Risk communication as a key component of a successful remediation project

Decisions made during the course of investigating and remediating a contaminated site, as well as the technology used, are most often driven exclusively by physical, technical, and health-based concerns. Additionally, in both determining and managing the potential risks posed by a remediation project, the focus tends to be placed primarily on health risks. However, a contaminated site and its remediation are neither static over time nor do they exist in a vacuum. Other elements of risk associated with the site and remedial activities include continuing regulatory oversight and compliance, public and agency relations, remedial technology costs, current and future land-use issues, and future technological/regulatory risks. Agencies, consultants, contractors, and facility management must consider these other non-health-related elements of risk. Additionally, efforts made to communicate a project's decisions, technologies, and risks are often made in a defensive or reactive posture, resulting in ineffective communication and an alienated, angry, or distrustful public. Proactive risk communication, as well as public involvement in the remedial process, are critical to the success of any remedial activity.     

Incorporating ecology and ecological risk into long‐term stewardship on contaminated sites

The long‐term management of environmental contamination will be a major activity at many sites in the foreseeable future. While human health issues often drive decisions about cleanup, restoration, and long‐term stewardship, ecological considerations are also major driving forces and are of paramount importance to the public. Incorporation of ecological considerations into decisions about environmental protection, both short term and long term, requires (1) understanding public perceptions of ecological values, including aesthetics and existence values, (2) understanding contamination issues within a context of the structure and functioning of ecosystems, (3) developing bioindicators of ecological health (including human), (4) developing indicators of ecosystem functioning, and (5) developing and implementing a biomonitoring plan before, during, and after remediation so that adverse effects can be ascertained before they become irreversible. Both remediation/restoration and long‐term stewardship goals must be informed by public policy mandates that include public participation and healthy human and ecological systems. This article examines these issues as they relate to cost‐effective, long‐term protection of human and ecological health on contaminated lands. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Geochemical evaluation of metals in groundwater at long‐term monitoring sites and active remediation sites

At many sites, long‐term monitoring (LTM) programs include metals as chemicals of concern, although they may not be site‐related contaminants and their detected concentrations may be natural. At other sites, active remediation of organic contaminants in groundwater results in changes to local geochemical conditions that affect metal concentrations. Metals should be carefully considered at both types of sites, even if they are not primary contaminants of concern. Geochemical evaluation can be performed at LTM sites to determine if the monitored metals reflect naturally high background and, hence, can be removed from the analytical program. Geochemical evaluation can also be performed pre‐ and post‐treatment at active remediation sites to document the effects of organics remediation on metals and identify the processes controlling metal concentrations. Examples from both types of sites are presented in this article. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Defining a successful superfund clean-up: A community representative's perspective

The successful use of the Superfund program involves developing partnerships with all of the stakeholders early in the process. Citizens living near Superfund sites are the primary stakeholders, falling victim to many health risks and economic costs. When equipped with technical advisors, citizens can play a primary role in the remediation decisions being made at hazardous waste sites. This article illustrates the important role and impact of concerned citizens living near the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Superfund site in Saratoga Springs, New York. The Superfund program was used successfully at this site in a number of ways, mainly in that it provided technical advisors through a technical assistance grant (TAG) for the citizens, which resulted in a thorough and conclusive remedial investigation.     

Environmental Effects Monitoring in Sydney Harbor During Remediation of One of Canada's Most Polluted Sites: A Review and Lessons Learned

This article reviews a comprehensive marine environmental effects monitoring program (MEEMP) comprised of components capable of detecting changes in the marine environment over short or extended temporal scales during remediation of one of Canada's most polluted sites at the Sydney Tar Ponds. The monitoring components included: water and sediment quality, amphipod toxicity testing, mussel tissue, crab hepatopancreas tissue, and benthic community assessments. The MEEMP was designed to verify the impact predictions for the remediation project (i.e., no immediate damage to the marine ecosystem through remediation activities). Some components were capable of providing conclusive data (e.g., sediment and water quality), while others only yielded data that were inconclusive or difficult to attribute to remediation activities (e.g., intertidal community assessments and amphipod toxicity testing). Components that provided only inconclusive results or were difficult to attribute to remediation activities were discontinued, resulting in substantial cost savings during the project, but without compromising the overall objectives of the program, which was to monitor for potential adverse environmental effects of remediation on the marine environment in Sydney Harbor and to verify environmental effects predictions made in the Environmental Impact Statement for the project. The rationale for discontinuing certain MEEMP components and discussion of conclusive results are incorporated into “lessons learned” for environmental remediation practitioners and regulators working on similar large‐scale multiyear remediation projects. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

输变电工程电磁环境公众参与及环保对策探讨

以广州市部分变电站环境影响评价及其审批过程中的公众参与为例,归纳公众对输变电工程在电磁环境方面的感受和利益相关方的观点,并从科普宣传、确保达标、建立风险沟通机制、加强科研、改善公众交流策略等方面提出了环保对策。     

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.     

Cost‐Effective Sediment Dredge Disposal Options for Small Craft Harbors in Canada

Sediment dredge disposal options were reviewed to improve cost‐effectiveness and environmental safety for dredging of coastal sediments at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Small Craft Harbours (DFO‐SCH) program in Canada. Historically, contaminated dredge sediments exceeding federal guidelines were disposed of in nearby landfills. Recent federal regulatory changes in sediment quality guidelines adopted by provincial regulators in Canada has resulted in updates to guidelines for disposal of contaminated solids in landfills. Updates now require specific and general disposal options for contaminated dredge material destined for land‐based disposal, resulting in more expensive disposal in containment cells (if contaminated sediments exceed federal guidelines). However, as part of this study, a leachate testing method was applied to contaminated sediments to simulate migration of potential contaminants in groundwater. Using this approach, leachate quality was compared to federal freshwater criteria and drinking water quality guidelines for compliance with new regulations. Leachate testing performed on the highest sediment contaminant concentrations triggered less than 2 percent potable water exceedances, meaning that most dredge spoils could be disposed of in privately owned or provincially operated landfill sites, providing less expensive disposal options compared to containment cell disposal. Current dredge disposal practices were reviewed at 35 harbor sites across Nova Scotia and their limitations identified in a gap analysis. Improved site management was developed following this review and consultation with interested marine stakeholders. New disposal options and chemical analyses were proposed, along with improvements to cost efficiencies for management of dredged marine sediments in Atlantic Canada. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Perimeter air monitoring for soil remediation

Most environmental project managers are well versed in characterizing and remediating contaminants in soil and water media. When soil remediation activities are conducted at an environmental site, however, some project managers are faced with monitoring contaminants in the air medium for the first time. Remediation activities can disturb contaminants that are normally immobile in soil and transfer them to air. The resulting increase in airborne concentrations of contaminants, even if temporary, may be a health concern for individuals in neighboring residences or businesses. Perimeter air monitoring may be required by a regulatory agency to determine if unhealthy conditions are created and if work practices should be limited or modified. This article serves as a resource for project managers involved in perimeter air monitoring for soil remediation and provides a general summary of candidate sites, remediation activities that release contaminants, regulatory requirements, equipment and target contaminants, monitoring locations and schedule, analytical methods, and data interpretation. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

End‐state land uses,sustainably protective systems,and risk management: A challenge for remediation and multigenerational stewardship

This article discusses creating a sustainably protective engineered and human management system in perpetuity for sites with long‐lived radiological and chemical hazards. This is essential at this time because the federal government is evaluating its property as assets and attempting to reduce its holdings, while seeking to assure that health and ecosystems are not put at risk. To assist those who have a stake in the remediation, management, and stewardship of these and analogous privately owned sites, this article discusses current end‐state planning by reviewing the federal government's accelerated efforts to reduce its footprint and how those efforts relate to sustainability. The article also provides a list of questions organized around six elements of risk management and primary, secondary, and tertiary disease and injury prevention. Throughout the article, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is used as an example of an organization that seeks to reduce its footprint, manage its budget, and be a steward of the sites that it is responsible for. However, the approach and questions are appropriate for land controlled by the Department of Defense (DOD), the General Services Administration (GSA), and other public and private owners of sites with residual contamination. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Using risk assessment to achieve cost-effective property transfers and site closures for former UST sites

Risk assessment has been increasingly applied as a tool in making risk management decisions that affect cleanup of contaminated sites, property transactions, and liability issues. As a site-specific evaluation, risk assessment takes into account the unique characteristics and intended future uses for site property in evaluating chemical concentrations which may remain in place without risk to public health and the environment. The results of a risk assessment can be used to determine reuse options for a property, facilitate site closure, and reduce liabilities (Copeland and Robles, 1994; Copeland et al., 1993a). This article describes the risk assessment process, the role of risk assessment in determining the need for remedial action and identifying site-specific cleanup goals, and the cost effectiveness of applying risk assessment in remedial decisions. Because of the prevalence of former UST sites throughout the United States, this article focuses on risk assessment and remediation of UST sites. However, the process can be applied at sites where other chemicals have been released. Three case studies are presented to illustrate the application of risk assessment in achieving cost-effective site closure at sites containing leaking underground storage tanks.     

Approaches for assessing hazards and risks to workers and the public from contaminated land

Many public agencies and private entities are faced with assessing the risks to humans from contamination on their lands. The United States Department of Energy (US DOE) and Department of Defense are responsible for large holdings of contaminated land and face a long‐term and costly challenge to assure sustainable protectiveness. With increasing interest in the conversion of brownfields to productive uses, many former industrial properties must also be assessed to determine compatible future land uses. In the United States, many cleanup plans or actions are based on the Comprehensive Environmental Responsibility, Compensation, and Liability Act, which provides important but incomplete coverage of these issues, although many applications have tried to involve stakeholders at multiple steps. Where there is the potential for exposure to workers, the public, and the environment from either cleanup or leaving residual contamination in place, there is a need for a more comprehensive approach to evaluate and balance the present and future risk(s) from existing contamination, from remediation actions, as well as from postremediation residual contamination. This article focuses on the US DOE, the agency with the largest hazardous waste remediation task in the world. Presented is a framework extending from preliminary assessment, risk assessment and balancing, epidemiology, monitoring, communication, and stakeholder involvement useful for assessing risk to workers and site neighbors. Provided are examples of those who eat fish, meat, or fruit from contaminated habitats. The US DOE's contaminated sites are unique in a number of ways: (1) huge physical footprint size, (2) types of waste (mixed radiation/chemical), and (3) quantities of waste. Proposed future land uses provide goals for remediation, but since some contamination is of a type or magnitude that cannot be cleaned up with existing technology, this in turn constrains future land use options, requiring an iterative approach. The risk approaches must fit a range of future land uses and end‐states from leave‐in‐place to complete cleanup. This will include not only traditional risk methodologies, but also the assessment and surveillance necessary for stewards for long‐term monitoring of risk from historic and future exposure to maintain sustainable protectiveness. Because of the distinctiveness of DOE sites, application of the methodologies developed here to other waste site situations requires site‐specific evaluation © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Formerly utilized sites remedial action program “completed” sites: Lessons for long‐term stewardship

The Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) covers inactive commercial, federal, and university facilities that once supported activities of the Manhattan Project or Atomic Energy Commission. Current responsibilities, established by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), are split between the U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The MOU distinguishes between facilities remediated before 1997 (“completed” sites) and those where remediation remained to be completed at that time. This article evaluates activities conducted at completed sites with regard to considerations for long‐term stewardship, which is defined by the US DOE as all activities necessary to protect human health and the environment after remediation is considered complete. Experience with these FUSRAP sites provides “lessons learned” for the requirements of satisfactory long‐term stewardship. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Proven methods for managing public perception of cleanups

Negative public perceptions can dramatically increase site remediation costs or even bring projects to a grinding halt. Public opposition and ensuing political pressure are two damaging, but often ignored, obstacles that confront remediation managers. This article discusses these and other public management issues, recommending tactics proven for maintaining positive working relationships with a site's human neighbors, the media (electronic and print), government officials, regulatory agencies, and other concerned groups to allow site cleanup to proceed without intervention, opposition, or unnecessary delay. It illustrates its warnings about public and political hostility with case histories from Superfund, RCRA, and other cleanup sites, recounting how corporate management won the public's confidence and kept their projects on time and within budget.     

Metrics for integrating sustainability evaluations into remediation projects

The US Sustainable Remediation Forum (SURF) created a compilation of metrics (Metrics Toolbox) in response to a need for a broad set of metrics that could be used to assess and monitor the effectiveness of remedies in achieving sustainability goals. Metrics are the key impacts, outcomes, or burdens that are to be assessed or balanced to determine the influences and impacts of a remedial action. Metrics can reflect any of the three aspects of sustainability (i.e., environmental, social, or economic) or a combination of these aspects. Regardless, metrics represent the most critical sustainable outcomes from the perspective of the key stakeholders. The Metrics Toolbox is hosted online at www.sustainableremediation.org/library/guidance‐tools‐and‐other‐resources . By selecting metrics from the Metrics Toolbox as a starting point and considering a potentially wider suite of metrics in remedial program decisions, appropriate assessments can be made. Qualitative and quantitative metrics are tabulated for each remedial phase: remedial investigation, remedy selection, remedial design, remedial construction, operation and maintenance, and closure. Attributes for each metric are described so that remediation practitioners and key stakeholders can view the universe of metrics available and select the most relevant, site‐specific metrics for a particular site. For this reason, SURF recommends that remediation practitioners consider the metrics compiled in the Metrics Toolbox as a companion to the sustainable remediation framework published elsewhere in this journal and other sustainability evaluations. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Remediation and review: Developing groundwater strategy at the hanford site

The U.S. Department of Energy's (US DOE's) environmental challenges include remediation of the Hanford Site in Washington State. The site's legacy from nuclear weapons “production” activities includes approximately 80 square miles of contaminated groundwater, containing radioactive and other hazardous substances at levels above drinking water standards. In 1998, the U.S. General Accounting Office (US GAO), the auditing arm of Congress, concluded that groundwater remediation at Hanford should be integrated with a comprehensive understanding of the “vadose zone,” the soil region between the ground surface and groundwater. The US DOE's Richland Operations Office adjusted its program in response, and groundwater/vadose‐zone efforts at Hanford have continued to develop since that time. Hanford provides an example of how a federal remediation program can be influenced by reviews from the US GAO and other organizations, including the US DOE itself. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Managing environmental problems during transitions: The department of energy as a case study

Many federal, state, and private agencies deal with long‐term environmental problems within a transition framework where political administrations, funds, regulators, regulatory requirements, environmental conditions, and tribal and stakeholder concerns change. In this article, we examine the types of transitions, as well as important stabilities, that agencies face, the interactions with stakeholders that are vulnerable to disruption or failure, and some of the problems that develop as a result of these conditions, using the U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE's) Office of Environmental Management (EM) as a case study. Transitions, or instabilities, include changes in administrations at the federal, state, and local level; public perceptions and concerns; political climate; available funds; environmental conditions (e.g., global climate change, global contaminant transport, local and regional contamination); international and national business conditions; and site conditions (physical, chemical, biological). Governmental agencies operate under several different kinds of uncertainties, including scientific, fiscal‐year economic, technological, and societal. Not all information can be known, and the outcomes from scientific issues or technologies cannot always be predicted. The authors believe that transitions from one set of conditions to another can be more effectively integrated with the long‐term stability of environmental laws and regulations, and with the stability of the treaty rights and concerns of tribal nations, as well as the shorter‐term stability of career personnel and established programs. A sense of stability for government agencies allowing maintenance of ongoing environmental management programs can also be achieved through processes and programs, such as establishing long‐term contracts (for remediation or restoration work), schedule and scope documents, future land‐use documents, National Environmental Research Parks (which obligate lands to study and conservation), and other programs that set the direction of work and activities for many years. Further, two other factors are essential for success within any agency facing transitions: (1) expectations should be both forward‐looking and realistic, and (2) there must be flexibility in both programs and processes. The authors conclude that several features are essential to addressing some of the problems created by transitions, including information, integration, iteration, interaction, and inclusion. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Negotiating for assistance and cost control: Effectively interacting with environmental regulatory agencies

Regulatory agencies are involved in analysis of plans for, and results of, virtually every environmental site investigation and remediation project. Controlling the cost of such projects is largely dependent on arriving at a reasonable scope of work. Regulatory approval is heavily influenced by the approach, cooperation, level of expertise, communication skills, preparation, and diplomacy of those who interact directly with agency personnel. Agencies also can be sources of assistance in obtaining the cooperation of other responsible parties. This article discusses a practical approach to maximize assistance, cooperation, and collaboration from regulatory agencies.     

Expect the best but plan for the worst: Negotiating contracts for remediation services

The risks associated with environmental remediation projects are of concern to engineers, consultants, contractors, owners, and the public. The cost, scheduling, and other uncertainties inherent in performance of construction at sites contaminated by hazardous substances dictate caution with respect to contract terms. Further, the possibility that conditions will be exacerbated by the work, or the public or workers exposed to on-site substances, makes remediation projects of particular concern to those who will be held accountable for the effects and impacts of such substances. This article discusses particularly important contractual issues and suggests approaches for liability allocation and incentives. Practical, effective, realistic approaches to management of environmental remediation are presented, including the form of contract utilized, negotiated terms, attention to contractor selection and management, and the parties' relative economic strength.