Groundwater and Soil Cleanup Improving Management of Persistent Contaminants (1999) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
1 Introducution: DOE's Groundwater and Soil Contamination Problem
1 Introducution: DOE's Groundwater and Soil Contamination Problem
Pages 15-38
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 15... ...
Despite the large amount invested in DOE environmental management, progress on groundwater and soil remediation has been slow. Cleanup of most groundwater and soil contamination sites is in the early stages (EPA, 1997~.
|
From page 16... ...
During the course of its two-year study, the committee met six times to gather information and prepare this report. The committee also visited cleanup managers at three DOE installations: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California; the Savannah River Site in Aiken, South Carolina; and the Hanford Site in Richland, Washington.
|
From page 17... ...
This chapter outlines the magnitude of the groundwater and soil contamination problem at DOE facilities and briefly describes risks posed by this contamination, as currently understood. Understanding the nature of the problem is the first step in developing solutions; thus, this chapter provides an important context for understanding the technical evaluations in the later chapters of the report.
|
From page 18... ...
, this is still the predominant remedy, being used as the sole cleanup technology at 89 percent of sites with groundwater contamination (EPA, 1998~. However, as has now been widely documented, these systems are often ineffective in restoring contaminated groundwater to regulatory standards because the flushing action created by pump-and-treat systems often is not sufficient to dislodge all of the contamination from the subsurface (NRC, 1994; MacDonald and Kavanaugh, 1994~.
|
From page 19... ...
DOE'S PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPING GROUNDWATER AND SOIL CLEANUP TECHNOLOGIES DOE's Office of Environmental Management, which is responsible for overseeing cleanup at all of the department's contaminated installations, has long recognized the limitations of conventional technologies for cleaning up contaminated groundwater and soil, as well as for addressing other environmental concerns at DOE sites. Recognizing these technological limitations, the Office of Environmental Management in 1989 established the Office of Technology Development to develop technologies for DOE contamination problems for which good technical solutions are lacking.
|
From page 20... ...
Recent DOE cost projections have estimated that between 1997 and 2070, the department will spend $15 billion on cleanup of contaminant "release sites" (areas where contaminants were released and subsequently infiltrated soil and, often, groundwater)
|
From page 21... ...
of DOE's total projected costs for cleanup (EPA, 1997~. These installations are the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, the Savannah River Site, the Oak Ridge Reservation, and the Hanford Site.
|
From page 22... ...
SOURCE: DOE, owned by DOE and some not that played smaller roles in the nuclear weapons production process. These other facilities include key DOE research laboratories, such as Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore, and also a number of smaller operations that at one time or another were used for the processing of nuclear weapons materials.
|
From page 23... ...
/ The geologic settings of contaminated sites in the DOE complex are highly variable. DOE installations are located in all major geographic regions of the United States.
|
From page 24... ...
24 a 5o ·E o cry I ._, o cry 5 o 5 o o V)
|
From page 25... ...
INTRODUCTION 25 Certain geologic and geochemical characteristics of a site can decrease or increase the migration rates of organic and inorganic contaminants. For example, as described above, DNAPLs can become entrapped in the pore spaces of geologic materials or can sorb (attach)
|
From page 27... ...
Contaminants Found in Groundwater and Soil at DOE Facilities Understanding the characteristics of contaminants present at DOE installations is also a critical step in determining applicable remediation technologies. Technologies effective for one type of contaminant, such as biodegradable components dissolving from DNAPLs, may not be effective for another type of contaminant, such as a nonbiodegradable radionuclide.
|
From page 28... ...
The data set does not make separate rankings of contaminants in groundwater and soil. bSCFA developed this ranking based on mobility, prevalence, and toxicity dim Wright, Savannah River Site, personal communication, 1997)
|
From page 29... ...
Chloroform Dichloroethane Carbon tetrachloride TCE Polychlorinated biphenyls DCE PCE 1,1,1-TCA 1,2-DCE PCE 1,1-DCA Chloroform 1,1-DCE Carbon tetrachloride 1 ,2-Dichloromethane TCE 1,1,1-TCA PCE Dichloromethane Carbon tetrachloride Chloroform Freon 1,2-DCA 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Chlorobenzene a This data set is not inclusive across the weapons complex but includes the major waste units identified at about 60 sites in 1995 and 1996. The data were validated in 1997 through review of published references.
|
From page 30... ...
This study, completed in 1995, was part of a broader DOE effort to prioritize site cleanup activities according to health and ecological risks. CERE reviewed existing health and ecological risk studies at six major DOE installations: Hanford, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Rocky Flats, the Savannah River Site, and Fernald.
|
From page 31... ...
CERE was unable to quantify the magnitude of the health risks posed by DOE installations. CERE concluded that groundwater and soil contamination appear to present little or no immediate hazard to most populations neighboring DOE installations.
|
From page 34... ...
34 GROUNDWATER AND SOL CLEANUP risk posed by groundwater and soil contamination (see Box 1-3~. However, CERE concluded that although contamination of biota, soil, sediment, and water resources is widespread across the weapons complex, ecological effects generally appear to be confined to localized contaminated areas.
|
From page 35... ...
Thus, additional studies are needed before definitive conclusions can be reached about ecological risks due to groundwater and soil contamination in the weapons complex. Around the time that CERE completed its study, DOE undertook a pilot-scale project to develop improved methods for quantifying human health risks across the weapons complex (Hamilton, 1994, 1995~.
|
From page 36... ...
, assumed that sources of groundwater contamination would be removed and pump-and-treat technologies would be used where effective, but that otherwise contaminated groundwater would simply be contained on-site and monitored, rather than cleaned. For example, the budget projection assumed that groundwater contamination at Hanford and the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory would be managed by a combination of limited pumping and treating followed by monitoring of remaining contamination.
|
From page 37... ...
Washington Post Magazine (May 5~:12-19; 26-29. INEEL (Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory)
|
From page 38... ...
1998. Unpublished data on groundwater and soil contamination remedies at DOE installations.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.