1887

Chapter 2 : Suspicions to Solutions: Characterizing Contaminated Land

MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.

Ebook: Choose a downloadable PDF or ePub file. Chapter is a downloadable PDF file. File must be downloaded within 48 hours of purchase

Buy this Chapter
Digital (?) $15.00

Preview this chapter:
Zoom in
Zoomout

Suspicions to Solutions: Characterizing Contaminated Land, Page 1 of 2

| /docserver/preview/fulltext/10.1128/9781555817596/9781555812393_Chap02-1.gif /docserver/preview/fulltext/10.1128/9781555817596/9781555812393_Chap02-2.gif

Abstract:

A successful approach to bioremediation involves site characterization that takes into account careful consideration of appropriate microorganisms, their survivability, and their response to various contaminants. Reliable information on the presence, type, and extent of contamination at a site is therefore vitally important. Risk assessment with respect to contaminated land serves two main purposes. First, it can be used to measure the degree of significance of contamination at a site. Second, the level of cleanup required in order to make a site suitable for its intended use may also be determined. There are four key steps in the process of assessing the risks associated with pollutant linkages: hazard (source) identification, exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, and risk characterization. The long-term leaching potential for soil contaminants and gas generation from organic materials are two common causes for remedial work in advance of development even where existing water quality and soil gas concentrations do not necessarily pose a risk until development has taken place. There are partial models to quantify the risks posed to groundwater, surface water, ecosystems, and human health. The outcome of the investigative and risk assessment processes should be a report that is readily understandable by the client, the other members of the professional team, and the appropriate regulatory authorities. A high standard of presentation is therefore important, and the report should describe the various stages of the work undertaken, together with the findings obtained and any assumptions that may have been made.

Citation: Barlow L, Philp J. 2005. Suspicions to Solutions: Characterizing Contaminated Land, p 49-85. In Atlas R, Philip J (ed), Bioremediation. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555817596.ch2

Key Concept Ranking

Quantitative Risk Assessment
0.48030493
0.48030493
Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

Figures

Image of FIGURE 2.1
FIGURE 2.1

Framework for environmental risk assessment (after U.S. EPA guidelines [ ]).

Citation: Barlow L, Philp J. 2005. Suspicions to Solutions: Characterizing Contaminated Land, p 49-85. In Atlas R, Philip J (ed), Bioremediation. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555817596.ch2
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint
Image of BOX FIGURE 2.1.1
BOX FIGURE 2.1.1

Risk assessment for a gas station with a leaking underground storage tank (after Institute of Petroleum guidelines [29]).

Citation: Barlow L, Philp J. 2005. Suspicions to Solutions: Characterizing Contaminated Land, p 49-85. In Atlas R, Philip J (ed), Bioremediation. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555817596.ch2
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 2.2
FIGURE 2.2

An example of investigation design, considering historical features.

Citation: Barlow L, Philp J. 2005. Suspicions to Solutions: Characterizing Contaminated Land, p 49-85. In Atlas R, Philip J (ed), Bioremediation. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555817596.ch2
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 2.3
FIGURE 2.3

Scheduling of soil samples prior to laboratory analysis. The labeling procedure, often overlooked, should be viewed as an essential part of the overall procedure and should be given requisite attention to detail.

Citation: Barlow L, Philp J. 2005. Suspicions to Solutions: Characterizing Contaminated Land, p 49-85. In Atlas R, Philip J (ed), Bioremediation. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555817596.ch2
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 2.4
FIGURE 2.4

Procedure of Monte Carlo analysis (after the work of Ferguson and Denner [ ]).

Citation: Barlow L, Philp J. 2005. Suspicions to Solutions: Characterizing Contaminated Land, p 49-85. In Atlas R, Philip J (ed), Bioremediation. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555817596.ch2
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 2.5
FIGURE 2.5

A simplified bioremediation decision tree. Whereas the early decisions based on time available tend to be clear-cut, later decisions on which individual biotechnology approach to use become more involved, and consequently the decision tree becomes more complex.

Citation: Barlow L, Philp J. 2005. Suspicions to Solutions: Characterizing Contaminated Land, p 49-85. In Atlas R, Philip J (ed), Bioremediation. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555817596.ch2
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint

References

/content/book/10.1128/9781555817596.chap2
1.American Petroleum Institute. 1989. A Guide to the Assessment and Remediation of Underground Petroleum Releases. Publication no. 1628, 2nd ed. American Petroleum, Institute, Washington, D.C.
2. Armishaw, R.,, R. P. Bardos,, R. M. Dunn,, J. M. Hill,, M. Pearl,, T. Rampling,, and P. A. Wood. 1992. Review of Innovative Contaminated Soil Clean-up Processes. Report LR 819 (MR). Warren Spring Laboratory, Warren, Ohio.
3. Barry, D. L. 1999. The Millennium Dome (Greenwich Millennium Experience Site) contamination remediation. Land Contam. Reclam. 7:177190.
4.British Standards Institute. 2001. Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites—Code of Practice.BJ 10175. British Standards Institute, London, United Kingdom.
5. Cairney, T. 1995. The Re-use of Contaminated Land. A Handbook of Risk Assessment. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, United Kingdom.
6. Carcione, J. M.,, G. Seriani,, and D. Gei. 2003. Acoustic and electromagnetic properties of soils saturated with salt water and NAPL. J. Appl. Geophys. 52:177191.
7. Chang, S. S. 1999. Implementing probabilistic risk assessment in USEPA Superfund Program. Hum. Ecol. Risk Manage. 5:737754.
8. Christie, S.,, and R. M. Teeuw. 1998. Contaminated land policy within the European Union. Eur. Environ. 8:714.
9. Clifton, A.,, M. Boyd,, and S. Rhodes. 1999. Assessing the risks. Land Contam. Reclam. 7:2732.
10. de Castro, D. L.,, and R. M. G. C. Branco. 2003. 4-D ground penetrating radar monitoring of a hydrocarbon leakage site in Fortaleza (Brazil) during its remediation process: a case history. J. Appl. Geophys. 54:127144.
11. Delaney, A. J.,, P. R. Peapples,, and S. A. Arcone. 2001. Electrical resistivity of frozen and petroleum- contaminated fine-grained soil. Cold Regions Sci. Technol. 32:107119.
12.Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 2002. Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment Model (CLEA): Technical Basis and Algorithms. Research and Development publication CLR10. The Environment Agency, Bristol, United Kingdom.
13.Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 2002. Toxicological Reports for Individual Soil Contaminants. CLR9, TOX1-10. The Environment Agency, Bristol, United Kingdom. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk.
14.Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 2002. Contaminants in Soils: Collation of Toxicological Data and Intake Values for Humans. Research and Development publication CLR9. The Environment Agency, Bristol, United Kingdom.
15.Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 2002. Assessment of Risks to Human Health from Land Contamination: An Overview of the Development of Soil Guideline Values and Related Research. Research and Development publication CLR7. The Environment Agency, Bristol, United Kingdom.
16.Department of the Environment. 1996. Waste Management Paper 27: Landfill Gas. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, United Kingdom.
17.Department of the Environment,Transportandthe Regions. 2000. Guidelines for Environmental Risk Assessment and Management. Revised departmental guidance. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, United Kingdom. http://www.defra.gov.uk.
18.Department of the Environment,Transportandthe Regions. 2000. Contaminated Land: Implementation of Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. DETR circular 02/2000. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, United Kingdom. http://www.defra.gov.uk.
19. Drommerhausen, D. J.,, D. E. Radcliffe,, D. E. Brune,, and H. D. Gunter. 1995. Electromagnetic conductivity surveys of dairies for groundwater nitrate. J. Environ. Qual. 24:10831091.
20.Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment. 2000. Circular on target val ues and intervention values for soil remediation. DBO/1999226863. Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, The Hague, Netherlands.
21. Ferguson, C. C. 1996. Assessing human health risks from exposure to contaminated land: a review of recent research. Land Contam. Reclam. 4:159170.
22. Ferguson, C. C. 1999. Assessing risks from contaminated sites: policy and practice in 16 European countries. Land Contam. Reclam. 7:87108.
23. Ferguson, C. C.,, and H. Kasamas (ed). 1999. Risk Assessment for Contaminated Sites in Europe, vol. 2. Policy Frameworks. LQM Press, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
24. Ferguson, C. C.,, and J. M. Denner,. 1998. Human health risk assessment using UK guideline values for contaminants in soils, p. 3743. In D. N. Lerner, and R. G. Walton (ed.), Contaminated Land and Groundwater: Future Directions. Engineering Geology Special Publication 14. Geological Society London, London, United Kingdom.
25. Gerlach, R. W.,, and J. M. Nocerino. 2003. Guidance for Obtaining Representative Laboratory Analytical Subsamples from Particulate Laboratory Samples. EPA/600/R-03/027. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C..
26. Gerlach, R. W.,, D. E. Dobbs,, G. A. Raab,, and J. M. Nocerino. 2002. Gy sampling theory in environmental studies. 1. Assessing soil splitting protocols. J. Chemometrics 16:321328.
27. Grasso, D. 1993. Hazardous Waste Site Remediation. Source Control. CRC Press,Boca Raton, Fla..
28. Gy, P. 1998. Sampling for Analytical Purposes. Wiley, New York, N.Y
29.Instituteof Petroleum. 1998. Guidelines for the Investigation and Remediation of Retail Sites. Portland Press, Colchester, United Kingdom.
30.Interdepartmental Committeeon the Redevelopment of Contaminated Land. 1987. Guidance on the Assessment and Redevelopment of Contaminated Land. Guidance note 59/83. Department of the Environment, London, United Kingdom.
31.Interdepartmental Committee on the Redevelopment of Contaminated Land. 1990. Notes on the Restoration and Aftercare of Metalliferous Mining Sites for Pastures and Grazing. Guidance note 70/90. Department of the Environment, London, United Kingdom.
32. Keenan, R. E.,, E. R. Algeo,, E. S. Ebert,, and D. J. Paustenbach. 1993. Taking a risk assessment approach to RCA corrective action, p. 225275. In Developing Cleanup Standards for Contaminated Soil, Sediment, and Groundwater: How Clean is Clean? Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, Va.
33. Knight, R. 2001. Ground penetrating radar for environmental applications. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 29:229255.
34. Lanz, E.,, H. Maurer,, and A. G. Green. 1998. Refraction tomography over a buried waste disposal site. Geophysics 63:14141433.
35. Levin, M. A.,, and M. A. Gealt. 1993. Biotreatment of Industrial and Hazardous Waste. McGraw- Hill, New York, N.Y.
36. Marsland, P. A.,, and M. A. Carey. 1999. Methodology for the Derivation of Remedial Targets for Soil and Groundwater to Protect Water Resources. Research and Development publication 20. The Environment Agency, Bristol, United Kingdom.
37. Martin, I.,, and R. P. Bardos. 1995. A Review of Full Scale Treatment Technologies for the Remediation of Contaminated Soil. EPP Publications, Richmond, Surrey, United Kingdom.
38. Naudet, V.,, A. Revil,, E. Rizzo,, J. Y. Bottero,, and P. Begassat. 2004. Groundwater redox conditions and conductivity in a contaminant plume from geoelectrical investigations. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 8:822.
39.Office for National Statistics. 2004. Social Trends (34). Office for National Statistics, London, United Kingdom.
40.Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 1998>. Biotechnology for Clean Industrial Products and Processes: Towards Industrial Sustainability. Report of ad hoc task force chaired by A. T. Bull. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France.
41. Orlando, L. 2002. Detection and analysis of LNAPL using the instantaneous amplitude and frequency of ground-penetrating radar data. Geophys. Prospecting 50: 2741.
42. Osterreicher-Cunha, P.,, E. A. Vargas,, J. R. D. Guimaraes,, T. M. P. de Campos,, C. M. F. Nunes,, A. Costa,, F. S. Antunes,, M. I. P. da Silva,, and D. M. Mano. 2004. Evaluation of bioventing on a gasoline-ethanol contaminated undisturbed residual soil. J. Hazard. Mater. 110: 6376.
43.Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. 1993. Contaminated Land. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, London, United Kingdom.
44. Patata, L.,, and M. Mastrolilli deAngelis,. 1997. Field survey activities, p. 3597. In P. Lecompte, and C. Mariotti (ed.), Hand book of Diagnostic Procedures for Petroleum-Contaminated Sites. John Wiley and Sons Ltd., Chichester, United Kingdom.
45. Pearce, F. 1992. Sitting on a toxic time bomb. New Scientist 15(August):1213.
46. Pellerin, L. 2002. Applications of electrical and electromagnetic methods for environmental and geotechnical investigations. Surveys Geophys. 23: 101132.
47. Roth, K.,, U. Wollschlager,, Z. H. Cheng,, and J. B. Zhang. 2004. Exploring soil layers and water tables with ground-penetrating radar. Pedosphere 14:273282.
48. Rudland, D. J.,, R. M. Lancefield,, and P. N. Mayell. 2001. Contaminated Land Risk Assessment: A Guide to Good Practice. C552. Construction Industry Research and Information Association, London, United Kingdom.
49. Russell, M.,, B. Colglazier,, and M. English. 1991. Hazardous Waste Site Remediation: The Task Ahead. Waste Management Research and Education Institute, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
50.Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research. 2000. Communicating Understanding of Contaminated Land Risks. SNIFFER project no. SR97(11)F. Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research.
51. Simons, R. A. 1998. Turning Brownfields into Greenbacks: Financing Environmentally Contaminated Real Estate. Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C.
52. Soczo, E.,, and T. Meeder. 1992. Clean-up of contaminated sites in Europe and the USA—a comparison. In Eureco ’92 (European Urban Regeneration Conference), Birmingham, United Kingdom.>
53. Syms, P. M.,, and R. A. Simons. 1999. Contaminated land registers: an analysis of the UK and USA approaches to public management of contaminated sites. Land Contam. Reclam. 7:121132.
54. ten Kate, K.,, and S. A. Laird. 1999. The Commercial Use of Biotechnology: Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit-Sharing. Earthscan Publications Ltd., London, United Kingdom.
55.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. October 1998. USACESample Collection and Preparation Strategies for Volatile Organic Compounds in Solids. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.
56.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. Guidance for Scoping the Remedial Design. EPA 540/R-95/025. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
57.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. Superfund Program Representative Sampling Guidance, vol. 1. Soil. EPA 540/R-95/141. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
58.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Soil Screening Guidance: User’s Guide. EPA/ 540/R-96/018. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.
59.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-95/002F. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.
60.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report, 9th ed. EPA-542-R99-001. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.
61.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. EPA Remediation Technology Cost Compendium— Year 2000. EPA-542-R-01-009. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
62. Villaume, J. F. 1985. Investigations at sites contaminated with dense non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs). Ground Water Monit. Rev. 5:6075.
63. Wentz, C. A. 1989. Hazardous Waste Management McGraw-Hill, Singapore, Singapore.
64. Wood, P. A., 1997. Remediation methods for contaminated sites, p. 4771. In R. E. Hester, and R. M. Harrison (ed.), Contaminated Land and Its Reclamation. Thomas Telford Publishing, London, United Kingdom.
65. Yeskis, D.,, and B. Zavala. 2002. Ground-Water Sampling Guidelines for Superfund and RCRA Project Managers. EPA 542-S-02-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
66. Yoo, G. L.,, and J. B. Park. 2001. Sensitivity of leachate and fine contents on electrical resistivity variations of sandy soils. J. Hazard. Mater. 84: 147161.
67. Yoo, G. L.,, M. H. Oh,, and J. B. Park. 2002. Laboratory study of landfill leachate effect on resistivity in unsaturated soil using cone penetrometer. Environ. Geol. 43:1828.

Tables

Generic image for table
BOX TABLE 2.1.1

Source-pathway-receptor for leaking underground storage tank

Citation: Barlow L, Philp J. 2005. Suspicions to Solutions: Characterizing Contaminated Land, p 49-85. In Atlas R, Philip J (ed), Bioremediation. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555817596.ch2
Generic image for table
TABLE 2.1

Exposure pathways included in the CLEA model

Citation: Barlow L, Philp J. 2005. Suspicions to Solutions: Characterizing Contaminated Land, p 49-85. In Atlas R, Philip J (ed), Bioremediation. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555817596.ch2
Generic image for table
TABLE 2.2

Total contaminated site remediation service market within Europe

Citation: Barlow L, Philp J. 2005. Suspicions to Solutions: Characterizing Contaminated Land, p 49-85. In Atlas R, Philip J (ed), Bioremediation. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555817596.ch2
Generic image for table
TABLE 2.3

1997 costs of remedial technologies in the United Kingdom

Citation: Barlow L, Philp J. 2005. Suspicions to Solutions: Characterizing Contaminated Land, p 49-85. In Atlas R, Philip J (ed), Bioremediation. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555817596.ch2
Generic image for table
TABLE 2.4

Comparative costs of ' remediation techniques in the United Kingdom and the United States

Citation: Barlow L, Philp J. 2005. Suspicions to Solutions: Characterizing Contaminated Land, p 49-85. In Atlas R, Philip J (ed), Bioremediation. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555817596.ch2
Generic image for table
TABLE 2.5

Comparative data on established remedial treatments

Citation: Barlow L, Philp J. 2005. Suspicions to Solutions: Characterizing Contaminated Land, p 49-85. In Atlas R, Philip J (ed), Bioremediation. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555817596.ch2
Generic image for table
TABLE 2.6

Comparative data for bioremediation techniques

Citation: Barlow L, Philp J. 2005. Suspicions to Solutions: Characterizing Contaminated Land, p 49-85. In Atlas R, Philip J (ed), Bioremediation. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555817596.ch2
Generic image for table
BOX TABLE 2.7.1

Summary of risk-based remediation at RJB Mining

Citation: Barlow L, Philp J. 2005. Suspicions to Solutions: Characterizing Contaminated Land, p 49-85. In Atlas R, Philip J (ed), Bioremediation. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555817596.ch2

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Please check the format of the address you have entered.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error