Application of the operating window concept to remediation‐option selection

Abstract

AbstractAn Erratum has been published for this article in Remediation 14(4) 2004, 141.The selection of remediation options for the management of unacceptable risks at contaminated sites is hindered by insufficient information on their performance under different site conditions. Therefore, there is a need to define “operating windows” for individual remediation options to summarize their performance under a variety of site conditions. The concept of the “operating window” has been applied as both a performance optimization tool and decision support tool in a number of different industries. Remediation‐option operating windows could be used as decision support tools during the “options appraisal” stage of the Model Procedures (CLR 11), proposed by the Environment Agency (EA) for England and Wales, to enhance the identification of “feasible remediation options” for “relevant pollutant linkages.” The development of remediation‐option operating windows involves: 1) the determination of relationships between site conditions (“critical variables”) and option performance parameters (e.g., contaminant degradation or removal rates) and 2) the identification of upper‐ and lower‐limit values (“operational limits”) for these variables that define the ranges of site conditions over which option performance is likely to be sufficient (the “operating window”) and insufficient (the “operating wall”) for managing risk. Some research has used case study data to determine relationships between critical variables and subsurface natural attenuation (NA) process rates. Despite the various challenges associated with the approach, these studies suggest that available case study data can be used to develop operating windows for monitored natural attenuation (MNA) and, indeed, other remediation options. It is envisaged that the development of remediation‐option operating windows will encourage the application of more innovative remediation options as opposed to excavation and disposal to landfill and/or on‐site containment, which remain the most commonly employed options in many countries. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.