A risk assessment of chlorinated aliphatics in bioremediated soils

Natural microbes living in contaminated subsurface media can be enhanced to degrade large concentrations of contaminating compounds at a faster rate than the microbes could degrade under natural conditions. A feasibility study demonstrating this principle was performed on-site in southern Louisiana to evaluate the effectiveness of two microbial degradation remediation methods used to decrease the human carcinogenic risks associated with exposure to ethylene dichloride and vinyl chloride concentrations in contaminated clay and sludge soils at the site. The results of the study are compared to an acceptable Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality closure level to evaluate in-situ microbial enhancement in chlorinated aliphatic-contaminated sludge and clay soils as a remediation/cleanup alternative in similar industrial situations.     

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.     

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.     

Risk communication as a key component of a successful remediation project

Decisions made during the course of investigating and remediating a contaminated site, as well as the technology used, are most often driven exclusively by physical, technical, and health-based concerns. Additionally, in both determining and managing the potential risks posed by a remediation project, the focus tends to be placed primarily on health risks. However, a contaminated site and its remediation are neither static over time nor do they exist in a vacuum. Other elements of risk associated with the site and remedial activities include continuing regulatory oversight and compliance, public and agency relations, remedial technology costs, current and future land-use issues, and future technological/regulatory risks. Agencies, consultants, contractors, and facility management must consider these other non-health-related elements of risk. Additionally, efforts made to communicate a project's decisions, technologies, and risks are often made in a defensive or reactive posture, resulting in ineffective communication and an alienated, angry, or distrustful public. Proactive risk communication, as well as public involvement in the remedial process, are critical to the success of any remedial activity.     

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.     

Using uncertainty analysis to reduce costs at a pump-and-treat site

The former Nebraska Ordnance Plant site in east-central Nebraska was included on the National Priorities List because of explosives and trichloroethene contamination. The preferred groundwater remedy includes hydraulic containment of the contaminated groundwater and focused extraction of the more highly contaminated groundwater as components of the remedial action. The purpose of hydraulic containment is to stop the spread of contamination, while the more aggressive focused extraction will be used to speed up the remediation and reduce total cleanup costs. This case study illustrates how straightforward groundwater models were combined with uncertainty analysis to select a precise definition of the focused extraction areas. The purpose of the analysis was to reduce ultimate remediation costs, given the significant uncertainty associated with the estimated remediation times. The selected definition provides a basis for more sophisticated groundwater modeling, the goal of which was to locate extraction wells and define their flow rates. The batch flushing model provided the governing equations, and Monte Carlo analysis was used for the uncertainty analysis. All of the analysis was performed on a personal computer using commercially available software.     

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.     

Using community relations to reduce costs during remediation projects

Almost everyone who has been involved in a site remediation project has seen schedules slip and costs escalate due to political pressure from the public or the press. While focusing on remediation technologies and containment techniques to control costs, many organizations have neglected a major cost driver—public opinion. This article examines community relations from the perspective of an organization trying to control costs during a site remediation project. It details the strong correlation between the cost of a site cleanup and the level of public dissatisfaction and provides an organization with specific strategies on how to use proven communications techniques to lower costs. Examination of several case studies is provided, including a study involving a site in which community representatives actively worked to reduce project costs. It is clear that any responsible cleanup must be protective of public health and the environment. But it is becoming increasingly apparent that wise allocation of available resources has a profound effect on the program's ability to ensure public and environmental safety. In many cases, it has been proven that some costly cleanups—for example, involving excavation—sometimes actually increase risk by creating an exposure pathway where none existed before. In turn, such cleanups waste resources that are needed elsewhere. The challenge in dealing with this complicated issue is to help stakeholders understand the true ramifications of the choices that are faced at each site. If these stakeholders feel uninformed, powerless, or excluded from the process, it is likely that they will be unable to enter a productive discussion. The community relations programs outlined in documents such as a Superfund guidance can be helpful in familiarizing the community with site-related issues and with gathering public input. These activities act as a baseline for the programs discussed in this article. However, existing programs are not focused on providing a strategic advantage in reaching cleanup solutions and balancing health and environmental considerations with economic considerations.     

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.     

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.     

Risk assessment and accepted regulatory cleanup levels

The determination of cleanup levels at a CERCLA or RCRA site is often the single most important decision made by risk managers. This decision can have a major impact on the costs and time required for remediation, as well as on the selection of remedial technologies. The object of this article is to provide a critical review of the methods used by regulatory agencies and the regulated community to calculate chemical-specific cleanup goals for inactive hazardous waste sites, focusing on those cleanup goals that are designed to protect human health from the effects of chemicals. In addition to this analysis of historical methods that have been used, this article discusses some innovative solutions to the problem of calculating cleanup levels and presents an analysis of controversial topics related to cleanup levels currently under debate by regulatory agencies, industry, environmentalists, and legislative bodies.     

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.     

Risk assessment: A site-specific approach to establishing acceptable soil cleanup levels

In 1980 the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) was passed to instigate the cleanup of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. CERCLA necessitated the development of a set of criteria for estimating the severity of the contamination at these sites, the potential impact on human health and the environment, and establishing appropriate cleanup levels for the contaminated media. The risk assessment (RA) format was developed to meet these challenges. Though RAs vary dramatically in their scope, emphasis, and regulatory application, there are two primary objectives common to all RAs: (1) to evaluate potential risks to human health and the environment posed by the release of hazardous substances and (2) to evaluate and establish safe cleanup levels based primarily on the number and type of potential receptors, the toxicity and mobility of the contaminants, and the types of exposure pathways present. Achieving these objectives may be a relatively simple task or an extremely complex and difficult one depending on the type of material released and our understanding of its behavior in the environment, the site conditions, and the governing regulations. This article presents an approach for establishing acceptable cleanup levels for subsurface soils and illustrates the application of this approach to three different regulated sites.     

Trends In Regulatory Acceptance Of Risk-Based Cleanup Goals And Natural Attenuation For Site Closure

Since 1994, there has been a significant regulatory shift toward risk-based cleanup standards based on the site-specific risk of the more toxic and mobile compounds; namely, benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, and xylene (BTEX). This regulatory shift has been accompanied by a growing acceptance of natural attenuation as an important component of petroleum site remediation. This article briefly reviews regulatory progress toward risk-based remediation and describes the successful application of risk-based corrective actions (RBCAs) at two fuel contaminated sites on Air Force installations. By developing site-specific cleanup goals, and combining natural attenuation, source reduction, and land use controls, innovative risk-based closure plans have been implemented on these sites.     

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.     

The role of cost in remedy selection

Records of Decision from 16 environmental cleanup sites on 11 different Air Force bases were evaluated to determine if cost plays a role in remedy selection. Cost percentile (the cost of the selected remedy compared to the ranges of costs in the alternatives considered) was evaluated against the variables of risk (current and future, carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic), location, and contaminated media at the sites. Despite a statutory preference for permanent (and usually more expensive) remedies, the study found that cost is a significant factor in remedy selection. Eighty percent of the selected remedies fell in the bottom two thirds of alternatives by cost. Current carcinogenic risk and cost percentile were moderately correlated, but no significant correlation was found between the percentile of the selected remedy and future risk at the site or the location of the site. There was a moderate correlation between the contaminated medium and the percentile. Decision makers at sites with contaminated groundwater were more likely to select a high-cost alternative than sites with other contaminated media.     

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.     

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.     

Quantitative Environmental Footprints and Sustainability Evaluation of Contaminated Land Remediation Alternatives for Two Case Studies

Since the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) launched its “green remediation” program and EU member states began to reassess their national regulations for environmental remediation in order to reach a Europe‐wide consensus on policy and standards, the need and interest for sustainable remediation of contaminants from brownfields has grown considerably. Concomitantly, the ability to calculate and assess the suitability as well as the environmental footprints and associated risks of a growing number of remediation techniques has become a priority. The authors quantitatively evaluate the differences between various remediation techniques, and for this purpose, a number of ex situ and in situ remediation techniques are adapted to model 21 remediation scenarios for two contaminated sites in the Gothenburg region of Sweden: the Bohus Varv site on the Göta älv river bank and the Hexion site in Mölndal. A wide range of quantitative results for these models are presented, compared, and analyzed. Based on the results from both projects, it is concluded that: (1) remediation techniques requiring long distance residual transportation have significant footprints, except the transportation of contaminated residuals by train due to Swedish energy production conditions; (2) residual transportation by ship results in much higher SO_x, NO_x, and particle releases compared to the other alternatives; and (3) residual transporation by truck results in high accident risks. Finally, activities powered by electricity result in a reduced footprint compared to activities powered by fossil fuels, considering Swedish energy production conditions. The authors conducted a cross‐benefit analysis of SiteWise^TM applications which recognizes its potential as a tool for presenting life cycle assessment analyses with appropriate system boundary definitions and an easy inventory analysis process. Results from this tool provide valuable support to decision makers aiming at more sustainable remediation. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.