Transcript Document
Sustainability Concern of Contaminated Site Remediation Dr. Daniel Tsang Lecturer Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering University of Canterbury New Zealand Background Sustainable development advance civilization without jeopardizing our future generations and natural diversity utilize limited natural resources as efficiently as possible while preserving the environment with prudent care meet human needs in the indefinite future future benefits outweigh cost of remediation environmental impacts of remediation are less than impacts of leaving contaminated land untreated decision-making process intergenerational risk societal engagement and support Background Traditional – excavation and landfill disposal (‘dig and dump’) ease of use quick exit applicable for complex contamination landfill space? non-recyclable waste? transportation? fuel? greenhouse gas? backfill materials? "Do you consider the sustainability of any aspects of a project in the selection of a remediation technology?" To what extent we ‘walk our talk’? (CL:AIRE, 2007) Key Concerns potential for long-term liability (exit point of the site) flexibility for future land use noise, dust, off-site transportation, risk to public, etc global sustainability value of land redevelopment for residential, commercial, industrial use local community human health and local environmental impact natural resources (materials and energy), non-recyclable waste, greenhouse gas, etc stakeholder acceptance reputation and track record Remedial Options Example issues to be addressed (Bardos et al., 2001) Multi-criteria analysis semi-qualitative, semi-quantitative method integrated interpretation of inventory results individual impacts (triple bottom line) environmental aspects social aspects economic aspects a range of categories and sub-categories scorings (outranking) weightings (relative importance) Multi-criteria analysis Scores for excavation and landfill disposal (Harbottle et al., 2007) Risk & Technical Suitability Risks human health impact on ecosystem Source Pathway Receptor Technical suitability (risk-based land management) reduce potential risk to an acceptable level site-specific risk-based treatment objectives (fit-for-purpose land use) Subjective perception lay public technical experts Risk & Technical Suitability Subjective perception on risks priority? owner/developer property/land value health effects regulators ecological or commercial value to be gained from remediation? contaminated sediments at ports, lakes, and rivers? contaminated unconfined aquifers? Risk & Technical Suitability Subjective perception on technical suitability in-situ options long-term liability (e.g., in-situ containment, S/S)? spreading, residual, duration, effectiveness (e.g., PRBs, soil flushing, phytoremediation, bioremediation)? ex-situ options associated noise, dust? air pollution? risk to neighbours? impact on soil/ecology? preference of ex-situ or in-situ options? stakeholders acceptance/confidence? local community wider community with special interests Cost/Benefit generic costs available; precise costs can be quoted and contracted market(?) value of remediation more uncertain (e.g., location, location, location) Fixed Costs Variable Costs Permitting, Safety, and Regulatory Site Excavation Site Characterization Equipment Lease and Depreciation Characterization Studies Labour (1/2/3 shifts) Bench-Scale Treatability Tests Personal Protective Equipment Vendor Selection/Contracting Fuel/Electricity Process Design and Optimization Water Site Infrastructure Requirements and Preparation Chemical agents (for chemical-enhanced soil washing) Transport of Equipment to the Site Sampling and Chemical Analysis Plant Erection Process Water Treatment Decontamination and Decommissioning of Equipment Disposal Cost of Contaminated Fines Fraction (optional in chemical-enhanced soil washing) Transport of Equipment from the Site Disposal Cost of Treatment Process Wastes (e.g., sludge cake) Local & Global Sustainability Excavation and Landfill Disposal Process Flow (Harbottle et al., 2008) Soil Washing Process Flow (Diamond et al., 1999) Local & Global Sustainability Containment Process Flow (Diamond et al., 1999) Local & Global Sustainability Life cycle assessment of each process (Blanc et al., 2004) Local & Global Sustainability Permeable reactive barriers (Bayer and Finkel, 2006) Local & Global Sustainability Limitations Complex life cycle assessment of each process data-intensive site-specific detailed impact assessment data not always available beforehand semi-quantitative → qualitative and subjective a tool to facilitate the identification of key impacts, decisionmaking, and community engagement Summary MCA compares overall performance of various technologies variability of technical operations, site-specific conditions, subjective perspectives on the relative importance (weighting) and technical performance (scoring) in various impacts complex, data-intensive life cycle assessment may be impossible ahead of project implementation with these limitations in mind, a prudent assessment of overall sustainability of remediation alternatives can facilitate the identification of key impacts, decision-making, and community engagement Thanks for your time – Questions are most welcome ([email protected])