a broadly integrated and comprehensive approach that exemplifies socalled “third‐generation R&D.” The project is potentially a model for other cleanup activities. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Current use of bioremediation for TCE cleanup: Results of a survey

In 1995 the University of Tennessee's Waste Management Research and Education Institute and Canon Inc. began an analysis of the extent to which remediation firms and research centers have implemented bioremediation strategies, particularly for the cleanup of trichloroethylene (TCE) in soil and groundwater. The research involved the mailing of surveys to a select, representative group of environmental professionals involved in TCE cleanup activities. The survey was divided into two parts. Part I gathered cost information for TCE cleanup, using both bioremediation and “conventional” cleanup technologies. Part II asked the survey recipients to relate their opinions on the use of nonindigenous microorganisms for bioremediation, especially their assessment of the effectiveness, reliability, safety, and predictability of this approach. The results of this survey are discussed in this article.     

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.     

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.     

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

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

Advantages of finite‐structured environmental insurance policies

Over the last five years, insurance products have been expanded to assist companies better manage environmental liabilities. The most progressive of these products is a finite‐structured program whereby the convergence of insurance and financial markets expand the meaning of “alternative risk transfer.” Finite programs blend financial markets and banking concepts with risk transfer concepts to more effectively and efficiently allow the insured to manage the financial implications of its environmental liabilities. This article presents the advantages of using finite‐structured environmental insurance policies and discusses how potential insureds can protect against several types of remediation project risks, including cleanup costs, inflation uncertainty, and variability in investment returns. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.     

Defining contamination limits with pneumatic hammer soil probes

There have been more than 100,000 confirmed releases of petroleum from underground storage tanks (USTs) in the United States and its territories. The 10,000-gallon spill and cleanup of unleaded gasoline, detailed in this article, that occurred from 1988 to 1990 on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, illustrates the author's argument that electric pneumatic-hammer soil probes are the fastest, most convenient, and least costly way of performing the soil-gas surveys needed to locate spilled petroleum product, evaluate vapor intrusion into basements, and determine the extent of groundwater contamination for remediation purposes. Current state soil-gas requirements are also included.     

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.     

Environmental Effects Monitoring in Sydney Harbor During Remediation of One of Canada's Most Polluted Sites: A Review and Lessons Learned

This article reviews a comprehensive marine environmental effects monitoring program (MEEMP) comprised of components capable of detecting changes in the marine environment over short or extended temporal scales during remediation of one of Canada's most polluted sites at the Sydney Tar Ponds. The monitoring components included: water and sediment quality, amphipod toxicity testing, mussel tissue, crab hepatopancreas tissue, and benthic community assessments. The MEEMP was designed to verify the impact predictions for the remediation project (i.e., no immediate damage to the marine ecosystem through remediation activities). Some components were capable of providing conclusive data (e.g., sediment and water quality), while others only yielded data that were inconclusive or difficult to attribute to remediation activities (e.g., intertidal community assessments and amphipod toxicity testing). Components that provided only inconclusive results or were difficult to attribute to remediation activities were discontinued, resulting in substantial cost savings during the project, but without compromising the overall objectives of the program, which was to monitor for potential adverse environmental effects of remediation on the marine environment in Sydney Harbor and to verify environmental effects predictions made in the Environmental Impact Statement for the project. The rationale for discontinuing certain MEEMP components and discussion of conclusive results are incorporated into “lessons learned” for environmental remediation practitioners and regulators working on similar large‐scale multiyear remediation projects. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Contaminant mass flux and forensic assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: Tools to inform remediation decision making at a contaminated site in Canada

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and metal(loid) mass flux estimates and forensic assessment using PAH diagnostic ratios were used to inform remediation decision making at the Sydney Tar Ponds (STPs) and Coke Ovens cleanup project in eastern Canada. Environmental effects monitoring of surface marine sediments in Sydney Harbor indicated significantly higher PAH concentrations during the first year of remediation monitoring compared to baseline. This was equivalent to PAH loadings of ～2,000 kg over a 15‐month period. Increases in sediment PAH concentrations raised serious concerns for regulators, who requested cessation of remediation activities early in the $400 M (CAD) project. Historically, the STPs were reported as the primary source of PAH contamination in Sydney Harbor with estimated discharges of 300 to 800 kg/year between 1989 and 2001. Mass flux estimates of PAHs and metal(loid)s and PAH diagnostic ratios were used to evaluate if increases in PAH concentrations in marine sediments were the result of the STPs remediation activities. PAH mass flux estimates approximated that 17 to 97 kg/year were discharged from the STPs during three years of remediation and were corroborated by an independent PAH flux estimate of 119 kg in year 1. PAH fluxes to the Sydney Harbor were mostly surface water derived, with groundwater contributing negligible quantities (0.002–0.005 kg/year). Fluxes of metal(loid)s to harbor sediments were stable or declining across all years and were mirrored in sediment metal(loid) concentrations, which lacked temporal variation, unlike total PAH concentrations. Flux results were also corroborated using PAH diagnostic ratios, which found a common source of PAHs. Coal combustion was likely the principal source of PAHs and not migration from the STPs during remediation. Although short‐term residual sediment PAH increases during onset of remediation raised concerns for regulators, calls for premature cessation of remediation early in the project were unwarranted based on only one year of monitoring data. Mass flux estimates and forensic assessments using PAH diagnostic ratios proved useful tools to inform remediation decision making that helped environmental protection and reduced costs associated with lost cleanup time.     

Estimating Remediation and Contaminant Respiration Emissions for Alternatives Comparisons at Petroleum Spill Sites

Greenhouse gas emissions assessments for site cleanups typically quantify emissions associated with remediation and not those from contaminant biodegradation. Yet, at petroleum spill sites, these emissions can be significant, and some remedial actions can decrease this additional component of the environmental footprint. This article demonstrates an emissions assessment for a hypothetical site, using the following technologies as examples: excavation with disposal to a landfill, light nonaqueous‐phase liquid (LNAPL) recovery with and without recovered product recycling, passive bioventing, and monitored natural attenuation (MNA). While the emissions associated with remediation for LNAPL recovery are greater than the other considered alternatives, this technology is comparable to excavation when a credit associated with product recycling is counted. Passive bioventing, a green remedial alternative, has greater remedial emissions than MNA, but unlike MNA can decrease contaminant‐related emissions by converting subsurface methane to carbon dioxide. For the presented example, passive bioventing has the lowest total emissions of all technologies considered. This illustrates the value in estimating both remediation and contaminant respiration emissions for petroleum spill sites, so that the benefit of green remedial approaches can be quantified at the remedial alternatives selection stage rather than simply as best management practices. ©2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

The Triad approach: A catalyst for maturing remediation practice

Many individual scientific and technical disciplines contribute to the multidisciplinary field of remediation science and practice. Because of the relative youth of this enterprise, disciplinary interests sometimes compete and conflict with the primary goal of achieving protective, cost‐effective, efficient projects. Convergence of viewpoints toward a more mature, common vision is needed. In addition, cleanup programs are changing under the influence of Brownfields initiatives and the needs of environmental insurance underwriters. Investigations and cleanups increasingly need to be affordable, yet transparent and defensible. Disciplinary goals and terminology need to better reflect real‐world site conditions while being more supportive of project needs. Yet, technical considerations alone will not ensure project success; better integration of human factors into project management is also required. The Triad approach is well placed to catalyze maturation of the remediation field because it emphasizes (1) a central theme of managing decision uncertainty; (2) unambiguous technical communications; (3) shortened project life‐cycles and multidisciplinary interactions that rapidly build professional expertise and provide feedback to test and perfect programmatic and field practices; and (4) concepts from “softer” sciences (such as economics, cognitive psychology, and decision theory) to capture important human factors. Triad pushes the cleanup industry toward an integrated, practical, second‐generation paradigm that can successfully manage the complexities of today's cleanup projects. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Yardsticks to Integrate Risk Assessment,Risk Management,and Groundwater Remediation

Remediation of contaminated sites has focused largely on restoration of groundwater aquifers. Often the stated remedial goal is to achieve conditions allowing unrestricted use and unrestricted exposure. Such total groundwater cleanup has occurred at some sites, but is the exception rather than the rule. At the same time, significant effort occurs to perform risk assessments for potential exposure to contaminants in groundwater at sites, both before and after remediation. The logical synergy between risk assessment and remediation is for risk management to seek opportunities for optimal use of groundwater based upon realistic expectations of cleanup technologies and the relevant acceptable residual (postremediation) levels of contaminants. This article explores an approach to improve this synergistic relationship between risk assessment, risk management, and remediation for groundwater cleanups. ©2015 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.