Comparing groundwater remediation options

Although many conventional physical remediation methods are viewed as proven, they often only relocate wastes to other sites or into the air. How do the emerging biological and chemical in situ methods perform in the same applications? This article reviews their results (much of it in the laboratory) as well as their promise of more complete neutralization of hazardous wastes, lower capital costs, and longer-duration cleanup processes. The optimal method may be a combination of chemical and biological in situ techniques with physical pump-and-treat methods.     

Net impact of remediation

Following years of progress in designing and executing cleanups of contaminants at waste sites, the U.S. Air Force, state regulatory groups, and others are crafting methods to evaluate broader considerations of risk in remedial decisions. Integrating worker and climate risks into remediation efforts may confer significant benefits, but challenges exist to identifying, assessing, and accounting for them in the remedial process. For sites where future risk posed by contamination far exceeds the risk posed to workers who may be exposed to the contaminants during the remedial process, limiting the range of decision inputs to those presented by the site conditions made sense and provided a net benefit to human health and the environment. There are other sites, however, where future risk posed by the in situ contamination are at levels comparable to the real risks posed to workers, ecology, and even emerging concerns about climate change. For these sites, a net risk reduction cannot be assumed to be a result of remedial action, challenging the remedial community to develop new approaches to ensure positive results. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Legacy PCB building remediation

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) came onto the scene as an environmental threat quickly after they were discovered in humans and wildlife by Jensen in 1966. By October 1970, it was reported that PCBs were “truly ubiquitous pollutants” as PCBs were found at detectable concentrations in environmental samples throughout the world. Before 1971, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported that 26% of PCBs sold were used in open‐end use applications, such as caulks, sealants, plasticizers, surface coatings, ink, adhesive, and carbonless paper. Processing and distribution of PCBs in commerce were largely banned in the U.S. after July 1979 with certain continued uses authorized by the EPA. While PCBs were banned a long time ago, the ban had no immediate tangible effect on the continued use of regulated levels of PCBs in buildings constructed before the bans were implemented. Legacy buildings with PCB‐containing building materials continue to represent potential sources of indoor air, dust, outdoor air, and soil contamination. Where PCBs are present in building materials, they have the potential to pose a risk to building occupants. Proper removal of PCB‐containing materials is a highly effective approach to abating the risk. The removal can range from targeting specific building PCB‐containing materials through demolition of the building. Engineering and administrative controls can also be useful tools when addressing the risks posed by PCB‐containing materials.     

The sustainable remediation forum

Regulators seem to currently be focusing on green remediation and not sustainable remediation. How can the industry change this perception so that a more holistic approach is followed?     

Nanotechnology for site remediation

As a remediation tool, nanotechnology holds promise for cleaning up hazardous waste sites cost‐effectively and addressing challenging site conditions, such as the presence of dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs). Some nanoparticles, such as nanoscale zero‐valent iron (nZVI) are already in use in full‐scale projects with encouraging success. Ongoing research at the bench and pilot scale is investigating particles such as self‐assembled monolayers on mesoporous supports (SAMMS™), dendrimers, carbon nanotubes, and metalloporphyrinogens to determine how to apply their unique chemical and physical properties for full‐scale remediation. There are many unanswered questions regarding nanotechnology. Further research is needed to understand the fate and transport of free nanoparticles in the environment, whether they are persistent, and whether they have toxicological effects on biological systems. In October 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) prepared a fact sheet entitled “Nanotechnology for Site Remediation,” and an accompanying list of contaminated sites where nanotechnology has been tested. The fact sheet contains information that may assist site project managers in understanding the potential applications of this group of technologies. This article provides a synopsis of the US EPA fact sheet, available at http://clu‐in.org/542F08009 , and includes background information on nanotechnology; its use in site remediation; issues related to fate, transport, and toxicity; and a discussion of performance and cost data for field tests. The site list is available at http://clu‐in.org/products/nanozvi . © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Low intervention soil remediation approaches

Traditional bioremediation approaches have been used to treat petroleum source contamination in readily accessible soils and sludges. Contamination under existing structures is a greater challenge. Options to deal with this problem have usually been in the extreme (i.e., to dismantle the facility and excavate to an acceptable regulated residual, or to pump and treat for an inordinately long period of time). The excavated material must be further remediated and cleanfill must be added to close the excavation. If site assessments were too conservative or incomplete, new contamination adulterating fill soils may result in additional excavation at some later date. Innovative, cost-efficient technologies must be developed to remove preexisting wastes under structures and to reduce future remediation episodes. An innovative soil bioremediation treatment method was developed and evaluated in petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated (PHC) soils at compressor stations of a natural gas pipeline running through Louisiana. The in-situ protocol was developed for remediating significant acreage subjected to contamination by petroleum-based lubricants and other PHC products resulting from a chronic leakage of lubricating oil used to maintain the pipeline itself. Initial total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) measurements revealed values of up to 12,000 mg/kg soil dry weight. The aim of the remediation project was to reduce TPH concentration in the contaminated soils to a level of <200 mg/kg soil dry weight, a level negotiated to be acceptable to state and federal regulators. After monitoring the system for 122 days, all sites showed greater than 99-percent reduction in TPH concentration.     

Advances in photocatalytic remediation technology

The cost of remediation at hazardous waste sites is estimated at billions of dollars annually. It is imperative that more cost‐effective remediation technologies be developed, particularly to address the more complex megasites. Chlorinated hydrocarbons represent the major contaminants at many such sites. It has long been recognized that chlorinated hydrocarbons can be destroyed by photocatalytic oxidation. Traditional photocatalysts, however, have often shown inadequate destruction activity, a loss of activity over time, and poor selectivity, thereby producing substantial amounts of phosgene and chloroform by‐products. This article presents results obtained using novel photocatalyst compositions. The results demonstrate the ability to achieve high photocatalytic destruction activity for chlorinated hydrocarbons with full retention of activity over extended time periods and with complete elimination of phosgene and chloroform by‐products. © 2006 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.     

Translating a remediation technology into the required air,water, and rcra permits

Because remediation techniques and technologies are themselves generally viewed as contaminant source by hazardous waste laws and regulations, permits are required to use them, even if it is only to contain or remove a site's principal contaminants. Referring to such major environmental laws as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, RCRA, TSCA, and CERCLA, this article outlines the steps needed to translate cleanup projects into the appropriate permits.     

Millville site multimedia remediation program

The Millville Remediation Program recently received the 1995 Honor Award for national excellence in environmental engineering from the prestigious American Academy of Environmental Engineers (AAEE). This article discusses various aspects employed to investigate and remediate multimedia contamination at the site and the unique applications of technologies which were responsible for receiving the AAEE honor award. Unique aspects of the project included utilization of variable speed drives to set individual pumping rates for each groundwater recovery well, development of sophisticated remote monitoring and operation capabilities which minimized O&M labor costs, and development of a groundwater treatment system which has consistently achieved nondetect effluent discharges. The remote monitoring and operation capabilities enables O&M staff to monitor and change setpoints for the groundwater recovery, treatment, and recharge systems.     

Wastewater remediation using coal ash

 Small-scale domestic septic tanks discharge excess nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen, as well as pathogens, which can degrade local water supplies. Unfortunately, traditional chemical and physical treatments are not practicable for single-home dwellings. This work reports on a potentially attractive solution to protect local water supplies by using a low-cost industrial waste, coal ash, for contaminant removal. Coal ash is produced as a consequence of electric power generation. The majority of the ash is disposed of in landfills and surface impoundments, or stored on- or off-site, producing large hills or leveling valleys. Only a small portion of the ash is ever utilized, mainly by cement industries and road construction. For example, in Canada less than 25% is used. Therefore, if useful applications can be found, an opportunity exists to make better use of this waste material. Bench-scale laboratory experiments and full-scale field tests show that coal ash has the capacity to remove phosphorus from domestic waste water. The experimental and field data demonstrate that phosphate levels and calcium levels can be correlated, although not in a simple manner. In addition, the ash in packed beds removed total suspended solid (TSS), biological oxygen demand (BOD), ammonia nitrogen (NH₃—N), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), and E. coli. The removal of E. coli was close 100% in the cases studied. Received: May 20, 2002 / Accepted: October 5, 2002     

Debunking myths about sustainable remediation

Sustainable remediation concepts have evolved during the decade 2007–2017. From the establishment of the first Sustainable Remediation forum (SURF) in 2007, to publication of ASTM and ISO standards by 2017. Guidance has been developed around the world to reflect local regulatory systems, and much has been learned in applying sustainability assessment to contaminated site management projects. In the best examples, significant improvements in project sustainability have been delivered, including concurrent reduction of the environmental footprint of the remediation program, improved social performance, and cost savings and/or value creation. The initial advocates for the concept of sustainable remediation were quickly supported by early adopters who saw its potential to improve the remediation industry's performance, but they also had to overcome some inertia and scepticism from other parties. During the debates and discussions that occurred at numerous international conferences and SURF workshops around the world, various opinions were formed and positions stated. Some proved to be correct, others not so. With the recent publication of ISO Standard 18504 and the benefit of a decade's‐worth of hindsight on sustainable remediation programs implementation and project delivery, this paper summarizes a number of myths and misunderstandings that have been stated regarding sustainable remediation and seeks to debunk them. Sustainable remediation assessment shows us how to manage unacceptable risks to human health and the environment in the best, that is to say the most sustainable, way. It provides the contaminated land management industry a framework to incorporate sustainable development principles into remediation projects and deliver significant value for affected parties and society more broadly. In dispelling some myths about sustainable remediation set out in this paper, it is hoped that consistent application of ISO18504/SuRF‐UK (or equivalently robust guidance) will facilitate even wider use of sustainable remediation around the world.