Sustainable remediation panel—Measuring the social and economic benefits of a sustainable remediation project

Remediation developed a Sustainable Remediation Panel in the Summer 2009 issue, which featured the Sustainable Remediation Forum White Paper. The panel is composed of leaders in the field of sustainable remediation who have volunteered to provide their opinions on difficult subjects related to the topic of how to integrate sustainability principles into the remediation practice. The panel's opinions are provided in a question‐and‐answer format, whereby selected experts provide an answer to a question. This issue's question is provided below, followed by opinions from five experts in the remediation field.

相似文献   

How to negotiate remediation projects with regulatory agencies

The news that a company has been identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) at a federal or state Superfund site usually sends a current of fear through the company's management. Even executives with experience in Superfund projects foresee a lengthy, complicated process that involves enormous expenditures and a possible public relations disaster. The author argues, however, that the Superfund process can be managed in a cost-effective way, prevent reactive responses, inaction, and ineffective action, and applying the business acumen that enabled the company to prosper in the first place. This article explores a critical aspect of the remediation process—negotiation of settlements with regulatory agencies (EPA or a state department of environmental protection)—and details the practical steps needed to conduct those negotiations. It also describes common mistakes that can be avoided. For brevity and clarity, it is assumed that the company in question is the only PRP that has received a notice letter from the regulatory agency.     

Using community relations to reduce costs during remediation projects

Almost everyone who has been involved in a site remediation project has seen schedules slip and costs escalate due to political pressure from the public or the press. While focusing on remediation technologies and containment techniques to control costs, many organizations have neglected a major cost driver—public opinion. This article examines community relations from the perspective of an organization trying to control costs during a site remediation project. It details the strong correlation between the cost of a site cleanup and the level of public dissatisfaction and provides an organization with specific strategies on how to use proven communications techniques to lower costs. Examination of several case studies is provided, including a study involving a site in which community representatives actively worked to reduce project costs. It is clear that any responsible cleanup must be protective of public health and the environment. But it is becoming increasingly apparent that wise allocation of available resources has a profound effect on the program's ability to ensure public and environmental safety. In many cases, it has been proven that some costly cleanups—for example, involving excavation—sometimes actually increase risk by creating an exposure pathway where none existed before. In turn, such cleanups waste resources that are needed elsewhere. The challenge in dealing with this complicated issue is to help stakeholders understand the true ramifications of the choices that are faced at each site. If these stakeholders feel uninformed, powerless, or excluded from the process, it is likely that they will be unable to enter a productive discussion. The community relations programs outlined in documents such as a Superfund guidance can be helpful in familiarizing the community with site-related issues and with gathering public input. These activities act as a baseline for the programs discussed in this article. However, existing programs are not focused on providing a strategic advantage in reaching cleanup solutions and balancing health and environmental considerations with economic considerations.     

A data integration framework to support Triad projects

Cost‐effective and efficient site remediation and scientifically defensible decisions require site characterizations that are representative of site conditions. The Triad conceptual site model (CSM) is at the center of a continually improving site characterization process that begins during systematic planning and ends after the last data are developed. To gain the full benefit and greatest cost‐effectiveness, the process of CSM refinement should be performed in real time. Thus, the use of collaborative data is critical for evolving and maturing the CSM. In the field, through the use of all available data that are of known quality, a skilled and experienced field team can collect sufficient site information to mature the CSM in a timely manner. To facilitate the planning and execution of such a process, an easily understandable framework is needed to structure data quality that supports scientifically defensible decisions and efficient projects. This article explores such a framework. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Ten years later: The progress and future of integrating sustainable principles,practices, and metrics into remediation projects

In 2009, the Sustainable Remediation Forum released a white paper entitled “Integrating sustainable principles, practices, and metrics into remediation projects” (Ellis & Hadley, 2009, Remediation, 19, pp. 5–114). Sustainable remediation was a relatively new concept, and the white paper explored a range of approaches on how sustainability could be integrated into traditional remediation projects. This paper revisits the 2009 white paper, providing an overview of the early days of the evolving sustainable remediation practice and an assessment of the progress of sustainable remediation over the last 10 years with a primary focus on the United States. The current state of the sustainable remediation practice includes published literature, current practices and resources, applications, room for improvement, international progress, the virtuous cycle that applying sustainable remediation creates, and the status of the objectives cited in the 2009 white paper. Over the last decade, several sustainable remediation frontiers have emerged that will likely be a focus in advancing the practice. These frontiers include climate change and resiliency, weighting and valuation to help better consolidate different sustainable remediation metrics, programmatic implementation, and better integration of the societal impacts of sustainable remediation. Finally, as was the case for the 2009 white paper, this paper explores how sustainable remediation may evolve over the next 10 years and focuses on the events and drivers that can be significant in the pace of further development of the practice. The events and drivers include transformation impacts, societal influences, and the continued development of new technologies, approaches, and tools by remediation practitioners. The remediation industry has made significant progress in developing the practice of sustainable remediation and has implemented it successfully into hundreds of projects. While progress has been significant, an opportunity exists to implement the tenets of sustainable remediation on many more projects and explore new frontiers to help improve the communication, integration, and derived benefits from implementing sustainable remediation into future remediation projects.     

Active capping technology—New approaches for in situ remediation of contaminated sediments

This study evaluated pilot‐scale active caps composed of apatite, organoclay, biopolymers, and sand for the remediation of metal‐contaminated sediments. The active caps were constructed in Steel Creek, at the Savannah River Site near Aiken, South Carolina. Monitoring was conducted for 12 months. Effectiveness of the caps was based on an evaluation of contaminant bioavailability, resistance to erosion, and impacts on benthic organisms. Active caps lowered metal bioavailability in the sediment during the one‐year test period. Biopolymers reduced sediment suspension during cap construction, increased the pool of carbon, and lowered the release of metals. This field validation showed that active caps can effectively treat contaminants by changing their speciation, and that caps can be constructed to include more than one type of amendment to achieve multiple goals. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.