Since the second half of the 19th century, industrialization has produced many contaminated areas all over the world. The most common approach to manage these areas has for long time been based on prevention of unacceptable risks to human health and the environment. Over recent years, a number of initiatives across the world have begun applying the sustainable development principles to the management of contaminated sites. These include sustainable remediation forums in: Italy, UK, USA, Canada, Australia / New Zealand, Brazil, Taiwan and other countries, as well as international networks such as the European stakeholders’ networks like Common Forum on Contaminated Land and NICOLE (Network for Industrially Contaminated Land in Europe). Since 2010/11 this thinking has begun to crystalize into a number of “frameworks” for defining and applying sustainable remediation. While there is a remarkable degree of consistency in the approaches proposed by these initiatives, there are differences in detail and emphasis.
This contribution compares frameworks or related forms of guidance from 10 different sustainable remediation initiatives worldwide, describing similarities and differences and identifying general trends in the proposed approaches. The comparison is performed on the basis of a set of criteria which were drawn from the structure of the emerging ISO descriptive standard on sustainable remediation (ISO, 2014. Committee Draft ISO/CD 18504: Soil quality - Guidance on sustainable remediation. TC 190/SC7/WG12. Dated 19 September 2014). The comparison criteria are: definitions, principles, framework structures, context, assessment approach, provision of terminology/vocabulary, case studies, dealing with stakeholders, documentation and recordkeeping.
An initial comparison was made on the basis of the framework documents alone, and then including directly related supporting documents. These comparisons are based on analysis of the written wordings of the documents.
Initial outcomes suggest that there is a general consensus across the initiatives on what sustainable remediation is considered to be. Initiatives share also a common perspective that sustainable remediation can contribute to sustainable development and community resiliency. Some differences emerged when comparing how initiatives suggest this contribution to sustainable development can be given. Different contexts, characterized by different legal frameworks, assumptions, circumstances, facts and stakeholders involved, influence the approaches to sustainable remediation recommended by the initiatives.
Preliminary findings are being shared with members of the various networks via the “SURF international” quarterly meetings they hold managed by CL:AIRE in the UK (www.claire.co.uk/surfinternational). The study also includes feedback from the various international initiatives on the various similarities and differences found from the actual wordings. This exercise is intended to find out whether these differences are real (intentional) or perceived (not intentional), and why any differences may have occurred.
(Note: As a result of this feedback exercise other authors may be included in the full paper).
Practical Application for the SURF-UK Tool Kit: Sustainability Management Practices
Paul Bardos (1), Brian Bone (2), Richard Boyle (3), Frank Evans (4*), Nicola Harries (5), Trevor Howard (6) and Jonathan Smith (7)
1. r3 environmental, Reading, UK; 2. Bone Environmental Ltd, Chipping Campden, UK; 3. Homes & Communities Agency, Bristol, UK; 4. National Grid Properties*, Warwick, UK; 5. CL:AIRE, London, UK; 6. Environment Agency, Bristol, UK and 7. Shell Global Solutions, Rijswijk, The Netherlands.
*Corresponding author. Frank Evans, National Grid Property, National Grid House, Warwick Technology Park, Gallows Hill, Warwick, CV34 6DA E-mail: frank.evans@nationalgrid.com
The aim of this presentation is to inform about the new practical tools that SuRF-UK has developed to help to undertake a sustainable remediation assessment. It is particularly targeted at site owners/managers and service providers (consultants contractors), regulators and authorities.
The UK Sustainable Remediation Forum (SuRF-UK) was established in 2007 to support the application of sustainability principles for remediation in the UK. It is a collaborative, multi-stakeholder initiative co-ordinated by CL:AIRE with a Steering Group that incorporates members from regulatory bodies, industry, consultancy and academia.
The SuRF-UK framework has received an enthusiastic welcome and is now widely used in the UK and elsewhere in the world. It includes a comprehensive set of supporting guidance including a framework document, indicator categories and suggestions, technical support for establishing sustainability assessment boundaries and parameters, baseline sustainability management practices and carrying out qualitative sustainability assessment (see www.claire.co.uk/surfuk).
This presentation will focus on the use of Sustainability Management Practices (SMPs) to support operations throughout the contaminated land management process from site investigation through to remediation deployment and verification and will demonstrate how National Grid Property have used the SMP concept and established a set of expected standards to help embed sustainability into their land regeneration activities.
SuRF-UK defines SMPs as “relatively simple, common sense actions that can be implemented at any stage in a land contamination management project to improve its environmental, social and/or economic performance”. SMPs can be used to improve the benefits (e.g. resource efficiency, cost) or reduce the negative impacts (e.g. spillages, complaints) of a project, leading to project ‘sustainability gains’, without requiring a formal sustainability assessment (e.g. following a framework such as CL:AIRE, 2010) at site-specific level. SMPs may also be used where sustainability gains are sought at a programme of work level using generic criteria or standards that can apply to a range of project types.
The use of best (or good) practice by the contaminated land sector has been encouraged in the UK for a few decades. This is supported by a robust range of standards, codes of practice and technical guidance published by authoritative bodies from which the SMPs are derived. SMPs are not necessarily “new things to do” in addition to standard practice. They do however offer a way of changing behaviours or actions to reduce the cost, use of natural resources and/or the negative impact on community or the environment.
What is new is that the actions are mapped against the SuRF-UK indicator categories to place even simple and low cost actions in a sustainability context. It is SuRF-UK’s contention that SMPs provide practical and generally inexpensive actions that can yield demonstrable ‘sustainability gains’ for a project. They should be selected where there is a clear benefit in doing so on a project-by-project basis.
A set of headline activities covers generic management activities and also those associated with the main stages for the management of land contamination:
• Procurement
• Land use planning
• Risk assessment (primarily Site Investigation)
• Options Appraisal
• Implementation of remediation – Design
• Implementation of remediation – Construction and Operation
• Implementation of remediation – Verification/Long-term Monitoring and Closure
The SMPs are provided in an Excel spreadsheet file, downloadable from www.claire.co.uk/surfuk. This format means that the SMPs can be readily modified or updated. If modified or updated it is important that the source of information from which a new SMP is derived is cited. A report is also available that describes the development of SMPs and instructions for use of the SMP spreadsheet (CL:AIRE, 2014).
The benefits to a practitioner and client in adopting sustainable approaches to all activities associated with the management of land contamination include:
• Demonstrate compliance with legal or corporate sustainability policies
• Save capital and/or operational costs
• Achieve a reduction in emissions to air, water and land
• Achieve efficient use of energy and natural resources
• Minimise production and disposal of waste, and optimise recycling and re-use
• Achieve or exceed corporate targets
• Support local businesses and contribute to local employment
• Be a “good neighbour”
• Operate transparently
• Minimise plant mobilisations
• Optimise data collection.
References:
CL:AIRE, 2010. A framework for Assessing the Sustainability of Soil and Groundwater Remediation. CL:AIRE, London.
CL:AIRE, 2014. Sustainable Management Practices for Management of Land Contamination. CL:AIRE, London.
Development of a Green Remediation tool for sustainability assessment of soil remediation in Japan
In order to promote sustainable remediation of contaminated sites, we developed a green remediation tool inserted with 16 soil remediation methods. This tool includes 19-100 (?) environmental inventories, and can integrate these inventories into a single index (a monetary value “yen”) using a life cycle impact assessment method based on endpoint modeling (LIME2).
In this study, we used this tool to evaluate remediation of an arsenic-contaminated site. Five remediation methods, were compared: 1) excavation and off-site landfill disposal (EOL), 2) excavation and on-site landfill and washing of contaminated soil (EOW), 3) in situ insolubilization (ISI), 4) in situ containment (ISC), 5) and groundwater monitoring (MN).
Our results showed that the integrated environmental impact associated with the EOL method totaled 1.3 million yen/3000m3, followed by 1.18 million yen/3000m3 for the EOW method, 0.72 million yen/3000m3 for the ISC method, and 0.61 million/3000m3 yen for the ISI method, indicating that in situ remediation is more advantageous, in terms of environmental impact, than off-site remediation. At 0.01 million yen/3000m3, the MN method exhibited the least impact. Based on the damage analysis, all of the remediation methods were associated with markedly higher integrated impacts on human health and social assets than on biodiversity and primary production. In terms of impact category analysis, major impacts associated with each remediation method were global warming, urban area air pollution, and resources consumption. Furthermore, contribution analysis of each remediation process to the total integrated impact revealed that energy consumption contributed markedly to the impact of off-site remediation, whereas the utilization of materials accounted for over 70% of the total impact of in situ remediation. Transport of contaminated soil was a major factor affecting the impact of off-site remediation. The changes of inventories including CO2 emission, PM10 generation and oil combustion were the main contributors to the impact associated with all remediation methods. We believe that these results could serve as an effective reference for remediating heavy metal-contaminated sites or for identifying weaknesses in a particular remediation process.
Within the last decade “sustainable remediation”, i.e. enhancing the “sustainability” of contaminated site remediation by applying the principles of sustainable development has been discussed intensively by different networks and stakeholder groups from different perspectives (SURF networks, NICOLE, Common Forum and others). Among others, the need for appropriate (holistic) assessment frameworks, methods and indicators to compare and rank different remediation options regarding their sustainability has been identified as one commonly accepted outcome of these discussions.
While only a few assessment frameworks have been published so far (e. g. SURF UK), a large variety of “tool-boxes” and “ready-to-use” software packages are in use to identify the most sustainable among different remediation options. As the principle of sustainable development is claiming intra-/intergenerational equity in terms of environmental, economic and social implications, comparing different options regarding their sustainability can be seen as a classical multi-criteria assessment problem. Although the multi-criteria problem is recognised and all three pillars of sustainability are addressed by most of the assessment approaches, there are remarkable methodological differences. Surprisingly, this applies in particular for the assessment of environmental effects.
In our contribution we will give a brief overview on the historical development of sustainable remediation and the main players promoting its implementation into contaminated site management. We will address the theoretical background of assessing sustainability and discuss the suitability of different assessment methods. Special emphasis will be given on the selection of environmental sustainability indicators since identifying appropriate environmental indicators, in our opinion, represent one of the most crucial issues in order to get reliable assessment results. The theoretical discussion will be exemplified by an analysis of recent trends in the assessment of sustainable remediation. Based on contributions to scientific conferences, such as AquaConSoil 2013 or the International Conferences on Sustainable Remediation 2012 and 2014, it can be shown that contrary to secondary environmental effects, which are considered by almost all assessment methods, only a minority of assessment methods are counting for primary environmental effects. Generally, primary environmental effects are linked to the environmental goals of remediation measures (e.g. reducing risks for humans and the environment), whereas secondary environmental effects comprise accompanying side effects (e. g. greenhouse gas emissions, waste generation, water consumption, energy demand), which mostly are unintended. Similar to secondary environmental effects, remediation options may also differ in their ability to meet environmental goals significantly; meeting the remediation targets set by the authority may be seen as a minimum requirement. Thus, neglecting primary environmental effects may result in a biased ranking of remediation options. Other examples for a considerable impact on assessment results are related to the role of holistic assessment frameworks and system boundaries.
In conclusion, an inappropriate selection of sustainability indicators, and in particular counting for secondary environmental effects only, implies the danger of the tail wagging the dog.
In order to improve and support decision-making regarding the selection of remedial techniques for contaminated sites a multi-criteria assessment (MCA) method has been developed. The MCA tool compares the sustainability of remediation alternatives by integrating environmental as well as societal and economic criteria in the assessment. In addition, the method encourages stakeholder participation by including stakeholder-derived criteria weights.
The MCA method was developed using a hierarchical structure and includes five main decision criteria: Remedial effect, remediation cost, remediation time, environmental impacts and societal impacts. Environmental impacts and societal impacts are subdivided into a number of sub criteria. The environmental impacts cover mainly secondary impacts to the environment caused by the remedial activities and are assessed in a life cycle assessment (LCA). The societal impacts are to a large extent local impacts and are mainly assessed in a more qualitative manner on a scale from 1-5. The performance on each main criterion is converted to a score and an overall score is obtained by multiplying each score by a criteria weight.
To illustrate the use of the method it was applied to assess four management scenarios for the Groyne 42 site in Denmark. Groyne 42 is one of the largest contaminated sites in Denmark with an area of 20,000 m2 and is located on the west coast of Jutland. In the 50s and 60s large amounts of waste, mainly residues from pesticide production, was disposed of at the site. In the 70s and 80s, parts of the contamination were excavated, but the deeper contamination was not removed and contains approximately 100 tons of contaminants. In 2006 a sheet pile wall was installed around the contaminated site in order to prevent the transportation of the contaminants to the North Sea.
The Central Denmark Region is responsible for the management of the site and have proposed four different management scenarios: (1) Excavation of the site followed by soil treatment, (2) In situ alkaline hydrolysis, (3) In situ steam enhanced extraction and (4) Continued encapsulation of the site (no removal of contaminants).
The five management scenarios were assessed using the MCA method described above. The various impacts were weighted using a stakeholder panel who assessed the importance of the five main criteria (Effect, Economy, Time, Environment and Society) in relation to each other. The stakeholders gave the highest weighting to the remedial effect of the methods and to the societal impacts.
The developed multi-criteria method provides useful insight into how the remediation scenarios compare to each other in terms of remedial effect, cost, time use and external impacts to environment and society. In addition, it offers a possibility for summing the weighted criteria scores in order to identify which option is more sustainable. For the Groyne 42 case study, the excavation option obtained the lowest overall score in the MCA and was therefore found to be the more sustainable option. This was especially due to the fact that this option could efficiently remove both pesticides and mercury and therefore obtained a high score in Effect, which was given a large weight by stakeholders. The continued encapsulation was found to be less sustainable than the other options. This was partly due to the fact, that this option would not improve the reputation of the area and therefore had large social impacts.