Expert software that matches remediation site and strategy

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

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.     

The trade-off between assessment and cleanup phases of remediation projects

Based on actual project experiences over the past decade, execution strategies for remediation projects have varied significantly. For example, the overlap between the assessment and cleanup phases can range from none (for projects that complete assessment activities before starting the cleanup) to almost half of the assessment duration (for projects that may be under pressure to show progress at the site). This article quantifies the relationship between remediation project execution strategies, project definition components, and remediation project cost and schedule performance. By relating project outcomes to indicators that can be monitored early in the project cycle, project teams may be able to correct problems before they affect the ultimate performance of the remediation project.     

Alternatives to incineration in remediation of soil and sediments assessed

Contamination of soil and sediment by pollutants represents a major environmental challenge. Remediation of soil during the original Superfund years consisted primarily of dig and haul, capping, or containment. The 1986 amendments to CERCLA—SARA—provided the incentive for treatment and permanent remedies during site remediation. Thermal treatment, which routinely achieves the low cleanup criteria required by RCRA land-ban regulations, became one of the major technologies used for cleanup under the concept of ARAR. As the remediation industry matured and recognized specific market niches in soil remediation, a number of new technologies emerged. Thermal desorption, bioremediation, soil vapor extraction, soil washing, and soil extraction are being used on sites at which the technology offers advantages over incineration. In addition, a continuing stream of emerging technologies is being presented that requires careful evaluation relative to existing cleanup methods. Each of these technologies offers a range of options for achieving appropriate cleanup criteria, application to different soil matrices, cost, time of remediation, and public acceptability. Balancing cleanup criteria defined by regulation or risk assessment with technology cost and capability affords the opportunity to solve these problems with appropriate balance of cost and protection of human health and the environment.     

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.     

Estimating Remediation Costs at Contaminated Sites With Varying Amounts of Available Information

Environmental professionals are often tasked with projecting the cost to bring a contaminated site or portfolio of sites to regulatory closure. Fortunately, there are a number of useful guidance documents and industry publications available to assist in such cost projections. However, the usefulness of such tools is limited when adequate costing information is lacking, such as (a) the nature and extent of contamination; (b) regulatory requirements; (c) the remedial approach to be implemented; and/or (d) the duration of operation, maintenance, and monitoring activities. Despite the lack of such information, cost‐to‐closure estimates are nevertheless routinely needed and generated for internal assessments or audits, regulatory disclosures, property acquisitions, insurance claims, litigation, and other business transactions. Cost estimates are also often needed in bankruptcy proceedings where the trier of fact must estimate the total future costs associated with an environmental legacy portfolio to determine the overall value (or solvency in the case of evaluating the potential bankruptcy) of a company. This article presents a solution for developing cleanup costs for single sites or a portfolio of sites using a comprehensive, three‐tiered method that is effective over a wide range of site information. Real‐world examples of the successful application of this method are then provided, based on detailed environmental analyses that were completed for a recent bankruptcy proceeding and a case in which an estimated cleanup cost was needed in a legal proceeding. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Choosing remediation and waste management options at hazardous and radioactive waste sites

This article discusses a process for finding insights that will allow federal agencies and environmental professionals to more effectively manage contaminated sites. The process is built around what Etzioni (1968) called mixed‐scanning, that is, perpetually doing both comprehensive and detailed analyses and periodically re‐scanning for new circumstances that change the decision‐making environment. The article offers a checklist of 127 items, which is one part of the multiple‐stage scanning process. The checklist includes questions about technology; public, worker, and ecological health; economic cost and benefits; social impacts; and legal issues. While developed for a DOE high‐level radioactive waste application, the decision‐making framework and specific questions can be used for other large‐scale remediation and management projects. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Impact: A Model for calculation of soil cleanup levels

The establishment of soil cleanup levels is a primary concern in site remediation projects. Soil cleanup levels provide targets that drive the remediation process from technology selection through closure. Several state regulatory agencies are currently in the process of developing scientifically based soil cleanup standards. The underlying premise in the derivation of such standards is to ensure that the site will not pose a threat to human health and the environment after remediation has been completed. To accomplish this, remediation project managers must consider several contaminant transport pathways. This article presents the salient features of a model named IMPACT, which was developed to assist in the derivation of soil cleanup levels. IMPACT considers the soil-to-groundwater pathway and predicts the cleanup levels in a contaminated soil layer in the vadose zone such that groundwater quality standards are met at any point in the aquifer.     

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.     

Triad case study: Rattlesnake Creek

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (US ACE) is responsible for conducting the cleanup of radiological contaminated properties as part of the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program. One property is the Rattlesnake Creek (RSC) portion of the Ashland sites. The RSC stream sediments are contaminated with thorium‐230, radium‐226, and uranium. The US ACE is closing RSC using protocols contained within the Multi‐Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM). At RSC, the US ACE developed site‐specific derived concentration guideline level (DCGL) cleanup requirements consistent with the MARSSIM guidance. Because of uncertainty about the distribution of contamination within the creek, the US ACE used the Triad approach to collect data and design remedial actions. Systematic planning helped target the areas of concern, develop a conceptual site model, and identify data gaps to be addressed before remediation plans were finalized. Preremediation sampling and analysis plans were designed to be explicitly consistent with final status survey requirements, allowing data sets to support both excavation planning needs and closure requirements in areas where contamination was not encountered above DCGL standards. Judicious use of real‐ time technologies such as X‐ray fluorescence and gamma walkover surveys minimized expensive off‐ site alpha spectrometry analyses, and at the same time provided the ability to respond to unexpected field conditions. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Systematic planning for Triad projects

This article examines specific systematic planning steps that can be used for designing and controlling Triad projects. Triad work strategies act to limit decision uncertainty, expedite schedules to meet project milestones, and reduce costs associated with cleanup activities. As a result, the Triad approach is rapidly increasing in popularity. Good project planning has always been seen as the cornerstone of successful Triad projects. However, the specific steps in the systematic planning process have not been extensively published. Demands of Triad projects, which attempt to make maximum use of innovative technologies and sequencing of activities in a learn‐ as‐you‐go framework, put new demands on regulators and project managers alike. Specific activities and relationships are identified to assist project managers with dynamic work strategies and real‐time measurements to support improved decision making. These include: assembly of stakeholders, a core technical team, and key decisions; development and refinement of a site model; use of demonstrations of methods applicability; development of dynamic work strategies and project sequencing; real‐time data management assessment and presentation; and unitized procurement of technologies and services. © 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.     

Improving decision quality: Making the case for adopting next‐generation site characterization practices

Better site characterization is critical for cheaper, faster, and more effective cleanup. This fact is especially true as cleanup decisions increasingly include site redevelopment and reuse considerations. However, established attitudes about what constitutes “data quality” create many barriers to exciting new tools capable of achieving better characterization, slowing their dissemination into the mainstream. Traditional approaches to environmental “data quality” rest on simplifying assumptions that are rarely acknowledged by the environmental community. Data quality assessments focus on the quality of the analysis, while seldom asking what impact matrix heterogeneity has had on analytical results. Assessments of data quality typically assume that chemical contaminants are distributed nearly homogeneously throughout environmental matrices and that contaminant‐matrix interactions are well behaved during analysis. Yet, these assumptions seldom hold true for real‐world matrices and contaminants at scales relevant to accurate risk assessment and efficient remedial design. For the site cleanup industry to continue technical advancement, over‐simplified paradigms must give way to next‐generation models that are built on current scientific understanding. If reuse programs such as Brownfields are to thrive, the scientific defensibility of individual projects must be maintained at the same time as characterization and cleanup costs are lowered. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offers the Triad Approach as an alternative paradigm to foster highly defensible, yet extremely cost‐effective reuse decisions. © 2003 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.     

Using risk assessment to achieve cost-effective property transfers and site closures for former UST sites

Risk assessment has been increasingly applied as a tool in making risk management decisions that affect cleanup of contaminated sites, property transactions, and liability issues. As a site-specific evaluation, risk assessment takes into account the unique characteristics and intended future uses for site property in evaluating chemical concentrations which may remain in place without risk to public health and the environment. The results of a risk assessment can be used to determine reuse options for a property, facilitate site closure, and reduce liabilities (Copeland and Robles, 1994; Copeland et al., 1993a). This article describes the risk assessment process, the role of risk assessment in determining the need for remedial action and identifying site-specific cleanup goals, and the cost effectiveness of applying risk assessment in remedial decisions. Because of the prevalence of former UST sites throughout the United States, this article focuses on risk assessment and remediation of UST sites. However, the process can be applied at sites where other chemicals have been released. Three case studies are presented to illustrate the application of risk assessment in achieving cost-effective site closure at sites containing leaking underground storage tanks.     

A dynamic methodology for estimating cleanup efforts for mercury in soil at gas utility gate stations

This article provides an overview of a dynamic methodology leading to the estimation of the level of mercury concentration in soil and soil cleanup volumes associated with a large number of gate stations suspected of having mercury in their soil. The methodology uses a unique screening approach that has been developed for relating measurements of volatile mercury near the surface to mercury concentration in the upper soil subsurface (about twelve inches deep). The screening approach was used in an effort to reduce the number of sites that are subject to extensive multimedia environmental sampling and analysis. The approach helps to focus on a small number of sites that are suspected of having the highest mercury concentration in soil, perform multimedia environmental sampling at these sites, use the field data to perform risk assessment, and determine the cleanup action levels and the volume of hot spots soil to be cleaned at these sites. The information obtained for the most contaminated sites is used to determine, if required, the level of cleanup for less contaminated sites.     

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.     

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.     

Understanding technology trends for remediation projects

Success of future environmental remediation projects depends on applying knowledge gained from completed projects. This article examines the trends in technology implementation, quantifies the impact of different remediation technologies on project costs and execution risks, and quantifies the economies of scale experienced by remediation projects. Actual project data from remediation projects conducted by the private sector and government organizations form the basis of the analysis.     

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.