efforts available at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Technology Innovation Office. In many of the cases reviewed, remedial project managers (RPMs) appeared unable to articulate a clear a priori rationale for undertaking source remediation at a site or to quantify the extent to which source remediation efforts were contributing to accomplishment of remedial objectives. To a significant extent, these interrelated problems appeared to reflect the absence of unambiguously stated remedial objectives for the sites or of clear operational definitions of those objectives. For example, during a brief report on an attempt to use steam recovery to remove a source area from a relatively homogenous unconsolidated aquifer, the project manager expressed considerable frustration with the effort, not only from a technical point of view but, more important, from the point of view that it was consuming significant resources while not contributing to any reduction in human health risk. There was no complete exposure pathway to the contaminated groundwater at the site, nor any expectation of a complete pathway in the near future. This is illustrative of a situation in which an explicit operational statement of site objectives (e.g., a reduction of human health risk as estimated by the procedures specified in EPA’s Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, RAGS), if made prior to the attempt at source remediation at this site, might have led to a decision not to attempt source remediation.

This widespread problem of vaguely formulated remedial objectives, tenuously linked to performance metrics, is neither specific to the issue of source remediation nor reflective of any unusual failure on the part of the specific project managers with whom the committee interacted. Rather, this ambiguity is embodied in long-standing national policy statements (i.e., the National Contingency Plan) and analytical procedures (as embodied in RAGS). It is compounded by the fact that multiple stakeholders at a site not only may have very different objectives, but may also use very similar language to describe those very different objectives. Moreover, a particular performance metric may potentially correspond to a variety of different objectives and accordingly be viewed quite differently by different stakeholders. Finally, both the DNAPL problem and the effects of source remediation efforts raise temporal issues that are very poorly addressed by conventional analytical frameworks for assessing risks to human health and the environment.

This chapter describes a variety of substantive remedial objectives.1 It shows how a stated objective can be defined operationally by several different metrics

1  

Substantive objectives are concerned with the results of a decision process, in terms of a physical change at the site. In contrast, procedural objectives focus not on the outcome of a remedial effort, but on the process by which a decision is reached (e.g., transparency of the decision process, opportunities for public participation). Procedural objectives are often as important to stakeholders as substantive objectives, but they are not considered here because they are outside the scope of this report.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement