bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Cost‐effectiveness analysis of the seamistTM borehole liner system
Authors: Henriksen Anne DePiante 
Published: February 2007

AbstractSEAMISTTM is an innovative technology that facilitates measurements of contaminants in both vertical and horizontal boreholes. The essence of SEAMISTTM is an airtight membrane liner pneumatically emplaced inside the borehole and maintained with positive pressure. Sampling ports, absorbent collectors, and various in‐situ measuring devices can be fabricated into the liner. Small instruments and cameras can be guided through the borehole to obtain real‐time data.This article reports on the cost and performance effectiveness of this new technology. In this report, SEAMISTTM is evaluated as a tool for obtaining data on volatile organic compounds, semivolatile organic compounds, other water‐borne contaminants, and radionuclides. SEAMISTTM is also compared to traditional borehole casing, to conventional soil vapor probes, and to conventional pore‐fluid collecting lysimeters. The most cost‐ and performance‐effective applications of SEAMISTTM are shown to be those applications for which multiple characterization requirements can be combined into one SEAMISTTM membrane system.
Alternatives to incineration in remediation of soil and sediments assessed
Authors: Exner Jurgen H. 
Published: February 2007

AbstractContamination 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.
Financing remediation by delisting and selling clean portions of affected property
Authors: Nestor Anthony S. , Adamowski Scott J. 
Published: February 2007

AbstractIt is an established fact that property owners can face significant liabilities as a result of an on‐site environmental contamination problem. This paper outlines a successful, innovative remedial strategy that, in conjunction with agency negotiation, afforded a property owner minimal financial expenditure and, at the same time, facilitated property cleanup and reuse. The strategy includes the delisting and sale of “clean” portions of the property to obtain the finances necessary to remediate the remaining “impacted” portion of the property.Previous investigations performed by EPA indicate the affected area to be a five to seven acre area located in the northeast portion of the property. Since a portion of the property was affected, significant restrictions for long‐term use were placed on the entire property.A summary of environmental data generated for the property was prepared and submitted to the agency. This data summary communicated a strategy which was developed to delist and sell the “clean” portion of the property and to use the proceeds to clean up the affected property. To accomplish this, several tasks were outlined, including work‐plan preparation and submittal, data collection, and interim remedial activities. In addition, a risk assessment is planned to identify potential threats to receptors downgradient of the impacted areas.This strategy allows the owner of an environmentally distressed property to use financial assets of the property to facilitate an acceptable solution with both regulatory agencies and the surrounding community.
Optimizing data usability in the remedial process
Authors: Yancheski Tad B. 
Published: February 2007

AbstractLarge quantities of data are collected and evaluated throughout every stage of the remedial process. The usability of these data is often a function of the perceived “quality” of the data, with good data considered usable and bad data considered unusable. The assessment of data quality and usability has traditionally focused on analytical and other direct measurement errors and uncertainty. However, problems with the data that are measurement‐related are usually a relatively minor portion of the total error and uncertainty.Error and uncertainty are introduced throughout every aspect of any remedial process, including planning errors, measurement errors, and interpretation errors. Although each error component is important, the errors and uncertainty associated with the design, collection, and interpretation of data are often much greater than measurement‐related errors.Nevertheless, there is typically a disproportionate level of effort expended addressing the minor types of measurement errors when compared to other more important error components in the remedial process. However, the key to obtaining optimum data use requires the general redirection of Data Quality Assurance (DQA) activities from measurement‐related errors/uncertainty to other important planning and interpretation elements.The elements considered essential for developing an effective approach for maximizing data usability include: focused project planning activities stressing a rigorous data quality objective process and a geostatistical approach to the design of the data collection program; the development of sensible and appropriate data validation/review objectives; and the development of realistic error and uncertainty limits for measurement/analytical activities.
Analysis of soil vapor extraction laboratory data to obtain equilibrium constants
Authors: Klei Herbert E. , Klemmer Christopher R. , Bramley David L. , Curtis Michael D. , Kennett Gary 
Published: February 2007

AbstractA method of analyzing soil vapor extraction (SVE) laboratory data using a sample of contaminated soil is presented to allow the calculation of equilibrium constants for an assumed gas/soil equilibrium expression. The constants can be determined for any compound measured in the exit gas. A Freundlich equilibrium expression was shown to represent the equilibrium in a soil contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE) and several aromatic solvents.
Mercury cleanup: The commercial application of a new mercury removal/recovery technology
Authors: Rose Michael V. , Weyand Thomas E. , Koshinski Casimir J. 
Published: February 2007

AbstractEfficient, economical treatment of mercury‐contaminated soils and industrial wastes requires a treatment process that reduces mercury content to near background levels (<1 ppm) and recovers the removed mercury in pure recyclable form without producing liquid, solid, or gaseous secondary wastes. This article reviews the results achieved using a medium‐temperature thermal desorption process developed and commercialized by Mercury Recovery Services, Inc. (MRS) that has successfully achieved these goals.
The revenge of OSHA: The new asbestos regulations
Authors: Smith Diane R. 
Published: February 2007

AbstractAfter suits by the AFL‐CIO and the Service Employees International Union demanding more worker protection, OSHA published new proposed asbestos regulations in 1990. Hearings were held in 1991. Everyone was very interested. Nothing happened for about three years. Then, just when everyone thought they had their “asbestos problems” figured out, along came the new October 11, 1994, asbestos rules. Look out building owners, property management companies, abatement contractors, and asbestos consultants—it's your turn to cry.
Survey: Bioremediation contractors guarantee performance
Authors: Sobieraj James A. , Simon John A. 
Published: February 2007

AbstractExperience with bioremediation technology has enabled bioremediation contractors to offer performance‐based contracts for many types of bioremediation projects. This development is significant because it alleviates the previous concern with the technology regarding its lack of success at certain sites. Environmental Strategies Corporation, an independent environmental consulting firm with no financial interest in bioremediation technology, conducted an independent survey to identify bioremediation contractors that are willing to enter into performance‐based bioremediation contracts. This article discusses the background of treating contaminated soil and groundwater using bioremediation and describes how a performance‐based contract can be structured. The survey's format and results are then presented and analyzed. Finally, several case studies of successful bioremediation projects are presented.
Techniques for successfully implementing in‐situ remediation systems
Authors: Fulton David E. 
Published: February 2007

AbstractAs the remediation industry rapidly matures, a greater emphasis is placed on providing on‐site remedies involving in‐situ soil and groundwater technologies. Selecting and implementing cost‐effective technologies requires a defined working process focused on integrating the relationship between the design engineer/scientist and the remedial contractor. This article briefly explores various contractual vehicles and their effect on the designer/contractor relationship and identifies preconstruction documents needed to initiate a remedial construction program. A detailed discussion is presented that describes the transition from remedial design to remedial construction and offers practical application of preconstruction, construction, and postconstruction techniques. Preconstruction techniques involve communication processes and procedures designed to reduce installation uncertainty, address constructability issues, promote value engineering alternatives, and reaffirm the project objectives. Construction techniques focus on effective ways to communicate and document problems and solutions encountered during construction activities. Postconstruction techniques describe ways to provide useful information that may have a continued effect on system performance or used to document the achievement of project goals.
Using risk assessment to achieve cost‐effective property transfers and site closures for former UST sites
Authors: Copeland Teri L. , Pesin Richard , Barfield Lisa 
Published: February 2007

AbstractRisk 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.
Sensitivity analysis for setting soil cleanup standards
Authors: Patrick Penelope A. , Reece Karen D. , Callahan Barbara G. 
Published: February 2007

AbstractIn 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.
Systematically selecting an alternative to remediate soil contaminating groundwater
Authors: Elmore Andrew Curtis 
Published: February 2007

AbstractContaminated soil is a continuing source of ground water contamination at some hazardous waste sites. Even if that soil does not pose a threat to human health or the environment, soil remediation may benefit ground‐water cleanup in terms of time, money, or protectiveness. A method has been developed to provide a systematic manner to select a soil cleanup alternative. Using commercially available Windows‐based software, the method consists of the development of a decision tree whose chance nodes are the restoration time frame probability distributions. Uncertainty associated with site data is quantitatively evaluated using Monte Carlo analysis to develop the probability distributions. The decision tree selects the alternative with the lowest cost. Data from an actual remedial investigation/feasibility study demonstrate the ease and practicality of the selection method.
Characterizing soils contaminated with heavy metals: A uranium contamination case study
Authors: Tidwell Vincent C. , Morris David E. , Cunnane James C. , Lee S. Y. 
Published: February 2007

AbstractTo stem rising remediation costs for soils contaminated with hazardous metals, increased emphasis is being placed on the development of in‐situ and ex‐situ treatment technologies. Often, a lack of basic information on the chemical and physical characteristics of the soil and contaminants hampers treatability studies used to design these technologies. This article proposes and demonstrates a characterization program to meet these information needs, employing standard analytical techniques coupled with advanced spectroscopy and microscopy techniques. To support treatments involving physical separation strategies, the program uses standard analytical techniques to characterize the soil and the association of contaminants with different soil fractions (e.g., size and density fractions). Where chemical treatments are required, spectroscopy and microscopy methods are employed to yield quantitative information on the oxidation state and speciation of the contaminant. Examples demonstrate the use of measured soil and contaminant characteristics in the screening of alternative treatment technologies and in the selection of soils for use in treatability studies. Also demonstrated is the use of these characterization tools in the design and optimization of treatment strategies and in support of risk assessment determinations.
Passive soil vapor extraction: A cost effectiveness study
Authors: Cummings Mark , Booth Steven R. 
Published: February 2007

AbstractAn analysis of the cost effectiveness of passive soil vapor extraction (PSVE) is presented. PSVE, or “barometric pumping,” is an approach to the remediation of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that seeks to harness and enhance the naturally occurring processes of wind and atmospheric pressure changes to facilitate the release of gas‐phase contaminants from the subsurface. The technology background and current status are discussed, niches for the potential applicability of PSVE are identified, and a cost comparison with the conventional treatment method of active soil vapor extraction (ASVE) is examined.
Unit costs for decontamination and dismantlement of structures
Authors: Folga Stephen , Davis Michael J. , Janke Robert J. 
Published: February 2007

AbstractA series of relationships have been developed for estimating unit costs for decontamination and dismantlement (D&D) of a number of structure types. These relationships may be applied in the absence of other data to obtain rough order‐of‐magnitude cost estimates for D&D activities. The relationships were developed using D&D costs estimated for various types of buildings at the U.S. Department of Energy Fernald site. These unit costs take into account the level of radiological contamination as well as the building size and type.
Radiological risks and cleanup costs: A remediation case study
Authors: Hong Kou‐John , Moos Lawrence , Yu Charley , Gabel Andrew D. 
Published: February 2007

AbstractPotential 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.
Integration of RBCA frameworks and remediation technologies
Authors: Odencrantz Joseph E. , Duran David 
Published: February 2007

AbstractDecisions that determine the proper risk‐based remediation approach are based on technical, regulatory, cost, legal, and political factors. A wide variety of options such as the ASTM RBCA tiered approach, the API Decision Support Software, and a host of agency‐specific methods and commercial risk assessment software are all available. The optimization of a remediation project requires the right remediation technology coupled with the appropriate analytical framework. For groundwater remediation, the application of various “risk reduction” technologies can be classified as aggressive (pump and treat), moderate intensity (air sparging), low intensity (oxygen release compound‐ORC®), and intrinsic (monitor only). The time frame of risk analysis will establish the proper risk reduction strategy. The selection process is inherently iterative, and the approach by which an optimal solution can be derived forms the basis of this article. A case study of a Texas site put these issues into context.
Emerging technologies for in‐situ groundwater remediation
Authors: Bryda Lisa K. , Morris Peter E. 
Published: February 2007

AbstractThere are numerous technologies currently being tested by EPA, universities throughout the world, and private research organizations. A few of the more promising innovative technologies as well as fully tested and proven remedies for treating contaminated groundwater are presented in this article. Although several of those technologies have been in existence for only four to five years, the results of full‐scale testing are being produced. The method for each of these promising technologies is described, results from recent field‐scale studies are summarized, and a discussion of cost is presented.
Hazardous chemical site remediation through capping: Problems with long‐term protection
Authors: Lee G. Fred , Jones‐Lee Anne 
Published: February 2007

AbstractThe capping of waste management units and contaminated soils is receiving increasing attention as a low‐cost method for hazardous chemical site remediation. Capping is used to prevent further groundwater pollution by existing waste management units and contaminated soils through limiting the moisture that enters the wastes. In principle, for wastes located above the water table, the construction of an impermeable cap can prevent leaching of the wastes (leachate generation) and groundwater pollution. In practice, appropriately designed and constructed RCRA caps can provide for only short‐term prevention of groundwater pollution. Alternative approaches are available for capping of wastes that can be effective in preventing moisture from entering the wastes and concomitant groundwater pollution. These approaches recognize the inability of the typical RCRA cap to keep wastes dry for as long as waste constituents will be a threat and, most importantly, provide the necessary funds to effectively address all plausible worst‐case scenario failures that could occur at a capped waste management unit or contaminated soil area.