Remediation of contaminated lands: a decision methodology for site owners.

Deciding how to remediate and redevelop contaminated lands should involve more than just selecting remediation techniques to clean a site to meet regulations for a predetermined site use. Owners and their consultants also need to understand aspects such as alternative site uses and liability, and how issues such as uncertainty can affect them. A methodology has been developed that provides a framework for current site owners when making decisions. It clarifies the above issues and details the type of information that is needed. It offers a step-by-step approach to improve decision making when contemplating remediation of contaminated sites by identifying the site use and remedial action combination that maximizes the current owner's net benefits. It examines various factors in decision making--with special emphasis on the timely issues of liability and uncertainty--and how expert opinion can be used to address diverse or incomplete data. Future research should include developing a complementary methodology that incorporates community and ecological objectives, resulting in a unified decision framework.

[1]  James P. Hughes,et al.  Chemical hazards of the workplace , 1978 .

[2]  William J. Grenney,et al.  STEP: Model for Technology Screening for Hazardous‐Waste‐Site Cleanup , 1993 .

[3]  James R. Janz,et al.  Development and Redevelopment of Contaminated Property , 1991 .

[4]  Chris Zeiss,et al.  Waste Facility Impacts on Residential Property Values , 1989 .

[5]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Siting energy facilities , 1980 .

[6]  P. Slovic,et al.  Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment: initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust. , 1995, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[7]  Ronald E. Gots.  Toxic Risks: Science, Regulation, and Perception , 1993 .

[8]  Edwin Kwan Lap Tam.  Decision methodology for site owners for the remediation of contaminated sites , 1998 .

[9]  W. Harrington,et al.  Health-based environmental standards: Balancing costs with benefits , 1995 .

[10]  Laura Toran,et al.  RISK-COST DECISION FRAMEWORK FOR AQUIFER REMEDIATION DESIGN , 1996 .

[11]  G W Suter,et al.  An approach for balancing health and ecological risks at hazardous waste sites. , 1995, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[12]  Lars Rosén,et al.  An Outline of a Guidance Framework for Assessing Hydrogeological Risks at Early Stages , 1997 .

[13]  J. Walter Milon.  Knetsch, Jack L. Property Rights and Compensation: Compulsory Acquisition and Other Losses. Toronto: Butterworth & Co., 1983, 181 pp., $39.95 , 1984 .

[14]  Michael C. Kavanaugh,et al.  “Do Nothing” Title Misleading , 1996 .

[15]  R. Allan Freeze,et al.  A Framework for Assessing Risk Reduction Due to DNAPL Mass Removal from Low‐Permeability Soils , 1997 .

[16]  William E Kastenberg,et al.  On the Impact of Future Land Use Assumptions on Risk Analysis for Superfund Sites. , 1997, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[17]  S. T. Hwang.  Determining target cleanup levels: A risk assessment‐based decision process for contaminated sites , 1992 .

[18]  Ronald Begley.  Risk-based Remediation Guidelines Take Hold. , 1996, Environmental science & technology.

[19]  Joel Massmann,et al.  Hydrogeological Decision Analysis: 1. A Framework , 1990 .