Superfund site remediation by landfilling—overview of landfill design,operation, closure,and postclosure issues

This article discusses the appropriateness of using landfills as part of remediating hazardous chemical and Superfund sites, with particular emphasis on providing for true long‐term public health and environmental protection from the wastes and contaminated soils that are placed in the landfills. On‐site landfilling or capping of existing wastes is typically the least expensive approach for gaining some remediation of existing hazardous chemical/Superfund sites. The issues of the deficiencies in US EPA and state landfilling approaches discussed herein are also applicable to the landfilling of municipal and industrial solid “nonhazardous” wastes. These deficiencies were presented in part as “Problems with Landfills for Superfund Site Remediation” at the US EPA National Superfund Technical Assistance Grant Workshop held in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in February 2003. They are based on the author's experience in investigating the properties of landfill liners and the characteristics of today's landfills, relative to their ability to prevent groundwater pollution and to cause other environmental impacts. Discussed are issues related to both solid and hazardous waste landfills and approaches for improving the ability of landfills to contain wastes and monitor for leachate escape from the landfill for as long as the wastes in the landfill will be a threat. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Electroremediation: A study of the influence of buffering behavior in contaminated soils

This article presents the results of an experimental study conducted to evaluate the behavior of two types of andisol soils found in Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain. The soils were evaluated in relation to their buffering capacity when confronted with acid and alkaline fronts generated during electroremediation treatment. The study was conducted using a cell, which established a continuous flow of distilled water through electrode chambers to remove H⁺ and OH^? generated during electrolysis. The results indicate that the soils had sufficient buffer capacity to support variations in pH independent of the maintenance of flow of solution in the electrode chambers. Although the mechanism of migration was not affected, the flow of water favored the movement of ions by diffusion monitoring of the electrolytic current allowed for a real‐time parameter to act as an indicator of the quantity of ions available in regions near the electrodes. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

SIMULATING THE IMPACT OF DRAINAGE DESIGN IN A COLD CLIMATE WITH ADAPT1

ABSTRACT: Surface and subsurface drainage make crop production economically viable in much of southern Minnesota because drainage allows timely field operations and protects field crops from extended periods of flooded soil conditions. However, subsurface drainage has been shown to increase nitrate/nitrogen losses to receiving waters. When engaging in drainage activities, farmers are increasingly being asked to consider, apart from the economic profit, the environmental impact of drainage. The Agricultural Drainage and Pesticide Transport model (ADAPT) was used in this study to evaluate the impact of subsurface drainage design on the soil water balance over a two‐year period during which observed drainage discharge data were available. Twelve modeling scenarios incorporated four drainage coefficients (DC), 0.64 cm/d, 0.95 cm/d, 1.27 cm/d, and 1.91 cm/d, and three drain depths, 0.84 m, 1.15 m, and 1.45 m. The baseline condition corresponded to the drainage system specifications at the field site: a drain depth and spacing of 1.45 m and 28 m, respectively (DC of 0.64 cm/d). The results of the two‐year simulation suggested that for a given drainage coefficient, soils with the shallower drains (but equal DC) generally have less subsurface drainage and can produce more runoff (but reduced total discharge) and evapotranspiration. The results also suggested that it may be possible to design for both water/nitrate/nitrogen reduction and crop water needs.     

NITROGEN AND ORGANIC MATTER LOSSES IN NO‐TILL CORN CROPPING SYSTEMS1

ABSTRACT: Intensive cropping systems based on mechanical movement of soil have induced land degradation in most agricultural areas due to soil erosion and soil fertility losses. Thus, farmers have been increasing fertilization rates to maintain an economically competitive crop yield. This practice has resulted in water quality degradation and lake eutrophication in many agricultural watersheds. Research was conducted in the Patzcuaro watershed in central Mexico to develop appropriate technology that prevents nonpoint source pollution from fertilizers. Organic matter (OM) and nitrogen (N) losses in runoff and nitrate (NO₃‐N) percolation in Andisols with corn under conventional till (CT) and no‐till (NT) treatments using variable percentages of crop residue as soil cover were investigated for steep‐slope agriculture. USLE type runoff plots were used to collect water runoff, while suction tubes with porous caps at 30, 60, and 90 cm depth were used to sample soil water solutes for NO₃‐N analyses. Results indicated a significant reduction of N and OM losses in runoff as residue cover increased in the NT treatments. Inorganic N in runoff was 25 kg/ha for NT without residue cover (NT‐0) and 6 kg/ha for the NT with 100 percent residue cover (NT‐100). Organic matter losses in runoff were 157 and 24 kg/ha for the NT‐0 and NT‐100 treatments, respectively. Nitrate‐N percolation was evident in CT and NT with 100 percent residue cover (NT‐100). However, NT‐100 had higher NO₃‐N concentration at the root zone, suggesting the possibility of reducing fertilization rates with the use of NT treatments.     

Unreliability of co‐occurrence‐based sediment quality guidelines for contaminated sediment evaluations at Superfund/hazardous chemical sites

Many Superfund/hazardous chemical sites include waterbodies whose sediments contain hazardous chemicals. With the need to assess, rank, and remediate contaminated sediments at such sites, as well as in other waterways, regulators seek a simple, quantitative assessment approach that feeds easily into a decision‐making scheme. Numeric, co‐occurrence‐based “sediment quality guidelines” have emerged with the appearance of administrative simplicity. However, the very foundation of the co‐occurrence approach, based on the total concentrations of a chemical(s) in sediment, is technically invalid; its application relies on additional technically invalid presumptions. Use of technically invalid evaluation approaches renders any assessment of the significance of sediment contamination unreliable. This article reviews the technical roots and assumptions of the co‐occurrence‐based SQGs, the fundamental flaws in the rationale behind their development and application, and their misapplication for sediment quality evaluation. It also reviews concepts and approaches for the more reliable evaluation, ranking, and cleanup assessment of contaminated sediments at Superfund sites and elsewhere. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Disposal of contaminated sediments/soils in MSW landfills: Need to consider the true cost

A disturbing trend among governmental agencies is the remediation of so‐called “nonhazardous” contaminated sediments/soils by deposition in minimum‐design Subtitle D municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills or landfills with equivalent design. This is done despite the fact that, in terms of protection of public health and environmental quality, the designation “nonhazardous” is misleading at best, and the fact that minimum‐design Subtitle D landfills as being allowed will not ensure protection of groundwater quality for as long as the buried wastes remain a threat. Although acknowledged in the regulatory documentation and exposed in the writings of a few in the scientific/engineering community, the environmental and public health issues that will inevitably be faced at minimum‐design Subtitle D landfills are underplayed, and even misrepresented, to the public. Discussion of relevant issues, as well as remarkable omissions, characterized the October 2004 United States Army Corps of Engineers (US ACE)/United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)/Sediment Management Work Group (SMWG) conference,” Addressing Uncertainty and Managing Risk at Contaminated Sediment Sites.” This article addresses many of those neglected issues. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

An interdisciplinary review of current and future approaches to improving human–predator relations

In a world of shrinking habitats and increasing competition for natural resources, potentially dangerous predators bring the challenges of coexisting with wildlife sharply into focus. Through interdisciplinary collaboration among authors trained in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences, we reviewed current approaches to mitigating adverse human–predator encounters and devised a vision for future approaches to understanding and mitigating such encounters. Limitations to current approaches to mitigation include too much focus on negative impacts; oversimplified equating of levels of damage with levels of conflict; and unsuccessful technical fixes resulting from failure to engage locals, address hidden costs, or understand cultural (nonscientific) explanations of the causality of attacks. An emerging interdisciplinary literature suggests that to better frame and successfully mitigate negative human–predator relations conservation professionals need to consider dispensing with conflict as the dominant framework for thinking about human–predator encounters; work out what conflicts are really about (they may be human–human conflicts); unravel the historical contexts of particular conflicts; and explore different cultural ways of thinking about animals. The idea of cosmopolitan natures may help conservation professionals think more clearly about human–predator relations in both local and global context. These new perspectives for future research practice include a recommendation for focused interdisciplinary research and the use of new approaches, including human‐animal geography, multispecies ethnography, and approaches from the environmental humanities notably environmental history. Managers should think carefully about how they engage with local cultural beliefs about wildlife, work with all parties to agree on what constitutes good evidence, develop processes and methods to mitigate conflicts, and decide how to monitor and evaluate these. Demand for immediate solutions that benefit both conservation and development favors dispute resolution and technical fixes, which obscures important underlying drivers of conflicts. If these drivers are not considered, well‐intentioned efforts focused on human–wildlife conflicts will fail.