A comparative analysis of practitioners’ experience in sediment remediation projects to highlight best practices

The Randle Reef contaminated site, located in the southwest corner of Hamilton Harbour, is approximately 60 hectares in size. This site contains approximately 695,000 m of sediment contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and metals. The complex Randle Reef sediment remediation project is finally coming to fruition after more than 30 years of study, discussion, collaborations, stakeholder consensus-building, and debate. This paper unravels the reasons behind the delays associated with implementing sediment management at the Randle Reef site. In-depth interviews with experts and professionals from organizations who are/were involved in the project were conducted to identify the nature of performance in five theme areas that are important for successful action namely: (1) participation of appropriate actors with common objectives; (2) funding and resources; (3) decision-making process; (4) research and technology development; and (5) public and political support. It is evident from this study that the hurdles to progress with addressing contaminated sediment sites involve technical, political, regulatory as well as social challenges. We offer potential solutions and a series of recommendations based on experts’ first-hand experience with the management of such complex sites to inform how future remediation projects can overcome obstacles. doi: 10.2166/wqrj.2018.020 om https://iwaponline.com/wqrj/article-pdf/54/1/10/520810/wqrjc0540010.pdf 2020 Zobia Jawed (corresponding author) Gail Krantzberg W. Booth School of Engineering Practice and Technology, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4L8, Canada E-mail: jawedz@mcmaster.ca


INTRODUCTION
Sediment is an essential element of freshwater ecosystems and plays a key role in the physical movement, chemical partitioning, and biological fate of metals, trace organic pollutants, and nutrients (Zarull et al. ). Information on sediment quality shows that throughout North America the contaminants typically found in sediment include toxic and bioaccumulative substances, such as metals, polycyclic  • Exposure to contaminated sediments can result in decreased survival, reduced growth, or impaired reproduction in benthic invertebrates and fish.
• The bioavailability of contaminants in surficial sediment and contaminants released into the pore water and water column through biotic and abiotic processes in the sediment layer provides an opportunity for bioaccumulation. Once transferred to biota, contaminants may accumulate (bioaccumulate) if no mechanism exists for their elimination and may exert negative effects on the organism if concentrations reach toxic levels. As some organic chemicals (e.g. methyl mercury; dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT); polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)) move up the food chain through three or more trophic levels, increases in concentrations occurs for each level, such that biomagnification can occur.
• There could be scenarios where human health concerns can be linked to dermal contact with contaminated sediment (e.g. swimming), or through the consumption of fish with high levels of contaminants that do not biomagnify (e.g. PAH, lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd)). Additionally, human exposure to contaminants may result in absorption across the gut wall, the skin, and the lining of the lungs resulting in potential risk to human health. In the Great Lakes basin, for example, sediment quality issues and concerns were identified in 42 out of the 43 areas of concern (AOCs) that have been identified under the contains far-reaching provisions intended to secure and manage water resources, and largely by implication, sediment, at the river basin scale (Brils &   The remediation plan involves the construction of a 6.2 hectare Engineered Containment Facility (ECF) over 140,000 m 3 of the most highly contaminated sediment.
Approximately 445,000 m 3 of contaminated sediment surrounding the ECF will be dredged and placed inside the facility for a total containment of 585,00 m 3 . Another 110,000 m 3 of less contaminated sediment will be capped using both thin layer capping and isolation capping techniques, for a total of 695,000 m 3 of sediment being

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
Remediation of contaminated sediment in the Great Lakes can take many yearsin some cases more than 15 yearsfrom the problem identification to actual implementation of remedial actions (Zarull et al. ). Such long delays are of significant concern, since the ecological and economic damage associated with contaminated sediment continue, and are sometimes irreversible (Zarull et al. ).
For the Randle Reef site, it took more than 30 years from the time the contamination problem was formally identified until the remediation was initiated (Hall & O'Connor ).
To understand what contributed to the long process before active intervention began, the key themes were investigated that are frequently identified as obstacles when dealing with remediation of contaminated sediment sites as follows (Boyle &  This research paper aims to understand how well the above themes were addressed in the Randle Reef sediment remediation project. For this purpose, in-depth interviews were conducted with experts and professionals from organizations and agencies who had first-hand knowledge of the Randle Reef sediment remediation project.

Design and conduct of expert interviews
The sample group for this study was selected based on the direct and indirect involvement of a range of stakeholders in the Randle Reef remediation project. There were two different groups of stakeholders; the ones who were authorities in decision-making such as government agencies and elected officials and the ones who were participants in decision making such as industries, academic researchers, non-government organizations (NGOs) and the public.
A total of 17 agencies were interviewed, eight of them were decision-makers and nine of them were participants.
In this study, interviews were conducted using an adapted version of the steps from 'A Guide for Designing and Conducting In-depth Interviews for Evaluation Input' (Boyce & Neale ). The interview sample size was restricted to those people who played a significant role in the overall project. Therefore, a typical random sampling technique cannot be employed in this situation as inputs from these specific stakeholders were required. Instead, a stratified non-probability sampling technique was used to gain input from key project stakeholders who were directly or indirectly involved in this project or who were referred by other stakeholders as being a person or agency of significance ( Figure 2).
A formal letter was used to contact the stakeholders.
Structured interview questions were designed, and all the stakeholders were asked consistent questions to ensure that data were coded, analyzed and compared properly.  (Table 1).
With the submission of the Stage 2 report to governments, the institutional structure included the formation of the Bay Area Restoration Council (BARC) and Bay Area Implementation Team (BAIT). The BAIT is mandated to implement the remedial actions while BARC is mandated to monitor and promote RAP progress and report on action and inaction (Bay Area Restoration Council ).
BARC plays a critical role in engaging the community in the HHRAP, including raising awareness and engaging people in the Randle Reef remediation.
After a science-based proposal to incinerate 20,000 m 3 of the highest concentrations of PAH contaminated For this research paper, in-depth interviews were conducted with the selected stakeholders for the Randle Reef sediment remediation project regarding the leadership role for this project. Eighteen per cent felt that the leadership role was not well-defined and another 29% of respondents stated they neither agree nor disagree that the leadership role was well-defined ( Figure 3). Agency 7 did not agree that the leadership role was well-defined and stated that: 'up until 2009 Hamilton Port Authority (HPA) was the lead for the project. In 2009, the HPA withdrew from that  role as they believed the potential financial liabilities were beyond their capacity. After that it took about three years to negotiate the lead role with the project stakeholders/funding partners. As it is unusual for the federal government to lead a project on non-federal land it was a protracted process for the federal government to confirm its leadership role on the project.' Agency 4 took a neutral stand and stated that: 'leadership shifted over time which is not unusual with a project of this magnitude. Sometimes, group members assumed leadership stances and pressed hard for a decision. Ultimately, the federal government fully took on the lead role. There was a strong Federal push to achieve 100% consensus among all the players which is a laudable goal. Unfortunately, this consensus goal was noticed by one of the key stakeholders and was used as a delay tool undermining the progress of the project.' It is also important to note that 41% of the stakeholders did believe that the leadership role was well-defined ( Figure 3). An additional 12% strongly believed so. Agency 17 agreed that the leadership role was clearly defined and stated that 'leadership was with Environment and Climate Change Canada from the beginning and followed right through the end and they are still part of this leadership role'. It is interesting though that 23% of the stakeholders agreed and an additional 38% strongly agreed that the funding arrangement and distribution among various agencies were fair and/or equitable (Figure 4). equitable, while 23% did not agree that the resources were properly allocated ( Figure 5).

Decision-making process
There are significant economic, ecological, and social issues For the Randle Reef sediment remediation project, it took more than 30 years from the time the problem was formally identified until the site remediation would be initiated: an ECF is in the construction stages and will take an additional seven years to complete followed by 15 years of monitoring (Bay Area Restoration Council ). The process to arrive at a final remediation plan for this site had many phases as described above, and it is interesting to note that while some agencies acknowledged there were delays, others did not believe that there were delays associated with this project.
Agency 8  gently studied to avoid disturbing the slow-motion blobs from being disturbed and making a bad situation worse.  It is concluded that there were substantial differences in opinion about the causes of the delays with the Randle Reef project. Several agencies reported that there were no delays but rather a multi-partnered project which involved a complex negotiation process that took due time to finalize.
Nevertheless, the fact remains there that the Randle Reef cleanup took more than 30 years to initiate.

Research and technology
In As part of the management of contaminated sites, it is essential that the risk of harm from any potential contaminants be identified and assessed before remediation is deemed warranted and the methods for remediation are selected. Managing these identified risks involves both detailed and careful consideration of a complex set of physical, chemical, biological and socio-economical processes. This is because there exist large uncertainties related to these processes that could make it harder to accurately predict the future performance of remedies (Bridges & Gustavson ). Much of the difficulty in addressing contaminated sediment sites stems from challenges associated with the uncertainties, and a systematic approach to addressing uncertainty would enable the project to make progress and achieve its risk management goals ( It is found that only four of the 17 stakeholders took part in the selection process when the sintering plant option was selected and only one of these four supported the decisionmaking process ( Figure 6). This is because not all the stakeholders were identified and invited at the beginning of the process. Ten stakeholders did not participate in the selection process and did not support the selection process. Agency 6 mentioned that: 'the sinter plant option was the result of a comprehensive study report. I was asked to lead the sinter plant project and was not part of the selection process. Overall, four out of 17 stakeholders did not support the selection process to reach the final decision (Figure 7).
Agency 10 did not support the selection process and mentioned that: 'more openness and transparency would help.   becomes part of the government decision-making process.
EBR postings apply to government initiatives and private sector activities requiring provincial approval. In the case of Randle Reef, EBR postings were not made available for public comments because it was not a provincially led project. Agency 2 mentioned that the: 'idea of openness and transparency that I know we resist because of risk and fear. Increasingly, the government has to come to these basic requirements because these are fundamentals to us.' Agency 10 stated that: 'for less complex projects, everyone comes together around the table and happy about it.
When problems are more challenging, more politically charged, this is where transparency and openness becomes an issue. Randle Reef will be a good example where there is a lack of transparency and openness.' Agency 16 stated that: 'we have a history of relatively weak environmental assessments and ministry intervention.
We did successfully receive environmental assessment (very rare) for a site adjacent to this land. We have regulations, and we give exemptions and which doesn't make sense.' Eight out of 17 stakeholders agreed that the public is engaged well and their opinions are respected in  The private sector is there to make a profit and the public sector is there for people. This is why we exist. This is how we should behave.'

Funding and resources
More realistic approaches are required to estimate the remediation costs and account for future cost estimate increases.
The project should not be undervalued with the hope that a lower cost will make it easier to fund the project because it will not. It may be easier to 'sell' the project to the politicians and the public with a preliminary underestimated cost.
However, it can ultimately be very problematic, especially when the project team must revisit and re-negotiate the higher cost estimates for funding approvals from each participating agency.
One of the issues that was repeatedly raised by stakeholders involved in the Randle Reef sediment remediation project was the lack of prompt confirmation of financial support for the project. We suggest that the local community Agency b). It is also critical that criteria are developed that are equitable and mutually agreeable to allow participants to evaluate the potential application of a remediation option and that non-feasible or controversial options are eliminated at the early stages of the project to avoid further delays.

Decision-making process
There needs to be a balance struckto ensure openness and transparency and not to predetermine outcomes by limiting the options the stakeholders are allowed to consider and provide input on.

Research and technology development
Future research and development work should consider the following: • Understanding of the chemical fate, distribution, and behaviour of various contaminants.
• Better risk identification, assessment and measurement of contaminants and identifying most feasible and costeffective technology for remediation.