The methods for setting DQOs take advantage of the central features of the SACM: consistency of standards and flexibility of implementation. The DQO methods can help focus a remediation on the risk standards that really matter for that site, translate these standards into measurable quantities, and structure a search for the least expensive remediation plan that satisfies the critical risk standard for that site. In our experience in using DQO methods, we have come to expect large cost savings while ensuring regulators that the regulatory standards are satisfied. The atmosphere of comparative trust fostered by a stepwise, logical process with constructive participation of all the important stakeholders, and with careful documentation of expectations and actual performance, is refreshing. The efficiencies achieved in this approach result from several positive features. In the early stages of identifying the core issue for a site, eliminating extraneous concerns can lower costs of remediation. Treating risk explicitly as a quantifiable feature of the cleanup leads to efficiencies in remediation design. The regulators establish quantitative acceptance levels (i.e., risk-goals and risk-based error tolerances) for the cleanup, and this determines what levels of remediation, characterization, and monitoring are really required. (By contrast, when risk calculations are not explicit, there is a tendency to throw in intuitive “margins of safety” at many steps in the process. These multiple, ad hoc distortions can compound, leading to a much more conservative and costly cleanup.) By collecting all the policy decisions early and documenting the logic and motivation for them, the scope for the remaining technical decisions is well-defined, allowing the best use of technical optimization tools. Overall, the use of a stepwise logic for justifying, refining, and documenting cleanup requirements enhances communication and consensus and reduces the confusion, moving targets, and false starts that cause delay and invite confrontation. © 1994, American Chemical Society. All rights reserved.
