The cost of remedial action

The use of additives to eliminate or reduce the effects of fouling has already been mentioned. An example of the effectiveness of an antifoulant on the preheat stream of a crude oil distillation unit has been described [van Nostrand etal 9Zl. These data show that considerable mitigation of the fouling can be achieved by this method. Fig. 3.1 demonstrates the fall off in heat duty with and without antifouling additives. At the time of publication (1981) the annual cost of these chemicals was 1.55 x 10 for a crude unit handling 100,000 barrels per day. 

FIGURE 3.1. The reduction of heat duty with and without antifoulant 

Treatment of cooling water to combat corrosion, scale formation and biofouling can be achieved by a suitable programme. The cost may be high and for a modest cooling water system the cost may run into tens of thousands of pounds. 

If the fouling problem cannot be relieved by the use of additives it may be necessary to make modifications to the plant. Modification to allow on-line cleaning of a heat exchanger can represent a considerable capital investment. Before capital can be committed in this way, some assessment of the effectiveness of the modification must be made. In some examples of severe fouling problems the decision is straightforward, and a pay back time of less than a year could be anticipated. In other examples the decision is more complex and the financial risks involved in making the modification will have to be addressed. 

---

The Cost of Remedial Action (CORA) model was developed for the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The model is used in developing and costing remedial actions for Superfund sites before or during the remedial investigation of the cleanup. 

CHENU AND CRENCA The Cost of Remedial Action Model... 

There is a federal statutory requirement requiring evidence of ability to pay the costs of remediation at sites with UST releases. The costs of corrective action are borne by many state financial assurance funds or through the purchase of insurance policies by owners and operators. Many of these funds have experienced revenue shortfalls as the money paid out for corrective action is not covered by the money paid in. When funds start experiencing these shortfalls, corrective action slows down. 

Remediation is a term which includes all actions necessary to return a polluted site to a condition suitable for its intended future use. Both current and past owners and operators of contaminated property may be found liable to bear the cost of remediation, in addition to all parties who generated, transported or arranged for the disposal of the materials that contaminated the property. Clearly, the cost implications of remediation can be significant. 

For in-service welding applications, operators should specify electrodes with the H4R designator (e.g., E7018-H4R). These are becoming more common and, while there may be a price premium, this is negligible compared to the cost for remedial action that would be required following the discovery or failure of an in-service weld with hydrogen cracks. 

In the absence of a trim system with feedback, it is likely to prove cost-effective to use a simple portable efficiency monitor on a regular basis, perhaps weekly for small boilers. The change of reading is as important as the actual value of the reading. A deviation from what is known to be a good post-commissioning setting will indicate a drift from ratio and the need for remedial action. 

Ericson, S.-0. and H. Schmied, Modified Technology in New Constructions and Cost-Effective Remedial Action in Existing Structures to Prevent Infiltration of Soil Gas Carrying Radon. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Stockholm, 5 153-158 (1984). 

If it deems it necessary, the USEPA can require an expedited response action (ERA) at a site that would require an immediate engineering evaluation/ cost analysis (EE/CA). After a removal action is completed or determined unnecessary, the long-term remedial action must be undertaken. First, a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) is performed to determine a proper course of action. This can involve ... 

RBCA and the use of risk-based decision-making to establish health-protective remedial measures and controls at a site is a process that is producing health-protective and cost-effective corrective action sites. RBCA is used to decide the level of corrective action necessary at a site to protect human health and the environment, site-specific remediation goals (RBSLs or SSTLs), and the concentrations of constituents that can remain at the site because they will not impact human health and the environment. For sites already undergoing remediation, the RBSLs or SSTLs can be used to determine when the site no longer poses a threat to human health and the environment. Therefore, RBCA is useful both for newly discovered releases as well as for old releases that may have treatment systems with constituent concentrations reaching asymptotic levels. 

While Stevens carried on selhng his remedy, he felt an increasing impact of the BMA publication, impairing his sales in the UK and his attempts to take his remedy abroad. In 1912 he brought libel action against the BMA, an unprecedented step. While in the first trial the jury could not agree on a verdict, he was defeated in 1914, when despite numerous expert witnesses for Stevens, the jury found in favour of the BMA (supported by a recently published government report), the case was dismissed and Stevens ordered to pay the costs of 2,000. Both trials were extensively covered in both national and international press (23-31). An appeal in 1915 was refused. 

In risk-based remedial action screening, potential remedial actions are screened to first identify protective remedial actions which can achieve all of the risk-based remedial action objectives and then to identify acceptable remedial actions that can also achieve all non-risk objectives. The separate evaluation of potential remedial actions using risk-based objectives and then non-risk objectives allows for a clear understanding of the full range of options available to protect human health and ecological resources, and how those options are constrained by non-risk considerations such as property use, liability control, or non-risk regulatory requirements. In addition, the non-risk objectives for a site may be balanced against cost or other considerations in a way that is unacceptable for risk objectives based on health protection. 

Before any remedial measures are taken, it is assumed that a site survey will be undertaken to establish the structural condition of the SNF containers and evidence of radionuclide leakage. In view of their relatively low levels of activity, this section does not address the issue of remedial measures for non-SNF radioactive material. Also, no attempt is made to assess the need for remedial measures, as it is beyond the remit of the Group. However, an estimate is provided below of the physical condition of the SNF containers to assist in any assessment of necessary or feasible actions. It is up to other expert groups to assess whether the environmental impact, technologies, and cost considerations render such actions necessary and or feasible. 

Economic feasibility takes into account the cost of the remedial action as composed to the benefits it provides. These benefits include deferred maintenance, avoidance of damage (including loss of life), and other tangible and intangible benefits. 

---