Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup From Concept to Commercialization (1997) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
4 MEASURES OF SUCCESS FOR REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES
4 MEASURES OF SUCCESS FOR REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES
Pages 167-200
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 167... ...
A standard approach for comparing remediation technology performance could lead to a less contentious (and less time-consuming) technology selection process and possibly to improved acceptance of innovative remediation technologies.
|
From page 169... ...
169 ca · .= o ~ ^.
|
From page 170... ...
Active local communities can and often do block implementation of remediation technologies that they perceive as unacceptable. The most important aspect of remediation technology performance for communities near contaminated sites is usually the degree to which the technology can reduce risks to community health and the local environment.
|
From page 171... ...
Members of the public who believe they have experienced health damage or who believe extensive natural resource damage has occurred may resent efforts by government agencies or responsible parties to minimize remediation costs. Other factors important to local communities include the safety of the technology and the degree to which it will disrupt the community.
|
From page 172... ...
When there is a personal impact, such as digging up yards, encroaching on property, or creating excess truck traffic, the affected community members will carefully weigh these impacts against the environmental benefit of cleaning up the site. Because innovative technologies, by definition, are not used at many sites, public reluctance to accept an unproven technology may be as great as that of site owners or regula tors.
|
From page 173... ...
Innovative technologies also have been developed by technology service providers such as engineering and consulting firms and by companies responsible for site cleanup, who then become technology users. The market for innovative remediation technologies is highly segmented and profoundly influenced by laws and regulations.
|
From page 174... ...
To minimize long-term liability, insurance companies will want proof that the technology can reduce or eliminate health and environmental risks so that they will not face continuing financial liabilities. Insurance companies paying for site remediation will also be concerned about costs of the remediation technology.
|
From page 175... ...
Roles of Stakeholders in the Site Cleanup Process Contaminated sites became an issue for stakeholders in response to public outrage and media attention to environmental damage and suspected human health effects. At both the state and federal levels, regulatory agencies have established processes for making decisions about which sites are sufficiently contaminated that they must be cleaned up and for selecting cleanup technologies for those sites.
|
From page 176... ...
176 ( :> a: o it: ~ >( o ( TIC )
|
From page 178... ...
In the language of Superfund, the technology users are called potentially responsible parties (PRPs) , or responsible parties.
|
From page 179... ...
These cases suggest that if the public were involved earlier in the decisionmaking process as a matter of routine, the universe of remediation technologies considered at sites might more routinely include innovative technologies. In summary, different stakeholders may have quite different concerns about the selection and use of a remediation technology at a given contaminated site.
|
From page 181... ...
181 Cal Cq a' C)
|
From page 182... ...
comprise the first category of success criteria that can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of ground water and soil cleanup technologies. Technical performance attributes include the ability of the technology to reduce health and environmental risks by reaching desired cleanup end points.
|
From page 183... ...
However, the relative degree of risk reduction offered by one remediation technology versus another is very difficult to determine because quantitative estimates of health and environmental risks at contaminated sites are highly uncertain. Major uncertainties exist in determining which populations have been ex
|
From page 184... ...
As shown in the table and the figure, there are multiple possible exposure routes. Predicting the degree to which each of these affects individuals near contaminated sites, or those farther from the sites who drink contaminated water or consume contaminated food, is a highly uncertain process, as illustrated by the complexity of the exposure pathways shown in Figure 4-2.
|
From page 185... ...
The net result of these uncertainties is that opinions about the risks posed by site contamination vary depending on who conducts the health investigation and who interprets the results. Like determining human health risks, quantifying risks to the environment and the level of environmental risk reduction achieved by a given remediation process is very difficult, if not impossible.
|
From page 187... ...
These public reactions can lead to distrust of agencies and rejection of remediation technologies for which exact performance and ability to meet applicable regulatory standards cannot be guaranteed prior to use, especially when local residents have not been involved early in the site investigation and remediation process. Given the unknowns in fully defining the human health and environmental effects of contaminants in ground water and soil, the dilemma is how to define remediation technology performance in a way that is both quantifiable and relevant to the goal of preventing adverse effects.
|
From page 188... ...
Remediation technologies that immobilize the contaminants can effectively eliminate exposure risk even if the contaminants remain in the ground as long as people are kept off site and are prevented from using contaminated water. The fundamental performance measure for remediation technologies that reduce contaminant mobility is their ability to prevent contaminants from returning to the zones of natural ground water flow.
|
From page 189... ...
Key factors related to engineering and operation of technology are robustness, forgiveness, ease of implementation, maintenance requirements, predictability, and residuals production. Robustness Robust remediation technologies are effective over a range of contaminant and site conditions.
|
From page 190... ...
For example, for a process requiring rapid analysis of site data, using a field-portable gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer (GC/MS) may allow use of a dynamic work plan and thus yield time advantages over conventional remediation technologies.
|
From page 191... ...
Consequently, the extent and character of secondary wastes from a remediation process must be understood and weighed against stakeholder concerns. COMMERCIAL ATTRIBUTES The second general category of criteria important in evaluating ground water and soil cleanup technologies is a technology's commercial attributes.
|
From page 192... ...
The EPA has recognized the importance of cost in developing its Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program (see Chapter 5) for testing innovative technologies.
|
From page 193... ...
An investor looks for a strong position in intellectual property rights when deciding whether to fund technology development. Technology users, regulators, and the public want enough information about the technology to be assured that it will perform effectively and efficiently.
|
From page 194... ...
PUBLIC AND REGULATORY ACCEPTANCE ATTRIBUTES The third major set of technology performance measures includes attributes that, while not always quantifiable, may greatly influence whether a remediation technology is selected for use in a specific situation. Public and regulatory issues are intertwined in that public concerns often translate into regulatory action to meet the concerns.
|
From page 195... ...
Disruption to Ongoing Site Activity Contaminated sites vary widely in their proximity to other ongoing activities, either on the site or in close proximity. Commercial operations under the same or different ownership may be taking place on the same site.
|
From page 196... ...
Providers of technology services are cognizant of regulatory hurdles for innovative technology, and this may explain why consultants often recommend that their clients use proven technology and avoid the potential for delay and the uncertain risks that may be associated with innovative technology. Regulators have recognized that regulatory barriers may be playing a role in constraining the use of innovative technology and are developing a variety of programs to address perceived problems associated with innovative technology testing and demonstration (see Chapter 5~.
|
From page 197... ...
Key factors that technology developers must consider when testing a new technology and evaluating its market potential can be organized in three categories: technical attributes, commercial attributes, and public and regulatory acceptance attributes. It is imperative that reliable and consistent information be made available in all these areas to all parties to allow the stakeholders to evaluate the acceptability of innovative remediation technologies.
|
From page 198... ...
Anecdotal evidence suggests that innovative remediation technologies are selected more frequently when the public is involved early in the site remediation process.
|
From page 199... ...
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable.
|
From page 200... ...
1995. Pine Street Canal Superfund site, Burlington, Vermont: Disapproval with modifications required of the additional feasibility study initial screening of remedial alternatives report, September 8, 1995.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.