|
REMEDIATION SECTION
Remediation System Audits Reduce Long-Term Costs
INTRODUCTION
Soil and ground water remediation projects can take many years to complete and require large amounts of capital to finance their operation, monitoring, and maintenance (OM&M). With this commitment of resources business managers, proper owners, and their legal counsel should continuously evaluate whether the remedial strategy is cost-effective in reducing the contaminant concentrations.
A complete site characterization and remediation screening should guide the selection of the appropriate remediation technology. In many instances, the technology that is being implemented at a site is a new technology that has shown to be effective at some sites, but long term monitoring data are not available and it may not be as effective at another site. It also happens that some remedial technologies used to capture a plume, or extract contaminants, are not effective in the long term as the mass transfer is less effective at low concentrations. Although a technology may be effective early in the remedial process, it may be less effective over time. A second look at the effectiveness of the remediation system is warranted to reduce long-term operation, monitoring, and maintenance costs.
Property and business owners and their legal counsel need to be able to effectively evaluate whether the remedial technology being implemented on their property is effective, and, if not, identify other options or strategies which will be effective in cleaning up the property. The evaluation should include technical performance, cost-effectiveness, and progress toward remediation goals.
THE SECOND OPINION PROCESS
The second opinion process involves a thorough, objective evaluation of the remedial approach. The first step is to review the site investigation activities and ground water monitoring reports to evaluate the site characterization and evaluate trends in the remediation process. This review includes evaluating any confirmatory soil sampling performed during remedial operations. This step will be followed by a review of the remediation system and amendments or alternative technologies that could be more effective. Once the data review has been completed, a report is prepared detailing the remediation system operation and recommendations for upgrading the existing system, or if warranted, an appropriate new technology for completing the corrective action. The report should model the return on investment for recommended changes.
The review should evaluate other factors that change over time, such as the regulatory programs available to guide the remediation and the site-specific cleanup goals. If the systems have been in operation for long periods of time, it is possible that the regulatory framework has changed that could allow new cleanup levels and/or the determination of risk-based cleanup actions. With adjustments to the remediation system, it may be possible to achieve new cleanup standards faster.
BENEFIT
A second opinion evaluation of remedial activities allows a property owner to evaluate whether a particular remediation technology is the most cost-effective approach to site closure. If it is determined that the technology being implemented is not effective, the remedial process or technology being implemented can either be modified or replaced. In the long run this will reduce the time and cost for remediation system operation, monitoring, and maintenance and bring about closure to the project, freeing up capital for other business ventures. For more information, please contact Donald Fay, Michael Saul, or William Reid at (513) 489-2255 or by e-mail at daf@paynefirm.com, mts@paynefirm.com, or whr@paynefirm.com. You can visit our web site at www.paynefirm.com.
|
 |
