1 / 10

Background & Objectives

Wayne C. Hardison, PE (Haley & Aldrich), Ryan J. Scott, PE (Haley & Aldrich), Alan Buell ( Envirocon ). A Successful Collaboration with Regulators and Stakeholders during Development of an Integrated Sediment and Upland Remedy. Background & Objectives.

jaden-franco
Télécharger la présentation

Background & Objectives

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Wayne C. Hardison, PE (Haley & Aldrich), Ryan J. Scott, PE (Haley & Aldrich), Alan Buell (Envirocon) A Successful Collaboration with Regulators and Stakeholders during Development of an Integrated Sediment and Upland Remedy

  2. Background & Objectives This presentation describes the processes utilized to develop consensus among stakeholders for a site closure strategy. Stakeholders include: the site owner the local municipality, the regulators, various regional environmental advocacy groups

  3. Background & Objective Insert photo here OU-1 OU-2 Objective: A constructible and economic remedy

  4. Approach Re-evaluate site and develop an integrated strategy that : - accounted for new data, - was constructible, and - reset other stakeholder expectations Focus on technical issues Initiate a communication program with all stakeholders

  5. RESET OWNER EXPECTATIONS

  6. RESET OWNER EXPECTATIONS Haley & Aldrich developed prototype conceptual design Envirocon developed a detailed estimate Haley & Aldrich developed an “engineer’s estimate” Team reconciled the assumptions & variances Developed project specific “unit costs” to analyze scenarios for the feasibility study Cost basis re-visited at critical milestones to confirm market changes and scale factors

  7. RESET REGULATOR EXPECTATIONS “Bottom up” approach – what is practicable vs. preferred Focus on technical issues and constructibility Informal presentations (vs. submittals) that allowed face-to-face discussions

  8. STAKEHOLDER RELATIONSHIPS Re-build community trust - proceed with other site activities • expedite via inclusion in regulator meetings Address regulator concerns - implement interim measures - informal processes (presentations) - common goal of “zero comments” for revised FS Regular discussions with advocacy groups

  9. RESULTS RFS accepted by regulators AS SUBMITTED with a few oral questions. “We have all the information we need to make a decision”. Record of Decision issued 2012 for an integrated remedy. Limited public comments, no formal opposition from village or environmental advocacy groups.

  10. CONCLUSION This process has changed the dynamics of the relationship with all the stakeholders from a mode of formal exchange of paper to a cordial working relationship where communication flows in both directions reaching a consensus for the site remedy.

More Related