SCIENCE
Publisher: Richard S. Nicholson Editor: Daniel E. Koshland, Jr. Deputy Editor: Ellis Rubinstein Managing Editor: Monica M. Bradford International Editor: Alun Anderson Deputy Editors: Philip H. Abelson (Engineering and Applied Sciences); John I. Brauman (Physical Sciences); Thomas R. Cech (Biological Sciences) EDITORIAL STAFF Assistant Managing Editor: Dawn Bennett Senior Editors: Eleanore Butz, Martha Coleman, Barbara Jasny, R. Brooks Hanson, Katrina L. Kelner, Linda J. Miller, Phillip D. Szuromi, David F. Voss Associate Editors: Pamela J. Hines, Kelly LaMarco, L. Bryan Ray Letters: Christine Gilbert, Editor; Steven S. Lapham Book Reviews: Katherine Livingston, Editor Contributing Editor: Lawrence I. Grossman Chief Production Editor: Ellen E. Murphy Editing Department: Lois Schmitt, Senior Copyeditor; Julie W. Albers, Valerie Jablow, Steven Powell Copy Desk: Douglas B. Casey, Joi S. Granger, Beverly Shields, Kirsten Wall Production: James Landry, Director; Wendy K. Shank, Manager; Catherine S. Siskos, Assistant Manager; Scherraine Mack, Associate; Linda C. Owens, Macintosh Operator Art: Amy Decker Henry, Director; Julie Cherry, Assistant Director; Diana DeFrancesco, Associate; Holly Bishop, Graphics Assistant Systems Analyst: William Carter NEWS STAFF Managing News Editor: Colin Norman Deputy News Editors: Tim Appenzeller, John M. Benditt, Jean Marx News and Comment/Research News: Ivan Amato, Faye Flam, Troy Gately (copy), Ann Gibbons, David P. Hamilton, Constance Holden, Richard A. Kerr, Eliot Marshall, Joseph Palca, Leslie Roberts, Richard Stone, John Travis (intern) Bureaus: Marcia Barinaga (West Coast), Michelle Hoffman (Northeast), Anne Simon Moffat (Midwest) Contributing Correspondents: Joseph Alper, Jeremy Cherfas, Barry A. Cipra, Robert Crease, Elizabeth Culotta, Robert Pool, M. Mitchell Waldrop BUSINESS STAFF Associate Publisher: Beth Rosner Circulation Director: Michael Spinella Fulfillment Manager: Mariene Zendell Financial: Deborah Rivera-Wienhold, Manager, Julie Eastland, SeniorAnalyst; Josephine Megbolugbe, Junior Analyst Reprints Manager: Corrine Harris Permissions Manager: Ariene Ennis ADVERTISING Advertising Sales Manager: Susan A. Meredith Display Recruitment Sales Manager: Janis Crowley Traffic Manager: Tina Turano Traffic Manager (Display Recruitment): Daniel Moran Line Recruitment: Michele Peari, Manager; Brian Wallace, Assistant Advertising Assistants: Allison Pritchard, Kelly Nickerson Send materials to Science Advertising, 1333 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005, or FAX 202-682-0816. SALES: Northeast/E. Canada: Fred Dieffenbach, Rt. 30, Dorset, VT 05251; 802-867-5581, FAX 802-867-4464 * MidAtlantic: Richard Teeling, 28 Kimberly Place, Wayne, NJ 07470; 201-904-9774, FAX 201-904-9701 * Southeast: Mark Anderson, 1915 Brickell Ave, Suite CC-1, Miami, FL 33129; 305-856-8567, FAX 305-856-1056 * Midwest: Donald Holbrook, 1110 North Harvey, Oak Park, IL 60302; 708-3866921, FAX 708-386-6950 * West CoastlW. Canada: Neil Boylan, 828 Cowper, Ste. A, Palo Alto, CA 94301; 415-3233302, FAX 415-323-3312 * Outside USA: Contact Science Advertising: 202-326-6544, FAX 202-682-0816 Information for contributors appears on pages 36-38 of the 3 January 1992 issue. Editorial correspondence, including requests for permission to reprint and reprint orders, should be sent to 1333 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005. Telephone: 202-326-6500. London office: 071-494-0062. Subscription/Member Benefits Questions: 202-326-6417. Science: 202-326-6500. Other AAAS Programs: 202-326-6400. 21 FEBRUARY 1992
Remediation of Hazardous Waste Sites P rojected costs of remediation of hazardous waste sites continue to mount and now range in the neighborhood of a trillion dollars or more, not counting legal fees.* Even with such expenditures it is unlikely that most sites will be restored to pristine conditions. Many sites may not even be returned to a status suitable for unrestricted public access.t. Effectiveness of expenditures on waste sites has been questioned. In one instance, the cost per cancer avoided has been estimated to exceed $15 billion.5 Projected costs have increased for two major reasons: More sites have been discovered, and the costs of treating them have mounted. The universe of hazardous waste sites being considered for Superfund sites now numbers more than 32,000. An ultimate total of 75,000 has been estimated.* In addition, under the Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), there are at least 37,000 sites where corrective action may be required. A Department of Energy (DOE) report" states, "Between 1982 and 1989 the cost associated with remediating a given amount of contaminated media increased by more than a factor of 10." During the past 10 years there has been considerable experience in assessing the need for and the conduct of remediation work. It is now possible to project ultimate costs: Available data have been carefully analyzed by a team of 22 researchers and staff.* They have estimated costs of remediating Superfund, RCRA, Underground Storage Tank, DOE, and Department of Defense sites. They provide numbers corresponding to three levels of approach-a "current policy" case, "less stringent" case, and "more stringent" case. The estimated cost ofthe more stringent approach is over $1 trillion dollars. Remediation would not achieve a pristine environment and indeed would not render all areas fit for unrestricted public access. Despite the cost, it likely would not have beneficial health effects beyond those achieved by less than half the expenditures incurred in a less stringent approach. The costs of managing and remediating DOE waste sites will be huge, and the full magnitude is as yet uncertain. They are now estimated at about $100 billion, but could rise as high as $360 billion.* The major problems are contamination of soils and ground water. In addition to dealing with radioactivity and heavy metals, remediation must cope with organic solvents. Trichloroethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene (PCE) are present beneath the surface of the soil and usually in the ground water at virtually every one of the many DOE sites. The cost ofdealing with organic solvents could be the largest factor in the DOE remediation. At the Savannah River Site,' a plume of ground water of area greater than a square mile contains total TCE and PCE at various levels, some on the order of 30,000 parts per billion (ppb). Remediation is proceeding with a pump and treat technology. Already more than a billion gallons of water have been treated. About 230,000 pounds of volatile organics have been removed. However, those familiar with the site are doubtful whether the maximum concentration level (MCL) of 5 ppb mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency could ever be achieved with the current technology. Dealing with carbon tetrachloride is a major problem at Hanford.' An area of 7 square miles is contaminated by the chemical. During the period 1955 to 1973, more than 1 million pounds of CC14 were discharged to three disposal sites. Much of it is in soil above the water table, but some has reached ground water, and concentrations there of 8000 ppb have been detected. The MCL is 5 ppb. The contamination is at a well-guarded barren site far from human habitation. How much money should be spent on it? At one time a common view was that big industry rather than the public would pay for cleanups. But it is now increasingly apparent that small businesses and municipalities will bear a substantial fraction ofthe costs at Superfund and RCRA sites. The federal budget will be tapped for DOE sites. A possible effect of this is a questionable distribution of funds between cleanups and research designed to meet future energy needs and the greenhouse effect. For example, the new 1993 DOE budget proposal calls for an expenditure of $5.3 billion on waste remediation, an increase of 24% over 1992. The funds to be devoted to renewable energy are listed at $209 million.-PHILIP H. ABELSON *M. Russell, E. W. Colglazier, M. R. English, Hazardous Waste Remediation: THE TASK AHEAD (University of tComplex Cleanup: The Environmental Tennessee, Waste Management Research Institute, Knoxville, 1991). Legacy ofNuclear Weapons Production, Congress ofthe United States (Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, 'Final Report on DOE Nuclear Facilities (Advisory Committee on Nuclear Facility Safety to the U.S. DC, 1991). SR- B. BeIzer, paper presented at the Department of Energy 1990 Department of Energy, Washington, DC, 1991). 'Environmental Restoration and Waste ManageRemedial Action Conference, Albuquerque, NM, 17 April 1990. ment, Five-Year Plan (U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, 1991).
EDITORIAL
901
Downloaded from on March 28, 2016
American Association for the Advancement of Science Science serves its readers as a forum for the presentation and discussion of important issues related to the advancement of science, including the presentation of minority or conflicting points of view, rather than by publishing only material on which a consensus has been reached. Accordingly, all articles published in Science-including editorials, news and comment, and book reviews-are signed and reflect the individual views of the authors and not official points of view adopted by the AAAS or the institutions with which the authors are affiliated.
21 FEBRUARY 1992 VOLUME 255 NUMBER 5047
Publisher: Richard S. Nicholson Editor: Daniel E. Koshland, Jr. Deputy Editor: Ellis Rubinstein Managing Editor: Monica M. Bradford International Editor: Alun Anderson Deputy Editors: Philip H. Abelson (Engineering and Applied Sciences); John I. Brauman (Physical Sciences); Thomas R. Cech (Biological Sciences) EDITORIAL STAFF Assistant Managing Editor: Dawn Bennett Senior Editors: Eleanore Butz, Martha Coleman, Barbara Jasny, R. Brooks Hanson, Katrina L. Kelner, Linda J. Miller, Phillip D. Szuromi, David F. Voss Associate Editors: Pamela J. Hines, Kelly LaMarco, L. Bryan Ray Letters: Christine Gilbert, Editor; Steven S. Lapham Book Reviews: Katherine Livingston, Editor Contributing Editor: Lawrence I. Grossman Chief Production Editor: Ellen E. Murphy Editing Department: Lois Schmitt, Senior Copyeditor; Julie W. Albers, Valerie Jablow, Steven Powell Copy Desk: Douglas B. Casey, Joi S. Granger, Beverly Shields, Kirsten Wall Production: James Landry, Director; Wendy K. Shank, Manager; Catherine S. Siskos, Assistant Manager; Scherraine Mack, Associate; Linda C. Owens, Macintosh Operator Art: Amy Decker Henry, Director; Julie Cherry, Assistant Director; Diana DeFrancesco, Associate; Holly Bishop, Graphics Assistant Systems Analyst: William Carter NEWS STAFF Managing News Editor: Colin Norman Deputy News Editors: Tim Appenzeller, John M. Benditt, Jean Marx News and Comment/Research News: Ivan Amato, Faye Flam, Troy Gately (copy), Ann Gibbons, David P. Hamilton, Constance Holden, Richard A. Kerr, Eliot Marshall, Joseph Palca, Leslie Roberts, Richard Stone, John Travis (intern) Bureaus: Marcia Barinaga (West Coast), Michelle Hoffman (Northeast), Anne Simon Moffat (Midwest) Contributing Correspondents: Joseph Alper, Jeremy Cherfas, Barry A. Cipra, Robert Crease, Elizabeth Culotta, Robert Pool, M. Mitchell Waldrop BUSINESS STAFF Associate Publisher: Beth Rosner Circulation Director: Michael Spinella Fulfillment Manager: Mariene Zendell Financial: Deborah Rivera-Wienhold, Manager, Julie Eastland, SeniorAnalyst; Josephine Megbolugbe, Junior Analyst Reprints Manager: Corrine Harris Permissions Manager: Ariene Ennis ADVERTISING Advertising Sales Manager: Susan A. Meredith Display Recruitment Sales Manager: Janis Crowley Traffic Manager: Tina Turano Traffic Manager (Display Recruitment): Daniel Moran Line Recruitment: Michele Peari, Manager; Brian Wallace, Assistant Advertising Assistants: Allison Pritchard, Kelly Nickerson Send materials to Science Advertising, 1333 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005, or FAX 202-682-0816. SALES: Northeast/E. Canada: Fred Dieffenbach, Rt. 30, Dorset, VT 05251; 802-867-5581, FAX 802-867-4464 * MidAtlantic: Richard Teeling, 28 Kimberly Place, Wayne, NJ 07470; 201-904-9774, FAX 201-904-9701 * Southeast: Mark Anderson, 1915 Brickell Ave, Suite CC-1, Miami, FL 33129; 305-856-8567, FAX 305-856-1056 * Midwest: Donald Holbrook, 1110 North Harvey, Oak Park, IL 60302; 708-3866921, FAX 708-386-6950 * West CoastlW. Canada: Neil Boylan, 828 Cowper, Ste. A, Palo Alto, CA 94301; 415-3233302, FAX 415-323-3312 * Outside USA: Contact Science Advertising: 202-326-6544, FAX 202-682-0816 Information for contributors appears on pages 36-38 of the 3 January 1992 issue. Editorial correspondence, including requests for permission to reprint and reprint orders, should be sent to 1333 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005. Telephone: 202-326-6500. London office: 071-494-0062. Subscription/Member Benefits Questions: 202-326-6417. Science: 202-326-6500. Other AAAS Programs: 202-326-6400. 21 FEBRUARY 1992
Remediation of Hazardous Waste Sites P rojected costs of remediation of hazardous waste sites continue to mount and now range in the neighborhood of a trillion dollars or more, not counting legal fees.* Even with such expenditures it is unlikely that most sites will be restored to pristine conditions. Many sites may not even be returned to a status suitable for unrestricted public access.t. Effectiveness of expenditures on waste sites has been questioned. In one instance, the cost per cancer avoided has been estimated to exceed $15 billion.5 Projected costs have increased for two major reasons: More sites have been discovered, and the costs of treating them have mounted. The universe of hazardous waste sites being considered for Superfund sites now numbers more than 32,000. An ultimate total of 75,000 has been estimated.* In addition, under the Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), there are at least 37,000 sites where corrective action may be required. A Department of Energy (DOE) report" states, "Between 1982 and 1989 the cost associated with remediating a given amount of contaminated media increased by more than a factor of 10." During the past 10 years there has been considerable experience in assessing the need for and the conduct of remediation work. It is now possible to project ultimate costs: Available data have been carefully analyzed by a team of 22 researchers and staff.* They have estimated costs of remediating Superfund, RCRA, Underground Storage Tank, DOE, and Department of Defense sites. They provide numbers corresponding to three levels of approach-a "current policy" case, "less stringent" case, and "more stringent" case. The estimated cost ofthe more stringent approach is over $1 trillion dollars. Remediation would not achieve a pristine environment and indeed would not render all areas fit for unrestricted public access. Despite the cost, it likely would not have beneficial health effects beyond those achieved by less than half the expenditures incurred in a less stringent approach. The costs of managing and remediating DOE waste sites will be huge, and the full magnitude is as yet uncertain. They are now estimated at about $100 billion, but could rise as high as $360 billion.* The major problems are contamination of soils and ground water. In addition to dealing with radioactivity and heavy metals, remediation must cope with organic solvents. Trichloroethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene (PCE) are present beneath the surface of the soil and usually in the ground water at virtually every one of the many DOE sites. The cost ofdealing with organic solvents could be the largest factor in the DOE remediation. At the Savannah River Site,' a plume of ground water of area greater than a square mile contains total TCE and PCE at various levels, some on the order of 30,000 parts per billion (ppb). Remediation is proceeding with a pump and treat technology. Already more than a billion gallons of water have been treated. About 230,000 pounds of volatile organics have been removed. However, those familiar with the site are doubtful whether the maximum concentration level (MCL) of 5 ppb mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency could ever be achieved with the current technology. Dealing with carbon tetrachloride is a major problem at Hanford.' An area of 7 square miles is contaminated by the chemical. During the period 1955 to 1973, more than 1 million pounds of CC14 were discharged to three disposal sites. Much of it is in soil above the water table, but some has reached ground water, and concentrations there of 8000 ppb have been detected. The MCL is 5 ppb. The contamination is at a well-guarded barren site far from human habitation. How much money should be spent on it? At one time a common view was that big industry rather than the public would pay for cleanups. But it is now increasingly apparent that small businesses and municipalities will bear a substantial fraction ofthe costs at Superfund and RCRA sites. The federal budget will be tapped for DOE sites. A possible effect of this is a questionable distribution of funds between cleanups and research designed to meet future energy needs and the greenhouse effect. For example, the new 1993 DOE budget proposal calls for an expenditure of $5.3 billion on waste remediation, an increase of 24% over 1992. The funds to be devoted to renewable energy are listed at $209 million.-PHILIP H. ABELSON *M. Russell, E. W. Colglazier, M. R. English, Hazardous Waste Remediation: THE TASK AHEAD (University of tComplex Cleanup: The Environmental Tennessee, Waste Management Research Institute, Knoxville, 1991). Legacy ofNuclear Weapons Production, Congress ofthe United States (Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, 'Final Report on DOE Nuclear Facilities (Advisory Committee on Nuclear Facility Safety to the U.S. DC, 1991). SR- B. BeIzer, paper presented at the Department of Energy 1990 Department of Energy, Washington, DC, 1991). 'Environmental Restoration and Waste ManageRemedial Action Conference, Albuquerque, NM, 17 April 1990. ment, Five-Year Plan (U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, 1991).
EDITORIAL
901
Downloaded from on March 28, 2016
American Association for the Advancement of Science Science serves its readers as a forum for the presentation and discussion of important issues related to the advancement of science, including the presentation of minority or conflicting points of view, rather than by publishing only material on which a consensus has been reached. Accordingly, all articles published in Science-including editorials, news and comment, and book reviews-are signed and reflect the individual views of the authors and not official points of view adopted by the AAAS or the institutions with which the authors are affiliated.
21 FEBRUARY 1992 VOLUME 255 NUMBER 5047
