The Triad approach: A catalyst for maturing remediation practice

Many individual scientific and technical disciplines contribute to the multidisciplinary field of remediation science and practice. Because of the relative youth of this enterprise, disciplinary interests sometimes compete and conflict with the primary goal of achieving protective, cost‐effective, efficient projects. Convergence of viewpoints toward a more mature, common vision is needed. In addition, cleanup programs are changing under the influence of Brownfields initiatives and the needs of environmental insurance underwriters. Investigations and cleanups increasingly need to be affordable, yet transparent and defensible. Disciplinary goals and terminology need to better reflect real‐world site conditions while being more supportive of project needs. Yet, technical considerations alone will not ensure project success; better integration of human factors into project management is also required. The Triad approach is well placed to catalyze maturation of the remediation field because it emphasizes (1) a central theme of managing decision uncertainty; (2) unambiguous technical communications; (3) shortened project life‐cycles and multidisciplinary interactions that rapidly build professional expertise and provide feedback to test and perfect programmatic and field practices; and (4) concepts from “softer” sciences (such as economics, cognitive psychology, and decision theory) to capture important human factors. Triad pushes the cleanup industry toward an integrated, practical, second‐generation paradigm that can successfully manage the complexities of today's cleanup projects. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Perspective and trends in the environmental remediation industry

The approach to management and execution of remediation projects has changed drastically over the past decade, as remedial project managers have begun to understand and accept the numerous environmental regulations developed in the mid-1980s. For example, the adversarial relationship that once existed between regulators and owners has become more cooperative. This article documents trends over time in remediation project practices and quantifies the impact these trends have had on the cost and schedule performance of projects. Proven successful practices are highlighted, and those with the potential for improving project performance further are also discussed.     

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.     

Cost estimating of the closure/post-closure phase

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is beginning major environmental restoration projects of both active and inactive sites throughout the United States. The problems at the sites include contaminated soils, groundwater and surface waters, structures, and old waste disposal areas. IT Corporation, under the direction of the Office of Independent Cost Estimating (OICE) for DOE, developed a list of environmental problems at the sites and probable cleanup technologies and techniques that could be used. Estimated unit costs were then developed for these cleanup technologies, using available data and references. Some procedures developed were common to many or all cleanup projects. These included site characterization, remedial investigation (RI), feasibility studies (FS), and the closure/post-closure phase. The article will focus on cost estimating of the closure/post-closure phase of a cleanup project. The cost data provided are for budget level or check estimates. Site-specific conditions as well as items peculiar to the environmental industry, such as governmental regulations and community relations, can influence both the cost and duration of a cleanup project.     

Contaminant mass flux and forensic assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: Tools to inform remediation decision making at a contaminated site in Canada

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and metal(loid) mass flux estimates and forensic assessment using PAH diagnostic ratios were used to inform remediation decision making at the Sydney Tar Ponds (STPs) and Coke Ovens cleanup project in eastern Canada. Environmental effects monitoring of surface marine sediments in Sydney Harbor indicated significantly higher PAH concentrations during the first year of remediation monitoring compared to baseline. This was equivalent to PAH loadings of ～2,000 kg over a 15‐month period. Increases in sediment PAH concentrations raised serious concerns for regulators, who requested cessation of remediation activities early in the $400 M (CAD) project. Historically, the STPs were reported as the primary source of PAH contamination in Sydney Harbor with estimated discharges of 300 to 800 kg/year between 1989 and 2001. Mass flux estimates of PAHs and metal(loid)s and PAH diagnostic ratios were used to evaluate if increases in PAH concentrations in marine sediments were the result of the STPs remediation activities. PAH mass flux estimates approximated that 17 to 97 kg/year were discharged from the STPs during three years of remediation and were corroborated by an independent PAH flux estimate of 119 kg in year 1. PAH fluxes to the Sydney Harbor were mostly surface water derived, with groundwater contributing negligible quantities (0.002–0.005 kg/year). Fluxes of metal(loid)s to harbor sediments were stable or declining across all years and were mirrored in sediment metal(loid) concentrations, which lacked temporal variation, unlike total PAH concentrations. Flux results were also corroborated using PAH diagnostic ratios, which found a common source of PAHs. Coal combustion was likely the principal source of PAHs and not migration from the STPs during remediation. Although short‐term residual sediment PAH increases during onset of remediation raised concerns for regulators, calls for premature cessation of remediation early in the project were unwarranted based on only one year of monitoring data. Mass flux estimates and forensic assessments using PAH diagnostic ratios proved useful tools to inform remediation decision making that helped environmental protection and reduced costs associated with lost cleanup time.     

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.     

The trade-off between assessment and cleanup phases of remediation projects

Based on actual project experiences over the past decade, execution strategies for remediation projects have varied significantly. For example, the overlap between the assessment and cleanup phases can range from none (for projects that complete assessment activities before starting the cleanup) to almost half of the assessment duration (for projects that may be under pressure to show progress at the site). This article quantifies the relationship between remediation project execution strategies, project definition components, and remediation project cost and schedule performance. By relating project outcomes to indicators that can be monitored early in the project cycle, project teams may be able to correct problems before they affect the ultimate performance of the remediation project.     

Radiological risks and cleanup costs: A remediation case study

Potential health risks and cleanup costs are primary factors for measuring the effectiveness of a remediation project concerning a site contaminated with residual radioactive materials. Demanding cleanup of a contaminated site to its original condition, while eliminating any health risks after cleanup, can require prohibitive costs. However, by setting practical remediation objectives and by performing realistic but conservative risk assessments, health risks can be acceptable and cleanup costs can be reasonable. This article uses the South-Middle and Southeast Vaults Decontamination and Demolition Project at Argonne National Laboratory to demonstrate how negligible health risks can result after cleanup with minimal cleanup costs. Substantial cost savings of approximately $2 million was realized by implementing in-place decontamination and demolition (D&D) on the basis of acceptable risk, instead of requiring cleanup of the site to its original condition. By using the RESRAD computer program as a modeling tool, we show the maximum projected radiation dose (0.1 mrem per year) and the potential lifetime cancer risk (on the order of 10⁶) to an individual from exposure to the residual radioactivities are negligibly small. In addition to aiding in the selection of a preferred remediation alternative, results of the RESRAD modeling were also used to guide the implementation of the selected alternative to reduce exposures from the dominant pathway and to ensure that exposures from all pathways would be as low as reasonably achievable.     

Understanding technology trends for remediation projects

Success of future environmental remediation projects depends on applying knowledge gained from completed projects. This article examines the trends in technology implementation, quantifies the impact of different remediation technologies on project costs and execution risks, and quantifies the economies of scale experienced by remediation projects. Actual project data from remediation projects conducted by the private sector and government organizations form the basis of the analysis.     

Estimating Social Impacts of a Remediation Project Life Cycle With Environmental Footprint Evaluation Tools

This article presents a methodology to calculate the social cost of sustainability metrics with environmental footprint evaluation tools. Measuring the impacts of a remediation project on society is challenging because the methods by which these impacts can be measured have not been established. To perform a complete sustainability assessment of a project's life cycle, costs borne by society in terms of environmental, economic, and community impacts must be evaluated. Two knowledge gaps have been identified among the sustainability assessments currently being performed during a remediation project's life cycle: (1) lack of methodologies available to evaluate impacts on the socioeconomic aspects of remediation and (2) lack of sustainability assessments conducted during the site characterization stage. Sustainability assessments were conducted on two case studies using the methodology proposed in this article: one during the site characterization stage and the other during remedial action. The results of this study demonstrated that costs borne by society from a remediation project are significant and metric specific. This study also highlighted the benefits of conducting a sustainability assessment at the site characterization stage using environmental footprint analysis tools, cost benefit analysis, and an evaluation of costs borne by society. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Advantages of finite‐structured environmental insurance policies

Over the last five years, insurance products have been expanded to assist companies better manage environmental liabilities. The most progressive of these products is a finite‐structured program whereby the convergence of insurance and financial markets expand the meaning of “alternative risk transfer.” Finite programs blend financial markets and banking concepts with risk transfer concepts to more effectively and efficiently allow the insured to manage the financial implications of its environmental liabilities. This article presents the advantages of using finite‐structured environmental insurance policies and discusses how potential insureds can protect against several types of remediation project risks, including cleanup costs, inflation uncertainty, and variability in investment returns. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.     

Evaluating the Triple Bottom Line Using Sustainable Return on Investment

A sustainable return on investment (sROI) analysis is a quantitative approach that captures the economic, environmental, and social impacts of an investment strategy in monetary terms—today and into the future. By providing a broader accounting of the benefits and costs, sROI provides a framework for optimal decision making. sROI is a nonproprietary methodology based on economic principles and includes an uncertainty analysis to demonstrate the likelihood of realizing costs and benefits. This approach provides a more comprehensive picture of projects and supports the selection of investment strategies that are defensible and transparent. sROI can provide the framework and metrics for the evaluation and selection of remediation projects. A demonstration study of a DuPont remediation project illustrates the process and outcome of an sROI analysis. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Sustainable remediation at the Massachusetts Military Reservation

When does remediation do more harm than good? After conducting a sustainability analysis on a large pump‐and‐treat site at the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR), the Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment (AFCEE) found evidence suggesting that the remediation systems were creating more pollution than they were remediating. For several years, the AFCEE/MMR has had an aggressive “better, cheaper, faster” optimization program intended to expedite aquifer restoration, reduce costs to the taxpayers, and reduce cleanup time frames. An initial sustainability analysis was conducted in 2005 as part of this program. The analysis identified several concerns, one of which was the indirect generation of air emissions from conventional fossil fuel–based power plants used to power the remediation systems. In addition to the environmental impact of these air emissions, the cost of electricity continues to increase. The AFCEE/MMR evaluated options for addressing both of these concerns and opted to employ renewable energy technology in the form of a utility‐scale wind turbine. This case study presents a more sustainable approach to remediation at the MMR through the use of renewable energy, in the form of a 1,500‐kW wind turbine. Power costs for operating the treatment systems, which processed up to 16 million gallons per day, amounted to over $2.2 million in 2008. The wind turbine is anticipated to reduce the program's electricity costs and offset air emissions, generated indirectly through the use of electricity from fossil fuel–based power plants, by approximately 25 to 30 percent. Based on a range of utility cost projections and an estimate of the turbine's energy production, the $4.6 million project is anticipated to have a payback period between six and eight years. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. *

1 This article is a U.S. Government work and, as such, is in the public domain of the United States of America.

     

Debunking myths about sustainable remediation

Sustainable remediation concepts have evolved during the decade 2007–2017. From the establishment of the first Sustainable Remediation forum (SURF) in 2007, to publication of ASTM and ISO standards by 2017. Guidance has been developed around the world to reflect local regulatory systems, and much has been learned in applying sustainability assessment to contaminated site management projects. In the best examples, significant improvements in project sustainability have been delivered, including concurrent reduction of the environmental footprint of the remediation program, improved social performance, and cost savings and/or value creation. The initial advocates for the concept of sustainable remediation were quickly supported by early adopters who saw its potential to improve the remediation industry's performance, but they also had to overcome some inertia and scepticism from other parties. During the debates and discussions that occurred at numerous international conferences and SURF workshops around the world, various opinions were formed and positions stated. Some proved to be correct, others not so. With the recent publication of ISO Standard 18504 and the benefit of a decade's‐worth of hindsight on sustainable remediation programs implementation and project delivery, this paper summarizes a number of myths and misunderstandings that have been stated regarding sustainable remediation and seeks to debunk them. Sustainable remediation assessment shows us how to manage unacceptable risks to human health and the environment in the best, that is to say the most sustainable, way. It provides the contaminated land management industry a framework to incorporate sustainable development principles into remediation projects and deliver significant value for affected parties and society more broadly. In dispelling some myths about sustainable remediation set out in this paper, it is hoped that consistent application of ISO18504/SuRF‐UK (or equivalently robust guidance) will facilitate even wider use of sustainable remediation around the world.     

Accelerating environmental cleanup at DOE sites: Monitored natural attenuation/enhanced attenuation—A basis for a new paradigm

The U.S. Department of Energy is conducting a project to accelerate remediation through the use of monitored natural attenuation and enhanced attenuation for chlorinated ethenes in soils and groundwater. Better monitoring practices, improved scientific understanding, and an advanced regulatory framework are being sought through a team effort that engages technology developers from academia, private industry, and government laboratories; site cleanup managers; stakeholders; and federal and state regulators. The team works collaboratively toward the common goals of reducing risk, accelerating cleanup, reducing cost, and minimizing environmental disruption. Cutting‐edge scientific advances are being combined with experience and sound environmental engineering in a broadly integrated and comprehensive approach that exemplifies socalled “third‐generation R&D.” The project is potentially a model for other cleanup activities. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Impact: A Model for calculation of soil cleanup levels

The establishment of soil cleanup levels is a primary concern in site remediation projects. Soil cleanup levels provide targets that drive the remediation process from technology selection through closure. Several state regulatory agencies are currently in the process of developing scientifically based soil cleanup standards. The underlying premise in the derivation of such standards is to ensure that the site will not pose a threat to human health and the environment after remediation has been completed. To accomplish this, remediation project managers must consider several contaminant transport pathways. This article presents the salient features of a model named IMPACT, which was developed to assist in the derivation of soil cleanup levels. IMPACT considers the soil-to-groundwater pathway and predicts the cleanup levels in a contaminated soil layer in the vadose zone such that groundwater quality standards are met at any point in the aquifer.     

Characterizing a Brownfields recreational reuse scenario using the Triad Approach–Assunpink Creek Greenways project

Since the early 1990s the U.S. government has been developing and implementing public policies that advance the redevelopment of brownfields, and the recent passage of the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (SBLRBRA) will significantly advance efforts to integrate environmental contamination mitigation and redevelopment. Experience has demonstrated that successful redevelopment requires the collection, analysis, and interpretation of environmental data in a timely and cost‐effective manner in order to allow developers and lenders to efficiently use cleanup resources, develop response strategies that integrate cleanup with redevelopment, and support meaningful outreach to involved stakeholders. Recent advances in the science and technology of site characterization hold the promise of improved site characterization outcomes while saving time and money. One such advancement, the Triad Approach, combines systematic up‐front planning with the use of a dynamic field investigation process and the generation of real time data to allow in‐field decision making on sample location selection. This article describes an application of the Triad Approach to redevelopment of an urban greenway in Trenton, New Jersey. The Triad Approach, initiated through a partnership between the City of Trenton, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, New Jersey Institute of Technology, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, demonstrated that this approach could accelerate the characterization of the 60‐acre, 11‐parcel project area. Environmental issues that were solved using the Triad Approach included the delineation of the extent of historic fill, determination of no further action for several areas of concern, detailed investigation of specific impacted areas and the acquisition of sufficient data to allow the city to make important decisions regarding remediation costs and property acquisition. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

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.     

Nature,frequency, and cost of environmental remediation at onshore oil and gas exploration and production sites

This article quantifies the nature, frequency, and cost of environmental remediation activities for onshore oil and gas operations, as determined from over 4,100 environmental remediation cases in Texas, Kansas, New Mexico, and Colorado. For the purpose of this article, “remediation'' refers to cleanup efforts that entail longer‐term site characterization, monitoring, and remedial action beyond the initial spill cleanup or emergency response stage. In addition, data are also presented regarding short‐term spill cleanup activities in two of the four states. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.