An Electronic Newsletter
of EEA's Environmental Consulting Activities
Fall 2004
EEA, Inc.
55 Hilton Avenue
Garden City, New York
(516) 746-4400
(212) 227-3200
(800) 459-5533
additional New York offices:
Stony Brook
(631) 751-4600
Altamont
(518) 861-8586
e-mail addresses:
General:
mailto:eea@eeaconsultants.com
Individual:
First initial and last name
@eeaconsultants.com
EEA services include
Phase I ESAs, Haz-Mat
Testing and Remediation, Wetlands
Delineation
and Creation, Natural
Resources Inventories,
Marine Ecology Studies,
Air Quality and Noise
studies, and Environmental Management
System (ISO 14000) implementation.
Visit our web site
at
http://www.eeaconsultants.com/
For information or
quotes contact:
Phase I ESAs
Richard
Fasciani
Phase II/III Haz-Mat
Testing and Remediation
Nicholas
Recchia, CPG
Dredge Management Testing
Jeffrey Shelkey
EAS/EIS Studies
Janet Collura,
CWS
Wetlands Studies and
Design
Laura Schwanof,
RLA
Marine Ecology
Teresa Rotunno
Terrestrial Ecology
Denise
Harrington, AICP
Air Quality and Noise
Victor Fahrer,
P.E.
Power Plants-Water Permitting
Glenn
Piehler, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Systems
(ISO 14000)
Robert
Clifford
EEA, Inc. -
founded in 1979
Principals
Leland M.
Hairr, Ph.D.
President
Allen Serper,
M.S., P.E.
Vice President
Roy R. Stoecker,
Ph.D.
Vice President
|
|
CONTAMINATED SITE AND
BROWNFIELD
CLEANUPS
Approaches: High Tech versus Excavate and Haul
(printer friendly version
uses Acrobat Reader)
During the 1980s, the
primary approach to cleanup of contaminated "urban fill" materials was to physically remove
the source contamination in areas of concern, such as leaking underground
storage tanks (USTs), industrial leaching pool structures, and
contaminated fill materials. Groundwater was remediated by pump and treat
methods. Although these methods currently are used, new technology and a
more liberal regulatory atmosphere are yielding many more alternatives.
|
Since 1980, federally
funded research has led to more high-tech remediation approaches, such as
in place (in-situ) biological and chemical degradation of contaminants.
The chemical
injection
of oxidants and reducing compounds has been demonstrated to be a promising
alternative to the conventional “dig and haul” of soils followed by “pump
and treat” practices applied to groundwater for some contaminants, such
as solvents. Fixation or bonding agents have also been utilized with some
metals contamination such as lead in soils. The lead or metals are
affixed to the soil particles and subsequently do not migrate to sensitive
environmental receptors. |
|
Treating contaminants often takes varying and somewhat
unpredictable time periods to render the remediation complete. While these
chemical-biological approaches may be more cost-effective for large areas
or sites with extensive volumes of contamination, for some Brownfield
redevelopment projects the time required to complete remediation may be
more of a priority. See
EEA's Fall 2003
Newsletter on Brownfield legislation.
In today’s
environment, it is necessary to perform a feasibility study to consider
the relative effectiveness and cost benefits of different approaches to
the remediation of contaminated property. Factors that affect
the choice of treatment technologies for soils and groundwater are typically
pH, nature of organic matter (nom), permeability, and depth of
contamination.
|
|
Soil Gas Vapor and Air Sparging
EEA has
successfully used soil gas
vapor
systems and air sparging to remove chlorinated solvents that have
contaminated the subsurface soils and groundwater at industrial sites.
This approach was chosen over the excavation of soils to an approved
facility, since the contamination was pervasive and at levels that would
classify the soil material as hazardous. Thus, the gas
vapor system was a more economic solution. After two years of
operation, the system successfully remediated the contamination. |
|
Hydrogen Peroxide InjectionHydrogen
peroxide has been used by EEA to remediate groundwater contaminated by
petroleum products at service stations. Hydrogen peroxide injections at
five locations over a two-month period reduced groundwater contamination
by 95 percent. Hydrogen peroxide injection is a cost-effective approach
to groundwater remediation if the contamination is localized.
Hydrogen Release Compounds
Hydrogen
Release Compounds (HRC), provided by Regenesis Corporation, are used by
EEA to remediate groundwater contaminated by chlorinated hydrocarbons at
dry cleaning facilities on Long Island and in New York City. HRC
Compounds offer a passive, low-cost option for in-situ anaerobic
bioremediation of chlorinated hydrocarbons. HRC is proprietary
polyacetate ester specially formulated for the slow release of lactic acid
upon contact with water.
This source of lactic
acid is then metabolized by microbes to produce hydrogen, which is then
used in a natural process known as reductive dechlorination. Reductive
dechlorination results in the step-by-step biological degradation of
chlorinated contaminants. HRC can be used to degrade a range of
chlorinated compounds including degreasing agents (PCE, TCE, TCA and their
breakdown products).
Application of HRC is accomplished inexpensively
using push-point or borehole delivery methods. Once in the subsurface,
HRC continues to stimulate the biodegradation of contaminants for an
extended period of time (up to 18 months) eliminating the need for
multiple, more frequent injections. A combination of low-cost
application, an extended release profile, no operations and maintenance,
minimal site disturbance and lack of dependence on external power source
gives HRC a substantial cost advantage over other treatment technologies.
HRC is a sensible, economical solution for treating chlorinated
contaminants in saturated soils and groundwater.
Bioventing
Bioventing
has been used by EEA for deep soils contaminated by fuel oil. At some
locations, soil contamination, resulting from leaking tanks, extended to
depths of over 40 feet. EEA has employed a bioventing system to
biologically reduce the levels of contamination. Bioventing is an in-situ
remediation technology that uses indigenous microorganisms to biodegrade
organic constituents adsorbed to soils in the unsaturated zone. Soils in
the capillary fringe and the saturated zone are not affected. In
bioventing, the activity of the indigenous bacteria is enhanced by
inducing air (or oxygen) flow into the unsaturated zone (using extraction
or injection wells) and, if necessary, by adding nutrients. |
|
Scheduling Constraints Often
Dictate Choices
Often, the
primary consideration for contaminated properties is to complete the cleanup as quickly as
possible in order for planned development to proceed. In many
cases, the financing agreements require the completion of
remediation (i.e., obtaining No-Further Action letters from
regulatory agencies) as a prerequisite to obtaining construction
loans. The consideration of longer-term remediation approaches is
discounted in favor of direct removal of as much contamination as is
required to obtain a No Further Action letter.
For those conditions, “dig and haul” of
contaminated soils to disposal sites and pump and treat contaminated
groundwater are the preferred
alternatives by the property owners, particularly if the property is
a planned residential redevelopment. |
Typical “Dig
and Haul” Projects
EEA is completing the
remediation of contaminated soils at the 12-acre former Smithtown Hospital
site in Suffolk County. The onsite waste treatment system effluent was
directed to 106 leeching pools. The most expedient approach to cleanup was to
remove all the leeching pools and the contaminated soils
(~ 1,000 tons) as negotiated by EEA
in an Order of Consent. The owner desires to proceed with a
townhouse residential development as soon as remediation is complete.
EEA is under
contract to manage the cleanup of a waterfront site in Queens that
formerly was a petroleum bulk storage terminal. The site has extensive
petroleum product contamination; however, the owners desire to expedite
the cleanup in order to proceed with a high-rise residential development
(spectacular views of Manhattan) led to a decision not to pursue
remediation under the
NYS Brownfields Program (time
constraints) or to propose lengthy chemical-biological remediation
approaches. As a result, the chosen method became a Dig and
Haul mass excavation project. |
Brownfields Benefits Are Attractive to Some Developers
EEA is
proceeding on another cleanup under the State's new Brownfield Program for
a client who acquired the former Time Warner Multiplex Center (and dry
cleaner) at the Horace Harding Expressway in Queens. Soil and
groundwater must be remediated for this site for a hotel and office
redevelopment. The tax incentives and benefits under the Brownfield
Program led to the application and acceptance of this remediation by the
NYSDEC under the Brownfield Act of 2003 (see
Fall 2003 edition of
Insights). The proposed action is proceeding through the Brownfield
process, which is still uncertain in terms of length of time to complete.
Successfully Achieving Redevelopment of Contaminated
Sites is a Road with Many Optional Paths
It is important to have an experienced team working with you in
defining the priorities of time and cost efficiencies. Sometimes,
during the remediation effort, unanticipated contingencies can occur.
Decisions have to be made quickly regarding contingency plans for dealing
with changed assumptions. These must be carefully considered along
with the consequences of alternative action plans, which could incur unexpected
costs and/or extensive delays. Guidance from EEA's capable and
experienced team helps to minimize the unexpected, and enables timely and
cost effective decisions.
For additional Information on Testing and Remediation
of
Contaminated Property,
Contact:
Nicholas Recchia, CPG or Allen Serper, P.E.
EEA, Inc., Celebrating 25 Years as Consultants to
Industry and Government |
11/05/04
|