Send Military mailing list submissions to
military@lists.cpeo.orgTo subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.cpeo.org/listinfo.cgi/military-cpeo.orgor, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
military-request@lists.cpeo.orgYou can reach the person managing the list at
military-owner@lists.cpeo.orgWhen replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Military digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. CLEANUP, VOCs: NRC report: "Cleanup of Most Challenging U.S.
Contaminated Groundwater Sites Unlikely for Many Decades"
(Lenny Siegel)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:08:20 -0800
From: Lenny Siegel <
lsiegel@cpeo.org>
To: Military Environmental Forum <
military@lists.cpeo.org>
Subject: [CPEO-MEF] CLEANUP, VOCs: NRC report: "Cleanup of Most
Challenging U.S. Contaminated Groundwater Sites Unlikely for Many
Decades"
Message-ID: <
53AAE90A-FF1A-4E7A-8BA8-65641B045B86@cpeo.org" ymailto="mailto:
53AAE90A-FF1A-4E7A-8BA8-65641B045B86@cpeo.org">
53AAE90A-FF1A-4E7A-8BA8-65641B045B86@cpeo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes;
format=flowed
[Please excuse duplicate postings.]
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
November 8, 2012
Cleanup of Most Challenging U.S. Contaminated Groundwater Sites
Unlikely for Many Decades
WASHINGTON - At least 126,000 sites across the U.S. have contaminated
groundwater that requires remediation, and about 10 percent of these
sites are considered "complex," meaning restoration is unlikely to be
achieved in the next 50 to 100 years due to technological
limitations, says a new report from the National Research Council.
The report adds that the estimated cost of complete cleanup at these
sites ranges from $110 billion to $127 billion, but the figures for
both the number of sites and costs are likely underestimates.
Several national and state groundwater cleanup programs developed
over the last three decades under various federal and state agencies
aim to mitigate the human health and ecological risks posed by
underground contamination. These programs include cleanup at
Superfund sites; facilities that treat, store, and dispose of
hazardous wastes; leaking underground storage tanks; and federal
facilities, such as military installations. The U.S. Department of
Defense has already spent approximately $30 billion in hazardous
waste remediation to address past legacies of its industrial
operations. DOD sites represent approximately 3.4 percent of the
total active remediation sites, but many of these sites present the
greatest technical challenges to restoration with very high costs.
Therefore, the agency asked the National Research Council to examine
the future of groundwater remediation efforts and the challenges
facing the U.S. Army and other responsible agencies as they pursue
site closures.
"The complete removal of contaminants from groundwater at possibly
thousands of complex sites in the U.S. is unlikely, and no technology
innovations appear in the near time horizon that could overcome the
challenges of restoring contaminated groundwater to drinking water
standards," said Michael Kavanaugh, chair of the committee that wrote
the report and a principal with Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. in
Oakland, Calif. "At many of these complex sites, a point of
diminishing returns will often occur as contaminants in groundwater
remain stalled at levels above drinking water standards despite
continued active remedial efforts. We are recommending a formal
evaluation be made at the appropriate time in the life cycle of a
site to decide whether to transition the sites to active or passive
long-term management.?
The estimated range of remediation costs do not account for technical
barriers to complete cleanup at complex sites or the costs of cleanup
at future sites where groundwater may become contaminated, the
committee said. A substantial portion of the costs will come from
public sources as some of complex sites are "orphan" sites and many
other complex sites are the responsibility of federal or state agencies.
The committee said that the nomenclature for the phases of site
cleanup and cleanup progress are inconsistent among public and
private sector organizations, which could confuse the public and
other stakeholders about the concept of "site closure." For example,
many sites thought of as "closed" and considered "successes" still
have contamination and will require continued oversight and funding
over extended timeframes in order to maintain protectiveness,
including 50 percent of the contaminated groundwater sites evaluated
by the committee that have been deleted from the Superfund list.
More consistent and transparent terminology that simply and clearly
explains the different stages of cleanup and progress would improve
communication with the public.
"The central theme of this report is how the nation should deal with
those sites where residual contamination will remain above levels
needed to achieve restoration," Kavanaugh stated. "In the opinion of
the committee, this finding needs to inform decision making at these
complex sites, including a more comprehensive use of risk assessment
methods, and support for a national research and development program
that leads to innovative tools to ensure protectiveness where
residual contamination persists. In all cases, the final end state
of these sites has to be protective of human health and the
environment consistent with the existing legal framework, but a more
rapid transition will reduce life-cycle costs. Some residual
contamination will persist at these sites and future national
strategies need to account for this fact."
The committee said that if a remedy at a site reaches a point where
continuing expenditures bring little or no reduction of risk prior to
attaining drinking water standards, a reevaluation of the future
approach to cleaning up the site, called a transition assessment,
should occur. The committee concluded that cost savings are
anticipated from timelier implementation of the transition assessment
process but funding will still be needed to maintain long-term
management at these complex sites.
The report was sponsored by the U.S. Department of the Army. The
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering,
Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the
National Academies. They are private and independent nonprofit
institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy
advice under an 1863 congressional charter. Panel members, who serve
pro bono as volunteers, are chosen by the Academies for each study
based on their expertise and experience and must satisfy the
Academies' conflict-of-interest standards. The resulting consensus
reports undergo external peer review before completion. For more
information, visit
http://national-academies.org/ studycommitteprocess.pdf.
For the full, original press release, please go to
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=14668For a link to the report, go to
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=14668Disclosure note: I am a member of the committee which issued this
report.
Lenny
--
Lenny Siegel
Executive Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
a project of the Pacific Studies Center
278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/961-8918
<
lsiegel@cpeo.org>
http://www.cpeo.org/------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Military mailing list
Military@lists.cpeo.orghttp://lists.cpeo.org/listinfo.cgi/military-cpeo.orgEnd of Military Digest, Vol 99, Issue 4
***************************************