A performance-based framework for demonstrating appropriate use of an alternate method for wastewater compliance monitoring.

The choice of wastewater compliance methods used in the United States has been largely prescribed; however, in some cases, this has led to data of unknown or poor quality. This problem is further compounded by the relatively slow regulatory approval process to incorporate discharge-specific method modifications or flexibility to using alternate, potentially better technologies. In this study, a framework is presented, using a performance-based-system approach, which a discharger could use to verify proper use of an alternate or modified method. An example, using two chemical oxygen demand methods (a currently approved method and an alternate method that does not generate hazardous waste) demonstrates that the protocol is simple to use, yet scientifically defensible and effective and that this approach should be readily understandable to both regulators and the regulated community. Our results also suggest that the reference method approach, without associated measurement quality objectives, may yield a false sense of competency with an alternate method.     

Systematically selecting an alternative to remediate soil contaminating groundwater

Contaminated soil is a continuing source of ground water contamination at some hazardous waste sites. Even if that soil does not pose a threat to human health or the environment, soil remediation may benefit ground-water cleanup in terms of time, money, or protectiveness. A method has been developed to provide a systematic manner to select a soil cleanup alternative. Using commercially available Windows-based software, the method consists of the development of a decision tree whose chance nodes are the restoration time frame probability distributions. Uncertainty associated with site data is quantitatively evaluated using Monte Carlo analysis to develop the probability distributions. The decision tree selects the alternative with the lowest cost. Data from an actual remedial investigation/feasibility study demonstrate the ease and practicality of the selection method.     

Field analyses of RDX and TCE in groundwater during a GCW pilot study

Contaminant concentrations in groundwater are typically analyzed using traditional laboratory analytical procedures approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or state regulatory agencies. The use of off‐site laboratories provides very high‐quality water quality data at a relatively high cost in terms of time and money. Yet there are many instances when it is desirable to have water quality data measured in the field. The field methods for measuring water quality typically cost much less than the corresponding laboratory methods. However, the usability of the field data may be uncertain when the results are qualitatively compared to duplicate laboratory results. Groundwater samples collected during a groundwater circulation well pilot study were analyzed using field kits to measure concentrations of trichloroethylene (TCE) and the explosive compound known as RDX. A subset of the samples was split for duplicate laboratory analysis. Linear regression analysis and relative percent difference analysis were performed on the duplicate results to evaluate the comparability of the field and laboratory data. The data analyses were also used to evaluate the concept that the field kits were more accurate for specific concentration ranges, as well as the concept the field kit results would improve as field personnel gained experience with the field analysis procedures. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Is there a common metals demand curve?

Previous studies have identified a single, stable and strong correlation between the price of metals and their consumption, such that low priced metals are always used in large amounts and visa versa. Some have interpreted this as evidence that metals share a common demand curve so that a single price elasticity of demand exists. This paper reviews and tests this hypothesis against a number of other possible explanations, including the idea that the relationship is an empirical curiosity. Modifications to the demand curve were tested by allowing metals to have different intercepts and price elasticities. The results from this analysis suggest that metals do not share a common demand curve and that the correlation identified between the price of metals and their level of consumption is an empirical curiosity. As such, the singular price elasticities published in past papers should not be used for assessing future rates of metals substitution.