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.     

Nature,frequency, and cost of environmental remediation at onshore oil and gas exploration and production sites

This article quantifies the nature, frequency, and cost of environmental remediation activities for onshore oil and gas operations, as determined from over 4,100 environmental remediation cases in Texas, Kansas, New Mexico, and Colorado. For the purpose of this article, “remediation'' refers to cleanup efforts that entail longer‐term site characterization, monitoring, and remedial action beyond the initial spill cleanup or emergency response stage. In addition, data are also presented regarding short‐term spill cleanup activities in two of the four states. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

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.     

Iowa's land recycling program: A case study

Voluntary cleanup programs for contaminated sites have been developed in several states over the last few years. Some of the advantages of these programs include developing a collaboration between site owners and regulators, implementing cleanup standards based upon site‐specific current and future risks, and enhancing the market conditions that can lead to development of properties to their highest productive use. This article offers a case study of the first site in Iowa to proceed through the state's voluntary cleanup program, the Land Recycling Program. It offers the step‐by‐step progress toward the client's goal of a site classification requiring no further action. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, 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.     

Technical feasibility and conceptual design for using supercritical fluid to extract pesticides from aged soil

The demand for processes to clean up contaminated soils without introducing additional contaminants is increasing. One approach to solving this problem is the use of supercritical fluids like carbon dioxide, alone or with cosolvents, to extract contaminants from the soil. Carbon dioxide is readily available, inexpensive, and nonpolluting. Gases exhibit unique properties under supercritical conditions. They retain the ability to diffuse through the interstitial spaces of solid materials, plus they have the solvating power of liquids. Soil cleanup using supercritical fluid extraction (SFE) is being investigated as an alternative/complementary technology to other cleanup methods such as incineration and bioremediation. The objective of the studies included in this article was to collect and analyze data to support use of the SFE technology and to provide the conceptual design and operational processes needed for building a portable treatment unit.     

Advancing the use of an innovative cleanup technology: Case study of Lasagna™

Originated from a recognized need for significantly more effective technologies for soil cleanup, the Lasagna^TM project provides an interesting case study in which industry, government, and academia successfully collaborated to rapidly advance the technology from the laboratory to the field. Called Lasagna^TM because of its layered configurations, the technology combines electrically induced contaminant transport in soils, treatment in place, and geotechnical methods to achieve completely in situ clean-up of contaminated soils. Experiences with respect to the partnership, the development of technology and its current commercialization status are described.     

Challenges of soil mixing using catalyzed hydrogen peroxide with rotating dual axis blending technology

Although known to be one of the most effective oxidants for treatment of organic contaminants, catalyzed hydrogen peroxide (CHP) is typically not used for soil mixing applications because of health and safety concerns related to vapor generation and very rapid rates of reaction in open excavations. In likely the first large‐scale in situ CHP soil mixing application, an enhanced CHP, modified Fenton's reagent (MFR), was applied during soil mixing at the Kearsarge Metallurgical Superfund Site in New Hampshire. An innovative rotating dual‐axis blender (DAB) technology was used to safely mix the MFR into low‐plasticity silt and clay soils to remediate residual 1,1,1‐trichloroethane (111TCA); 1,1‐dichloroethene (11DCE); and 1,4‐dioxane (14D). It was expected that the aggressive treatment approach using relatively “greener” hydrogen peroxide (HP) chemistry would effectively treat Site contaminants without significant byproduct impacts to groundwater or the adjacent pond. The remediation program was designed to treat approximately 3,000 cubic yards of residual source area soil in situ by aggressively mixing MFR into the soils. The subsurface interval treated was from 7 to 15 feet below ground surface. To accurately track the soil mixing process and MFR addition, the Site was divided into 109 10‐foot square treatment cells that were precisely located, dosed, and mixed using the DAB equipped with an on‐board GPS system. The use of stabilizing agents along with careful calculation of the peroxide dose helped to ensure vapor‐free conditions in the vicinity of the soil mixing operation. Real‐time sampling and monitoring were critical in identifying any posttreatment exceedences of the cleanup goals. This allowed retreatment and supplemental testing to occur without impacting the soil mixing/in situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) schedule. Posttreatment 24‐hr soil samples were collected from 56 random locations after ensuring that the HP had been completely consumed. The posttreatment test results showed that 111TCA and 11DCE concentrations were reduced to nondetect (ND) or below the cleanup goals of 150 μg/kg for 111TCA and 60 μg/kg for 11DCE. Supplemental posttreatment soil samples, collected six months after treatment, showed 100 percent compliance with the soil treatment goals. Groundwater samples collected one year after the MFR soil mixing treatment program showed either ND or low concentrations for 111TCA, 11DCE, and 14D. Successful stabilization and site restoration was performed after overcoming considerable challenges associated with loss of soil structure, high liquid content, and reduced bearing capacity of the blended soils.     

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.     

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.     

Sensitivity analysis for setting soil cleanup standards

In recent years, many states have sought to set soil standards for hazardous waste sites. For example, Michigan and Oregon have had soil standards for several years, and within the last three years Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Texas have derived soil standards; while Illinois and several other states are in the process of developing soil standards. In general, soil cleanup standards are set to protect against leaching to groundwater and direct contact with soil. This article reviews several agencies' protocols and presents a sensitivity analysis of parameters used to establish these soil cleanup standards. Major issues examined in this article include land use (residential versus commercial/industrial) and exposure parameters used for deriving soil cleanup standards for direct contact. Soil cleanup standards are developed considering exposure routes such as ingestion, dermal contact, inhalation of vapors, and fugitive dust. Other factors such as chemical/physical properties are also considered. For example, many states use Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) or EPA Method 1312 Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) to derive soil standards protective of leaching to groundwater. The results indicate that factors such as leaching and certain exposure assumptions play a key role in determining soil cleanup standards. Exposure pathways were examined by performing a sensitivity analysis using a generic equation to consider exposure from ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of soil in deriving soil cleanup standards. The sensitivity analysis indicates that selection of exposure parameters such as toxicity values and soil-to-skin adherence factors contribute more substantially than others. These two factors are also among those values with the greatest uncertainty. Selection of exposure pathways is also important for the derivation of soil cleanup standards. For example, inhalation is the most significant exposure pathway for volatile organic compounds such as toluene, yet many states do not evaluate this exposure route. These findings are based on the mathematical models used by the agencies, and no judgments are made on the validity of the models. The results of this analysis can help focus attention on the most sensitive parameters as federal government reforms environment policies (i.e., CERCLA and RCRA) and the development of national soil cleanup standards is debated.     

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.     

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.     

Remediation of the Radioactive Waste Landfill and Chemical Disposal Pits Sites at Sandia National Laboratories

Sandia National Laboratories' Environmental Restoration (ER) Project remediated the Radioactive Waste Landfill and Chemical Disposal Pits (RWL/CDPs) sites located in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The remediation was conducted in 1996 using conventional excavation, as well as hybrid remote robotic manipulation technology at a cost of approximately $3 million. Wastes generated included approximately 73 cubic meters (m³) of debris (including thermal batteries, spark gap tubes, radioactive sources, weapons components, and some classified material), 535 m³ of plutonium-contaminated soil, and 2,294 m³ of soil contaminated with thorium, cesium, uranium, and tritium. The remediation was successful since the project goal of risk reduction was accomplished and no injuries or negative occurrences resulted. This cleanup is one example of the Department of Energy's (DOE's) accelerated approach to environmental restoration. The remediation was performed as a voluntary corrective measure to reduce schedule and budget, compared with the traditional approach following Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations.     

Remediating groundwater using a hydraulic containment system for pump and treat

Twenty years of waste disposal operations at the Conservation Chemical Company (CCC) site in Kansas City, Missouri, led to contamination of soils and groundwater on a six-acre site. As a result of this contamination, the site was listed on the federal government's National Priorities List. Following extensive litigation initiated in 1982, more than 200 contributors to the site (Potentially Responsive Parties or PRPs), CCC's insurance companies, and the government ultimately reached a settlement to fund the remedial action. The remedy that was agreed upon included: (1) a permeable cap to allow water intrusion to assist groundwater cleanup; (2) a with drawal well system to achieve an inward groundwater gradient; and (3) a groundwater treatment system employing several unit operations. Containment of the contaminated plume relied on hydraulic, rather than structural, containment to prevent mitigation of contaminants from the site. ABB Environmental Services, Inc. (ABB-ES) was retained to perform treatability tests and to design, construct, and start up the groundwater treatment plant after the installation of the permeable cap by others.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

On-site analytical support: A cost-effective alternative to fixed laboratory services

Two recent projects involving soils remediation at Superfund sites in southern New Jersey and northeastern Pennsylvania exemplify the power of “real time” field analytical support in reducing time and expense during a project's remedial phase. The remediation efforts at both of these CERCLA sites were supported by ERM-FAST on-site analytical facilities which, in a “real-time” scenario, achieved all data quality objectives (DQOs), met all regulatory agency requirements, and satisfied the client's needs. Both of these sites offer illustrations of the effectiveness of field analysis for vastly differing site contaminants. The client benefited from substantial savings on analytical cost as well as the savings realized through efficient and effective process and schedule management.