Date of this Version
Published in REMEDIATION (Spring 2004) 113-120. DOI: 10.1002/rem.20016
In the spring 2004 issue of Remediation, we presented the question that appears below to three of our MNA panel members. As discussed in the previous issue, “MNA should be used very cautiously as the sole remedy” (Fran Kremer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [US EPA]). It should be the lowest importance compared to other natural attenuation processes and “public involvement is particularly important in cases where dilution plays a substantial role in the remediation strategy” (Barbara Bekins, U.S. Geological Survey). “Definitions and evaluation strategies must explicitly address what processes are acting and the footprints of those processes. Failing to address them is a flaw that justifies scientific and public concern” (Bruce Rittmann, Northwestern University).We would like to expand on these ideas in this issue of the journal, specifically the issue of protecting health versus meeting regulatory requirements, the risks (being open and honest with the public) associated with natural attenuation, and the role dilution plays with other active remedies.We received additional responses on this topic from four more panel members and have included them here.