Hazardous Wastes and Contaminated Sites - Essay Example

HAZARDOUS WASTES AND CONTAMINATED SITES A contaminated site is a site at which hazardous substances occur at concentrations above background levelsand indicates likelihood to pose an immediate or long-term hazard to human health or the environment (Project Participants and their Organizations 2003). It is stated that to be able to meet this definition of a contaminated site, an area must be an identified delineated area of land, such as a transport depot or a landfill. It must have an identified contaminant, a hazardous substance, which is present at a known concentration in soils on the site, or is discharging from the site. The identified contaminant in concentration must be higher than what is normally expected from a non-contaminated site. Lastly, it poses a certain threat to people and/or the environment because of its location and concentration (Project Participants and their Organizations 2003). Various physical and chemical properties are considered as hazardous substances, and hence, pose a threat to people are toxicity, carcinogenicity, corrosiveness, combustibility, explosiveness, and asphyxiation. The contamination of land and its surrounding areas can vary according to its nature and degree of severity. Available Techniques for Dealing with Contaminated Sites Risk management is one effective technique in addressing problems brought about by contaminated sites. It is defined as the culture processes and structures directed towards the effective management of potential opportunities and adverse effect (Project Participants and their Organizations 2003). In the context of contaminated sites, risk management is understood as the process of gathering information for purposes of informing decisions and minimizing the risks or adverse effects of a contaminated site to people and the environment (Project Participants and their Organizations 2003). Estimating the probability of an event occurring and the likewise magnitude of effects are what involve risk assessment. Risk assessment is essentially important in risk management since it provides the information needed in responding to a potential risk (Project Participants and their Organizations 2003). Environmental risk assessment is an available technique for dealing with contaminated sites, which involves the management of natural hazards (flooding, landslides), water supply, wastewater disposal systems, and contaminated sites. Another available technique for dealing with contaminated sites is conducting human health risk assessment, which is one form of risk management that focuses on assessing the risk to people and communities from hazardous substances. The risk assessment for contaminated sites is focused on the human health, since a large number of known potentially contaminated sites are located in urban areas where people abound. Regional councils can be formed in order to address managing discharges of contaminants, which may be managed through policies and rules. They can also provide information and technical assistance on good management practices for sites. Integrated contaminated land databases can also be developed in order to provide information about contaminated land. Remediation is another technique that may be employed for dealing with contaminated sites. Remedial actions may be utilized and implemented in ensuring a reasonable land-use and in protecting ground water. Both technical and economic aspects are incorporated in the optimal solution (COWI, 2008). In averting risks from many types of pollutants, traditional remediation techniques such as excavation and remedial groundwater abstraction can be used. An advanced technology approach to remediation is more advantageous in some situations, both economically and environmentally. Single methods or combinations of methods can be employed in dealing with contaminated sites, which may include soil ventilation, vacuum extraction, bio-ventilation, air sparging, and bio-sparging. With the use of chemical oxidation and potassium permanganate, effective remediation of chlorinated solvents can be achieved. Test equipment and laboratory facilities can be used to determine the remediation method that can be used on a contaminated site, which can form the basis for designing the projects. Case Study The case study discussed in this paper pertains to public participation in a decision making process, which involves a municipal waste disposal facility (landfill) in the eastern region of Aargau Canton, Switzerland. The responsibility to design the canton's solid waste disposal plan was laid on the Building Department of the area, while municipalities are responsible for implementing the plan. However, as the communities possessed neither the resources nor the inclination of initiating or implanting such planning, they officially asked the Canton to assume the responsibility of design. At least three new landfills were considered by the Building Department's plan for the eastern region. It initially characterized the need for new disposal facilities and chose potential sites by using a mapping-elimination process. Federal and cantonal laws prohibit the construction of landfills in parks, wetlands, inhabited areas, and some other geologically unsound areas. The Department then developed a set of "preference criteria" and rated each site according to appropriateness, and six criteria were used in accord to this, such as geology, hydrogeology, utility requirement, settlement-recreation, land and nature protection, and the existing use value of land (Renn et al. n. d.). Without consulting with the communities, these steps were undertaken by the Building Department. The process was carried out just as the results of the mapping elimination process were made public. The Phase 1 selection involved the selection of thirteen potential sites. Limiting the choices from three to five eligible sites was the main task of Phase 2. These sites should be selected and prioritized according to the geological survey results and recommendations. The legally binding procedure will then be initiated after the sites are finally selected. This procedure includes the following: 1. a formal environmental impact statement; 2. a public hearing, and 3. a final vote by the State parliament The town councils of the communities in which the potential sites were located were requested to send one member to seat on an oversight committee, which consisted of the Director of the Building Department and one member of each town council (Renn et al. n. d.). Two communities represented the sites that were located near boundaries. Only one community failed to send a member of the council to the committee, which also abstained from selecting representatives for the citizen panels. The Oversight Committee was bestowed the legitimate right to make final recommendations to the Building Department. They were also requested to inform the people of the site section process, review and analyze the participation process, and select the representatives from their committees to and represent them to the citizen panels. Rather than using a random selection, the Oversight Committee was given the task to recruit and select citizen participants. The sponsoring committee believed that random selection was not a legitimate way of selecting representatives and was concerned about the legitimacy of the recommendations issued by the panels. It was proposed that representatives be nominated by either a town meting or the community government, assisted by the research team in order to encourage consideration of all significant political and social viewpoints. The community was asked to select eight representatives. When all representatives were chosen, all people concerned were requested to attend the first general meeting. The selection task was outlined by the director of the Building Department and the procedure and rules of discourse were introduced. Four panels were then formed, which consisted of two representatives for each potential site community. Each was given identical tasks of reviewing the past mapping; reviewing and interpreting the technical feasibility analysis undertaken by engineering companies in synergy with the deliberation period, develop criteria for evaluating sites, and so on. The panels attended a two-day workshop and met for seven to nine times before arriving to the final decision. Every town sent eight people to the panel except for one community, and not a single of these eight people dropped out eventually. Emphasis was placed on informing the people about the problem of waste disposal as well as educating them on potential risks and harm on running a landfill. Experts were also invited to conduct a talk on the relevant issue of landfill as well as technical or economic issues. The results of geological surveys were also made known to the panelists. The research team, along with ten experts on landfills, conducted a group Delphi in a pursuit to provide best scientific estimates on indicators that demand physical measurements. The panelists had also the opportunity to visit each site before making their final assessment of each of them. They also talked to geologists and local representatives. Each panel was instructed to produce their own value tree and compute for a quantitative assessment of each site. The participants then weighted each branch of the tree, after which they evaluated the sites according to indicators. Each potential site was evaluated with the use of indicators, arriving as plentiful as 450 evaluations. The result represents a numerical characterization of the sites. The results of the participation were made public upon entering Phase 3 of the process. Unfortunately, the order of the remaining sites was not honored by Canton but instead started a new characterization process that gave all five sites equal weight. The inhabitants of the site that received the lowest ranking expressed their opposition of the procedure. The other towns, however, gave way for further investigation and screening. A high value was placed by all groups pertaining to distributing burdens on those who produce the highest amount of waste. They also accepted the criterion, which expressed that a site already burdened by other hazardous facilities should already be spared in the selection. A balanced model of equity by contribution and need was resorted to by the team. They were all convinced that a substantial health risk was not acceptable even though it was distributed equally among all contributors. Participants demanded that serious health impacts be avoided by reducing the risks involved in the landfill project. The issue of compensation also came up in the decision tree and was resolved in an unusual manner. Instead of receiving monetary compensation, all panels agreed to a model of joint ownership of the facility by selected community and Canton. Two major benefits were provided to the community by the joint ownership; namely, sharing the revenues and sharing control. References COWI, 2008. Remediation of contaminated sites. Retrieved on August 31, 2008 from [http://www.cowi.com/menu/services/nature/environmentalprotection/contaminatedsoilandgroundwater/remediationofcontaminatedsites/Pages/RemediationOfContaminatedSites.aspx] Renn, Ortwin, Webler Thomas, and Kastenholz, Hans, ____. Procedural and Substantive fairness in landfill siting: A Swiss case study. Retrieved on August 31, 2008 from http://www.piercelaw.edu/risk/vol7/spring/renn.htm ____, 2003. What is Risk Management' Project Participants and Their Organizations. Retrieved on August 31, 2008 from http://contamsites.landcareresearch.co.nz/whatisriskman.htm Read More