Keys to Technology Selection and Acceptance

As described throughout the Road Map, innovative technologies and technology approaches offer many advantages in the cleanup of brownfields sites. Stakeholders in such sites, however, first must accept the technology. Brownfields decision-makers should consider the following elements to increase the likelihood that the technology will be accepted, thereby facilitating the cleanup of the site.

1) Focus on the Decisions that Support Site Goals

As discussed in Spotlight 7, The Triad approach, systematic planning is an important element of all cleanup activities. Clear and specific planning to meet explicit decision objectives is essential in managing the process of cleaning up contaminated sites: site assessment, site investigation, site monitoring, and remedy selection. With good planning, brownfields decision-makers can establish the cleanup goals for the site, identify the decisions necessary to achieve those goals, and develop and implement a strategy for addressing the decision needs. Technology decisions are made in the context of the requirements for such decisions. All cleanup activities are driven by the project goals. An explicit statement of the decisions to be made and the way in which the planned approach supports the decisions should be included in the work plan.

2) Build Consensus

Investing time, before the site work begins, in developing decisions that are acceptable to all decision-makers will foster more efficient site activities and make successful cleanup more likely. Conversely, allowing work to begin at a site before a common understanding and acceptance of the decisions have been established increases the likelihood that the cleanup process will be inefficient, resulting in delays and inefficient use of time and money. Further, decision-makers must understand that there is uncertainty in all scientific and technical decisions (see below for more information about uncertainty). Clearly defining and accepting uncertainty thresholds before making decisions about the site remedy will build consensus. Decisions also should be made in the context of applicable regulatory requirements, political considerations, budget available for the project, and time constraints.

3) Understand the Technology

A thorough knowledge of a technology’s capabilities and limitations is necessary to secure its acceptance. All technologies are subject to limitations in performance. Planning for the strengths and weaknesses of a technology maximizes understanding of its benefits and its acceptance. “Technology approvers,” typically regulators, community groups, and financial service providers are likely to be more receptive of a new approach if the proposer provides a clear explanation of the rationale for its use and demonstrates confidence in its applicability to specific site conditions and needs. This latter point underscores the importance of carefully selecting an experienced, multidimensional team of professionals who have the expertise necessary to plan, present, and implement the chosen approach.

4) Allow Flexibility

Streamlining site activities, whether site assessment, site investigation, removal, treatment, or monitoring, requires a flexible approach. Site-specific conditions, including various physical conditions, contamination issues, stakeholder needs, uses of the site, and supporting decisions, require that all decision-makers understand the need for flexibility. Although presumptive remedies, standard methods, applications at other sites, and program guidance can serve as the basis for designing a site-specific cleanup plan and can help decision-makers avoid “starting from scratch” at each site, decision-makers should be wary of depending too heavily on “boilerplate language” and prescriptive methodologies, as well as standard operating procedures and “accepted” methods. While such tools provide excellent starting points, they lack the flexibility to meet site-specific goals. To ensure an efficient and effective cleanup, the actual technology approach, whether established or innovative, must focus on decisions specific to the site.

	Managing Uncertainty
Managing uncertainty is the unifying theme of the Triad approach, and it is a crucial aspect of the effective use of field analytical methods (see Spotlight 7, The Triad Approach). Although not all field analytical technologies employ screening methodologies (for example, field-portable gas chromatography/mass spectrometry [GC/MS] is a definitive analytical methodology), many such technologies (for example, immunoassays) do. In general, data produced by screening analytical methods will present more analytical uncertainty than data produced by definitive methods. However, that fact in itself does not make definitive methods necessarily “better” than screening methods. Definitive methods are not fool-proof – interferences or other problems can cause a marked increase in their analytical uncertainty. On the other hand, a number of strategies can be used to minimize the analytical uncertainty inherent in screening methods. Such strategies include the selection of appropriate QA/QC procedures to ensure that the data are of known and documented quality. Most important, field analytical technologies offer the unique ability to cost-effectively manage the largest single source of decision error—sampling representativeness—an ability that is not available when requirements to use fixed laboratory methods discourage proactive management of sampling uncertainty.