Environmental Cleanup at Navy Facilities: Adaptive Site Management

Committee on Environmental Remediation at Naval Facilities

Water Science and Technology Board

Division on Earth and Life Studies

National Research Council of the National Academies

The National Academies Press
Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Environmental Cleanup at Navy Facilities: Adaptive Site Management Committee on Environmental Remediation at Naval Facilities Water Science and Technology Board Division on Earth and Life Studies National Research Council of the National Academies The National Academies Press Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 5th St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. Support for this project was provided by the U.S. Navy under contract #N47408-00-C-7102. International Standard Book Number 0-309-08748-1 (Book) International Standard Book Number 0-309-51720-6 (PDF) Library of Congress Control Number 2003108132 Copyright 2003 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievement of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION AT NAVAL FACILITIES EDWARD J. BOUWER, Chair, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland GENE F. PARKIN, Vice Chair, University of Iowa, Iowa City SIDNEY B. GARLAND, Bechtel Jacobs Co., Oak Ridge, Tennessee PATRICK E. HAAS, Mitretek Systems, San Antonio, Texas ROBERT JOHNSON, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois MICHELLE M. LORAH, U.S. Geological Survey, Baltimore, Maryland FREDERICK G. POHLAND, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania DANNY D. REIBLE, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge LENNY M. SIEGEL, Center for Public Environmental Oversight, Mountain View, California MITCHELL J. SMALL, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania RALPH G. STAHL, Jr., DuPont Company, Wilmington, Delaware ALICE D. STARK, New York State Department of Health, Albany ALBERT J. VALOCCHI, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign WILLIAM J. WALSH, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Washington, DC CLAIRE WELTY, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Staff LAURA J. EHLERS, Study Director ANIKE L. JOHNSON, Project Assistant

OCR for page R1
WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD RICHARD G. LUTHY, Chair, Stanford University, Stanford, California JOAN B. ROSE, Vice Chair, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg RICHELLE M. ALLEN-KING, Washington State University, Pullman GREGORY B. BAECHER, University of Maryland, College Park KENNETH R. BRADBURY, University of Wisconsin, Madison JAMES CROOK, Consultant, Boston, Massachusetts EFI FOUFOULA-GEORGIOU, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis– St. Paul PETER GLEICK, Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, Oakland, California JOHN LETEY, Jr., University of California, Riverside DIANE M. McKNIGHT, University of Colorado, Boulder CHRISTINE L. MOE, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia ROBERT PERCIASEPE, National Audubon Society, Washington, DC RUTHERFORD H. PLATT, University of Massachusetts, Amherst JERALD L. SCHNOOR, University of Iowa, Iowa City LEONARD SHABMAN, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC R. RHODES TRUSSELL, Montgomery Watson, Pasadena, California Staff STEPHEN D. PARKER, Director LAURA J. EHLERS, Senior Staff Officer JEFFREY W. JACOBS, Senior Staff Officer WILLIAM S. LOGAN, Senior Staff Officer LAUREN E. ALEXANDER, Staff Officer MARK C. GIBSON, Staff Officer STEPHANIE E. JOHNSON, Staff Officer M. JEANNE AQUILINO, Administrative Associate ELLEN A. DE GUZMAN, Research Associate PATRICIA A. JONES KERSHAW, Research Associate ANITA A. HALL, Administrative Assistant ANIKE L. JOHNSON, Project Assistant JON Q. SANDERS, Project Assistant

OCR for page R1
This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page R1
Preface Under the auspices of the Water Science and Technology Board (WSTB), the National Research Council (NRC) established the Committee on Environmental Remediation at Naval Facilities in 1997 to study issues associated with the remediation of contaminated soil, sediment, and groundwater at Navy facilities. The committee was initially established to provide guidance on the following three main areas pertinent to characterization and remediation of Navy facilities: Risk-based methodology. What are the strengths and weaknesses of risk-based methodologies for cleaning up contaminated sites, including (but not limited to) the Risk-Based Corrective Action Standard (RBCA) devised by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM)? Innovative technologies. What innovative technologies are appropriate to assist the cleanup efforts at Navy facilities? Long-term monitoring. For Navy facilities that will not be able to meet regulatory standards for cleanup in the near future, what guidance can be given for establishing and maintaining long-term monitoring at such sites? The project was supported by the U.S. Navy with the stipulation that the three study topics listed above would be funded incrementally. The first report produced by the committee addressed risk-based methodologies (Task 1 above), providing a review of existing risk-based methodologies including ASTM’s Risk-Based Corrective Action, a description of their strengths and weaknesses, and a set of recommendations on how the Navy should proceed. After publication of the first report in 1999, the NRC convened a workshop with some committee

OCR for page R1
members and about 30 Navy remedial project managers and others to better define a scope of work for future studies. In doing so, a proposal was developed that deviated somewhat in content from the second and third tasks above. The goals of the Committee on Environmental Remediation at Naval Facilities Phase 2 were to address the following items (among others) related to the latter stages of site cleanup, including remedy selection, remedial operation, long-term monitoring, and site closeout. Systems engineering approach. The study will define a decision-making framework that is embodied within a “systems engineering approach” to site cleanup. Innovative technologies. The study will review the state of development of technologies for cleanup of groundwater, sediment, and soils, discussing the top two or three technologies that should be considered for the three to four greatest problems encountered by the Navy. Changing the remedy over time. The study will consider how innovative technologies can be introduced after the remedy has been selected and how remedies can be adjusted over time. Defining milestones for site closure. At many Navy sites, the continued operation of remedies beyond a certain level may not yield a marked improvement in site conditions. The study will consider when, and using what criteria, technologies should be “turned off.” These issues were identified by Navy managers as important to the growing number of sites where remedial goals have not been met despite continued operation of selected remedies. Most of these sites were characterized as those with recalcitrant contamination, including dense nonaqueous phase liquids, metals, and other persistent contaminants. To address these issues, a new committee was convened that included six members from the Phase 1 effort along with nine new members. Their areas of expertise spanned from environmental engineering and hazardous waste management to systems analysis, sediment contamination, and public participation. The new committee convened its first meeting in July 2000 and met five additional times over the next two years. The resulting report promotes using the concept of adaptive management to move forward at those sites where progress in reaching

OCR for page R1
cleanup goals has halted. Although the concept of adaptive site management is particularly applicable to those sites that have reached the latter stages of site cleanup, it encompasses all stages of hazardous waste remediation, and it is consistent with current federal regulations (e.g., Superfund). I believe the committee’s efforts provide useful guidance for some of the environmental restoration challenges of the Navy, which should also be relevant to a broader universe of sites and facilities. Adaptive site management is especially appropriate for remaining sites, which tend to be larger and more complex than those that have already been cleaned up. The study benefited greatly from contributions from various individuals who made presentations at our meetings, including Stephen Eikenberry, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center; Walt Kovalick, EPA Technology Innovation Office; Kevin Mould, EPA Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office; Carol Bass and Ken Lovelace, EPA Superfund Office; Patty Lovera, Center for Health, Environment and Justice; Mike Maughon, Cliff Casey, and Steve Beverly, Southern Division NAVFAC; Frank Chapelle, U.S. Geological Survey; Rob Simcik, TetraTech NUS; Steve Rosansky, Battelle; Steve Tsangaris, CH2M Hill; Tom Sale, Colorado State University; Arun Gavaskar, Battelle; Deanna Spehn; Sabine Apitz and Victoria Kirtay, SSC San Diego; and Chuck Newell, Groundwater Services, Inc. The committee was fortunate to have taken several field trips in conjunction with committee meetings. The following individuals are thanked for their participation in organizing and guiding these trips: Mike Maughon, Southern Division NAVFAC; Steve Rosansky, Battelle; Sam Ross, J. A. Jones; Ken Richter, Bart Chadwick, and Sabine Apitz, SSC San Diego; and Bill Collins, Southwest Division NAVFAC. The committee was ably assisted in these field trips and other administrative matters by Suzanne Benoit Albertsen, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center. The success of this report depended upon highly dedicated staff and the work of the committee members. I thank Laura Ehlers, the NRC study director for this project. Laura coordinated the committee meetings, gathered information, actively participated in the committee discussions, offered insightful comments and input, suggested alternative paths forward, and prepared copious minutes of the meetings. Laura worked with the committee members to maximize their contributions and written material, synthesized and edited the final report, and made the majority of revisions in response to reviewers comments. I appreciate the efforts

OCR for page R1
of Anike Johnson who took care of the many mailings and made local meeting arrangements. I thank Gene Parkin who assisted me as vice-chair. Gene’s positive spirit and intellect are much appreciated. I would like to thank the committee members for providing a stimulating environment for addressing the study issues. I have enjoyed immensely the opportunity to work with such a talented and articulate group of professionals. I especially appreciate their willingness to spend time researching, writing, and revising their contributions. More formally, the report has been reviewed by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the authors and the NRC in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The reviews and draft manuscripts remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report: W. Frank Bohlen, University of Connecticut; Teresa S. Bowers, Gradient Corporation; Mario Ierardi, Air Force Base Conversion Agency; Aaron A. Jennings, Case Western Reserve University; Michael C. Kavanaugh, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.; Kai N. Lee, Williams College; Garrick E. Louis, University of Virginia; Stavros S. Papadopulos, S. S. Papadopulos Associates, Inc.; Peter M. Strauss, P. M. Strauss & Associates; and C. Herb Ward, Rice University. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Richard A. Conway, Union Carbide Corporation (retired). Appointed by the NRC, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the NRC. Edward J. Bouwer, Chair

OCR for page R1
Contents     SUMMARY   1 1   INTRODUCTION   18     Characteristics of Navy Facilities,   23     Challenges Associated with Remediation of Navy Facilities,   34     Trends in Remedy Selection,   38     Statement of Task and Report Roadmap,   42     References,   44 2   ADAPTIVE SITE MANAGEMENT   48     Motivation for Adaptive Site Management,   48     Background on Adaptive Management,   67     Adaptive Site Management Described,   76     Major Conclusions and Recommendations,   94     References,   97 3   MONITORING AND DATA ANALYSIS TO SUPPORT ADAPTIVE SITE MANAGEMENT   106     Analytical Tools for Evaluating Remedy Effectiveness and Need for Change,   106     Monitoring,   127     Major Conclusions and Recommendations,   158     References,   159

OCR for page R1
4   EVALUATION AND EXPERIMENTATION   164     Introduction,   164     Why Evaluation and Experimentation are Needed,   167     Making Research Part of the Cleanup Paradigm,   174     Major Conclusions and Recommendations,   191     References,   194 5   TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW   198     Optimization of Remedies,   204     Promising Technologies for the Navy’s Pressing Contamination Problems,   222     Technologies for Remediation of Organic Contaminants in Soil and Groundwater,   223     Technologies for Remediation of Inorganics in Soil and Groundwater,   249     Technologies for Remediation and Management of Contaminated Sediment,   257     Treatment Trains,   268     Major Conclusions and Recommendations,   279     Glossary,   282     References,   285 6   NONTECHNICAL ISSUES REGARDING THE USE OF ADAPTIVE SITE MANAGEMENT   294     Regulatory and Policy Issues,   295     Public Participation,   301     Long-term Stewardship: An Integral Part of ASM,   307     Major Conclusions and Recommendations,   319     References,   320     Appendixes         A ACRONYMS   329     B REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES   333     C TABLES OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS   349     D COMMITTEE MEMBER AND STAFF BIOGRAPHIES   359