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.     

Let biodegradation promote in-situ soil venting

Although vapor extraction systems (VES) certainly help remediate volatile hydrocarbons (e.g., gasoline in unsaturated soils), recent studies have found that much of the related hydrocarbon removal is due to aerobic biodegradation, not simple volatilization. In many cases, more than 50 percent of the hydrocarbon removal by these systems is due to biodegradation. By emphasizing biodegradation and minimizing volatilization, the costs of system operation can be reduced, especially for off-gas treatment. Maximizing biodegradation also supports more efficient site remediation because not only are the volatile hydrocarbons cleaned up, but the less volatile contaminants are also cleaned up—by biodegradation. More complete site cleanups are possible through bioventing, especially when cleanup criteria are related to total petroleum hydrocarbons. This article explores the major environmental conditions that influence biodegradation, analyzes several bioventing case histories, and calculates biodegradation's remedial costs.     

Proven methods for managing public perception of cleanups

Negative public perceptions can dramatically increase site remediation costs or even bring projects to a grinding halt. Public opposition and ensuing political pressure are two damaging, but often ignored, obstacles that confront remediation managers. This article discusses these and other public management issues, recommending tactics proven for maintaining positive working relationships with a site's human neighbors, the media (electronic and print), government officials, regulatory agencies, and other concerned groups to allow site cleanup to proceed without intervention, opposition, or unnecessary delay. It illustrates its warnings about public and political hostility with case histories from Superfund, RCRA, and other cleanup sites, recounting how corporate management won the public's confidence and kept their projects on time and within budget.     

Framework for integrating sustainability into remediation projects

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

A risk-based approach to how clean is clean

Clearly defined remedial action objectives are a key factor in successful remediation programs. Chemical-specific cleanup criteria are critical components of remedial action objectives. A common risk-based approach can be applied for developing cleanup criteria for remediations under CERCLA, RCRA, and TSCA. This approach involves four steps: identify regulatory requirements; identify chemical-specific cleanup guidelines from previous cleanups; evaluate site-specific risk considering mitigating factors for a given site; select the final cleanup criteria based on information from the first three steps. To describe this approach, this paper presents a case study on a PCB cleanup conducted under TSCA. An objective risk-based approach was used to capitalize on the flexibility built into EPA's PCB cleanup guidelines. EPA granted an exemption to the stated policy on the basis of competing risk factors using a comparative risk-assessment approach. Similarly, risk assessment can be used to take advantage of regulatory flexibility in the selection of applicable or appropriate and relevant requirements (ARARs) under CERCLA, or in the selection of media protection standards under RCRA.     

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.     

Radiological risks and cleanup costs: A remediation case study

Potential health risks and cleanup costs are primary factors for measuring the effectiveness of a remediation project concerning a site contaminated with residual radioactive materials. Demanding cleanup of a contaminated site to its original condition, while eliminating any health risks after cleanup, can require prohibitive costs. However, by setting practical remediation objectives and by performing realistic but conservative risk assessments, health risks can be acceptable and cleanup costs can be reasonable. This article uses the South-Middle and Southeast Vaults Decontamination and Demolition Project at Argonne National Laboratory to demonstrate how negligible health risks can result after cleanup with minimal cleanup costs. Substantial cost savings of approximately $2 million was realized by implementing in-place decontamination and demolition (D&D) on the basis of acceptable risk, instead of requiring cleanup of the site to its original condition. By using the RESRAD computer program as a modeling tool, we show the maximum projected radiation dose (0.1 mrem per year) and the potential lifetime cancer risk (on the order of 10⁶) to an individual from exposure to the residual radioactivities are negligibly small. In addition to aiding in the selection of a preferred remediation alternative, results of the RESRAD modeling were also used to guide the implementation of the selected alternative to reduce exposures from the dominant pathway and to ensure that exposures from all pathways would be as low as reasonably achievable.     

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.     

Travis Air Force Base: A greener cleanups case study

Travis Air Force Base, California, has accelerated the pace of remediation while reducing long‐term costs and cutting greenhouse gas production. This has been achieved through optimizing existing systems and processes, adopting greener cleanups best management practices, and testing and implementing innovative “green” technologies. By optimizing and replacing existing systems that used energy‐intensive infrastructure, and by promoting the use of innovative in situ technologies, the US Air Force (Air Force) led team comprised of the Air Force Civil Engineer Center, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the performance‐based contractor CH2M, and the regulatory agencies consisting of the US Environmental Protection Agency, the California Water Board, and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, has reduced annual system operation and maintenance costs by over $200,000 per year, while reducing annual carbon dioxide production by approximately 930 tons per year. As a result of these actions, chlorinated solvent source areas have been reduced by over 99 percent in some cases, and the predicted cleanup time frame for multiple sites has been reduced by several decades. This article provides a case study for implementation of cost‐effective greener cleanup actions, and summarizes the approach taken by the Air Force led team to complete the greener cleanups self‐declaration process consistent with the ASTM International's E‐2893 Standard Guide for Greener Cleanups.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Cleanup levels for dioxin-contaminated soils

EPA's use of a 1 part per billion (ppb) level for dioxin contamination in residential soils is shown to be too high and not protective of public health. It was derived in a 1984 cancer risk assessment by another federal agency, but it is inconsistent with risk-based levels of 2 to 4 parts per trillion (ppt) obtained by using EPA's standard risk assessment methods. EPA has called the 1 ppb level a policy-based level, which correctly distinguishes it from a risk or health-based cleanup standard. The 1984 assessment is shown in this article to have considerable shortcomings. For over a decade, dioxins have been left in soils at levels posing health risks and sometimes at levels that EPA is legally required to address. Moreover, noncancer effects have been ignored, but recent work has shown them to support action at low ppt levels. To protect public health, be consistent with current scientific knowledge and other EPA policies, reduce confusion in the environmental management community, and be responsive to public demands for stringent dioxin cleanups, new EPA policy guidance for dioxin soil cleanups is needed, and key elements are presented in this article. In an ad hoc fashion, EPA Region 4 has recently used a 200 ppt dioxin cleanup level for residential soil, acknowledged to correspond to a one-in-ten-thousand cancer risk, at two Superfund sites, which environmental professionals should be aware of. This suggests a shift in EPA policy.     

Improving Objectives for Cleanup Sites

In 1976, the discovery of the Love Canal Superfund Site in New York thrust environmental cleanups into the forefront of the national conscience and essentially launched the remediation industry. Since then, vast efforts have been devoted to improving site remediation. Despite the attention given to key subject areas, such as site characterization, risk assessment, and remediation technologies, relatively little attention has been given to the objectives set forth for conducting cleanups, and they have generally not been rigorously evaluated in the literature. Several of the more common objectives for remediation projects are discussed. © 2014 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.     

Characterizing a Brownfields recreational reuse scenario using the Triad Approach–Assunpink Creek Greenways project

Since the early 1990s the U.S. government has been developing and implementing public policies that advance the redevelopment of brownfields, and the recent passage of the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (SBLRBRA) will significantly advance efforts to integrate environmental contamination mitigation and redevelopment. Experience has demonstrated that successful redevelopment requires the collection, analysis, and interpretation of environmental data in a timely and cost‐effective manner in order to allow developers and lenders to efficiently use cleanup resources, develop response strategies that integrate cleanup with redevelopment, and support meaningful outreach to involved stakeholders. Recent advances in the science and technology of site characterization hold the promise of improved site characterization outcomes while saving time and money. One such advancement, the Triad Approach, combines systematic up‐front planning with the use of a dynamic field investigation process and the generation of real time data to allow in‐field decision making on sample location selection. This article describes an application of the Triad Approach to redevelopment of an urban greenway in Trenton, New Jersey. The Triad Approach, initiated through a partnership between the City of Trenton, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, New Jersey Institute of Technology, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, demonstrated that this approach could accelerate the characterization of the 60‐acre, 11‐parcel project area. Environmental issues that were solved using the Triad Approach included the delineation of the extent of historic fill, determination of no further action for several areas of concern, detailed investigation of specific impacted areas and the acquisition of sufficient data to allow the city to make important decisions regarding remediation costs and property acquisition. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Environmental project management using fast-track methods to save time and money

In 1992, Eaton Corporation, a major manufacturer of vehicle components and electrical and electronic controls, implemented a fast-track remediation method to expedite the installation of a groundwater recovery and treatment system to contain and mitigate a chlorinated solvent plume at an industrial site. This dual-track method included fast-track and turnkey project management techniques. Our goal was to expedite the containment and removal of identified contamination, which would protect the environment, minimize future liability, and significantly reduce remediation time and costs. This goal was in the best interests of all concerned—Eaton, the community, and the state regulatory agency. This strategy took the project from dual-track concept approval by the regulatory agency to remediation system installation and start-up in less than eight months, cutting over two years from the standard Remediation Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) approach, with consequent earlier contaminant containment. Total remediation costs were half of what they would have been under the standard RI/FS procedure for this site.     

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.     

Influences on RCRA corrective action costs for nonfederal facilities

Thousands of known hazardous waste sites across the country require remediation, with thousands more yet to be discovered, at estimated cleanup costs of billions of dollars over the next few decades. With this enormous financial burden placed on all members of society through increased prices, taxes, and lost investment opportunities, policy makers face the difficult prospect of defining cleanup standards that meet the goals of protecting human health and the environment and achieving remediation in the most cost-effective manner. Using a statistical methodology to investigate factors influencing the cost of RCRA corrective action, this article examines site characteristics that significantly affect cleanup costs and explains differences in costs among EPA's four proposed Subpart S corrective action options.     

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.