Questions? Call 888-624-8373

HARDBACK + PDF
your price: $64.50
add to cart

HARDBACK
list:$55.00
Web:$49.50
add to cart

PDF BOOK
your price: $42.50
add to cart

PDF CHAPTERS
your price: $5.30
select

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

Groundwater and Soil Cleanup: Improving Management of Persistent Contaminants (1999)
Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources (CGER)

Page
236
bottomleft bottomright

The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.


Ground Water & Soil Cleanup: Improving Management of Persistent Contaminants

1994 level of $82 million to a 1998 level of $15 million, which includes a $5 million congressional earmark, leaving an effective budget of $10 million.

  • The lack of incentives and cost control for site cleanup. Lack of sufficient incentives from DOE headquarters for prompt and cost-effective cleanup of DOE sites is a critical barrier to SCFA's successful development and deployment of innovative remediation technologies. Local control of technology selection does not provide the broad perspective needed for maximizing returns on limited DOE funds.

  • The high perceived risk of initial technology deployment. Contractors, as well as regulators, at DOE installations can be reluctant to accept the full consequences of failure should a potentially cost-effective innovative remediation technology fail to perform as predicted and thus will tend to choose conventional remediation technologies over innovative ones.

  • Insufficient data on full-scale deployment of SCFA technologies. Data on applications of innovative remediation technologies at DOE sites are currently inadequate to determine the full extent of the use of SCFA technologies in site cleanup.

  • Need for greater collaboration with leaders in the field of remediation technology development. SCFA has taken credit for the development of a number of technologies for which sufficient research and development efforts already had occurred in the private sector. This overlap suggests lack of a sufficient partnering strategy between SCFA and external technology developers. It also suggests lack of sufficient expertise among SCFA staff with respect to technologies developed outside SCFA.

  • Need for greater involvement of technology end users in the SCFA program. Despite SCFA's formation of STCGs, the field personnel who are the ultimate customers for SCFA's technologies still are not adequately involved in setting overall program direction and planning individual technology development projects.

  • Need for multisite applications of SCFA technologies. Fewer than one-third of SCFA technologies have been deployed at more than one facility, and fewer than 20 percent have been deployed at more than two facilities.

  • Need for more work on in situ remediation technologies. Fewer than one-third of SCFA technologies address the need for in situ remediation of contaminants in soil and groundwater. Development of in situ remediation technologies may not be receiving appropriate priority.

Page
236