Report of the NICOLE/SAGTA workshop: sustainable remediation

REPORT OF THE NICOLE / SAGTA Workshop: Sustainable Remediation

3 March 2008 London, UK

www.nicole.org

Compiled by Paul Bardos NICOLE Information Manager r3 Environmental Technology Limited www.r3environmental.com

economic

environmental

social

so1

ec1

ev1

s1

s2

ev2

so2

ec2

http://www.nicole.org

http://www.r3environmental.com

Report of the NICOLE / SAGTA Workshop: Sustainable Remediation

Page 2

Acknowledgements

NICOLE and SAGTA gratefully acknowledge

• the speakers and chairpersons for their contributions to the workshop and their comments on this report

• the members of the Organising Committee: Paul Walker (National Grid Property / SAGTA Chairman), Ruth Chippendale (Shell / SAGTA vice chairperson), Doug Laidler (SAGTA Secretary), Markus Ackermann (DuPont / NICOLE Industry), Hans Slenders (Arcadis / NICOLE Service Providers), Marjan Euser (NICOLE Secretary)

• English Partnerships for hosting this event and • CL:AIRE for facilitating the event

• English Partnerships: English Partnerships is the national regeneration agency, supporting high quality sustainable growth in England. We are a non-departmental public body and our sponsor government department is Communities and Local Government (CLG). More info at www.englishpartnerships.co.uk

• CL:AIRE: CL:AIRE is an independent, not-for-profit organisation, established to stimulate the regeneration of contaminated land in the UK by raising awareness of, and confidence in, practical sustainable remediation technologies. More info at www.claire.co.uk

Please note: links are not live in this PDF document

http://www.englishpartnerships.co.uk

http://www.claire.co.uk


Page 3

SAGTA SAGTA (The Soil and Groundwater Technology Association) is a non-profit making association of member organisations drawn from cross sectoral UK landholder companies with common interests in contaminated land management. It was initiated in 1995 with assistance for the UK’s then Department of the Environment to act as authoritative sounding board of industry’s views for policy makers and regulators.

SAGTA’s aims and objectives, which have remained constant, are to:

• Actively contribute to help form policy and translate it into practice

• Stimulate and accelerate development of most cost-effective technologies and methodologies:

• Review and share members’ experiences through case studies

SAGTA currently has 18 member organisations, which must be property ‘problem’ holders active in land management. Members have a primary interest as technology users and the Association’s activities include knowledge sharing and dissemination; constructive review of UK research programmes in contaminated land; links to regulators and policy makers as well as UK and international networks. SAGTA is also a supporter of the UK demonstration programme - CL:AIRE. For further general information please visit SAGTA’s web site: www.sagta.org.uk

Membership fees are currently £2900 per year and for further information please contact SAGTA’s Secretary:

Douglas Laidler Secretary SAGTA c/o Atkins Tel: +44 (0) 1372726140 Woodcote Grove Ashley Road Epsom E-mail: [email protected] Surrey KT18 5BW

http://www.sagta.org.uk

mailto:[email protected]


Page 4

NICOLE NICOLE (Network for Contaminated Land in Europe) was set up in 1995 as a result of the CEFIC “SUSTECH” programme which promotes co-operation between industry and academia on the development of sustainable technologies. NICOLE is the principal forum that European business uses to develop and influence the state of the art in contaminated land management in Europe. NICOLE was created to bring together problem holders and researchers throughout Europe who are interested in all aspects of contaminated land. It is open to public and private sector organisations. NICOLE was initiated as a Concerted Action within the European Commission’s Environment and Climate RTD Programme in 1996. It has been self-funding since February 1999.

NICOLE’s overall objectives are to:

• Provide a European forum for the dissemination and exchange of knowledge and ideas about contaminated land arising from industrial and commercial activities;

• Identify research needs and promote collaborative research that will enable European industry to identify, assess and manage contaminated sites more efficiently and cost-effectively; and

• Collaborate with other international networks inside and outside Europe and encompass the views of a wide a range of interest groups and stakeholders (for example, land developers, local/regional authorities and the insurance/financial investment community).

NICOLE currently has 145 members. Membership fees are used to support and further the aims of the network, including: technical exchanges, network conferences, special interest meetings, brokerage of research and research contacts and information dissemination via a web site, newsletter and journal publications. NICOLE includes an Industry Subgroup (ISG) – with 29 members; a Service Providers Subgroup (SPG) with 44 members; 55 individual members from the academic sector/research community; and 17 members from other organisations, including research planners, non profit making organisations, other networks, funding organisations. Some members are involved in both the ISG and the SPG. For further general information, further meeting reports, network information and links to contaminated land related web sites, please visit NICOLE's web site: www.nicole.org.

Membership fees are currently 3,500 EURO per year for companies (1,750 EURO for smes), and 150 EURO per year for academic institutions. For membership requests please contact:

Ms Marjan Euser Secretariat NICOLE TNO PO Box 342 7300 AH Apeldoorn The Netherlands

Tel: + 31 55 5493 927 Fax: +31 55 5493 231 E-mail : [email protected]


mailto:[email protected]


Page 5

Executive Summary Achieving sustainable development has been a long term goal of national policies throughout Europe. For the UK, development of Brownfield sites has been a particular aspect.

The possibility and implications of encountering contamination on such land as a result of both current and former land use has in turn been recognised and we have provisions in policy and guidance that acknowledge the need to properly characterise land and, when necessary, deal with contamination as part of development. In the European context, similar priorities apply.

Placing this in the wider context of the goal of achieving sustainable development, there is an inevitable need to undertake the individual elements of the development process in ways that will individually contribute to this aspiration. Indeed, there is an ever expanding portfolio of initiatives, regulation, design standards and guidance that seek to underpin the application of such principles throughout the development process of land preparation, infrastructure and building and ongoing management in both UK and within Europe.

Undertaking the land remediation components of development with approaches that recognise principles of sustainability therefore forms a significant element of the process. At the same time, these same principles would also be relevant to other circumstances where the undertaking of land remediation is a factor, such as work required to address statutory regulations.

The SAGTA / NICOLE Workshop on 3rd March drew together current thinking and approaches, issues of both benefits and costs as well as the perceived gaps and uncertainties that may act as specific challenges to achieving sustainable remediation.

Presentations were divided into two themes: defining sustainable remediation and how sustainable development might be better implemented in remediation. Several speakers from NICOLE, SAGTA and English Partnerships provided scene setting viewpoints, with papers from the UK, Austria and Switzerland exploring industry and regulatory in more detail. A series of case studies of decision support approaches and examples of sustainable remediation provided examples of implementation. These two themes of defining and implementing “sustainable remediation” were then explored further in two parallel syndicate sessions to provide conclusions for the meeting.

There is now a general acceptance that the aim of remediation is the control of risks to human health and the environment, whether a project is driven by a development need, a regulatory need or a corporate need like mergers and acquisition. Following Brundtland countries have elaborated detailed sustainable development policies. The “sustainable remediation” debate is that these risk management actions (remediation) must themselves be a sustainable development.

The workshop arrived at the following description of sustainable remediation: a “framework in order to embed balanced decision making in the selection of the strategy to address land [and/or water contamination] as an integral part of sustainable land use”. Any definition must allow ability to

– Make risk based decisions

– Consider [and define] boundaries in time and space

– Ensure a balance of outcomes can be achieved

– Consider land [and water] use first as part of the process

The key elements behind this approach are as follows. The basic decision making rationale behind contaminated land management is a basis in risk assessment. However, the means of achieving risk management must in itself not place unreasonable demands on the environment, economy and society, the three key elements of sustainable development.

This description is not yet a definition, but rather describes a process to arrive at sustainable remediation. While the concept of sustainability is founded in the Brundtland report there are


Page 6

differences in its interpretation in the context of soil remediation. Key areas of debate include the following.

Technical people tend to like measurable and quantifiable things. The Brundtland concept can be seen as a little woolly to be used in a quantitative comparison of risk management options. A number of delegates preferred a concept that was more limited in scope than Brundtland, focussing in particular on measurable environmental and resource impacts (such as by life-cycle based tools, carbon footprints / intensity and cost benefit analysis). However such quantitative tools do not express the full scope of dimensions of sustainable development(see Box 1), and as such will not address a wide range of wider sustainable development considerations as diverse as soil functionality to “inclusiveness” in decision making. There was support for a tiered approach which began with simple indicator based qualitative tools, with quantitative tools used only where these simpler tools could not reliably distinguish between options, or where there was serious disagreement between stakeholders. This was also seen as a means of reducing the costs and complexity of decision making. There was a clear message that “sustainability is more than carbon”, and scepticism about the usefulness of generalised metrics for remediation technologies such as €/m2 or kg carbon per kg contaminant removed.

A lot of discussions centred, effectively, on what are the systems being compared. For example, remediation may be a component part of a larger redevelopment project: should a separate sustainability appraisal of the remediation step be undertaken in this situation? Some felt that it was unnecessary as the major sustainable development decisions and impacts were at the level of the redevelopment projects. Others felt that redevelopment was not the only driver for risk management, which in itself should be intrinsically “sustainable”, and that it would be invidious to treatment (say) for risk management activities for ongoing facilities in a different way to risk management activities for sites being redeveloped. Another point raised several times was to ask if risk management objectives themselves should be modifiable in the light of sustainability assessments.

Conclusions

NICOLE and SAGTA consider that a risk management approach to land contamination management should be viewed as a given. From the viewpoint of defining sustainable remediation, therefore, sustainability criteria needed to be taken into account in both setting the goals and, through appropriate options appraisal, the methods used to achieve them.

It was also suggested that sustainability might be a parallel consideration at more than one level, for example: selection of the risk management approach for a particular characterised and agreed problem site; for a redevelopment project requiring risk management works as a component; across a municipality or other such local area; and as a part of regional, national and supranational policy.

It was also widely suggested that NICOLE should adopt a leadership position in establishing and developing a sustainable remediation debate across Europe, and as such, through continuous support and feedback, it needed to link with the pioneering work now underway by CL:AIRE with its SURF-UK initiative.

The full report provides summaries of the papers given, along with a discussion based on points raised during the meeting, and comments from a number of delegates after the meeting.


Page 7

Contents

Executive Summary 5

1 Introduction 8

2 Presentations 11 2.1 Sharing Experience Aids Policy to Practice, Paul Walker, Chairman SAGTA 11 2.2 NICOLE Network on Industrially Contaminated Land in Europe, Johan De Fraye, Chairman NICOLE 12 2.3 Sustainable Remediation Forum (SURF UK), Nicola Harries, CL:AIRE, UK 13 2.4 Sustainable remediation, regulatory and policy aspects - Possibilities and barriers in the EU, Dietmar Müller, EURODEMO+ and Federal Environment Agency (UBA), Austria 16 2.5 Sustainable remediation of contaminated sites in Switzerland, Bernhard Hammer, Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), Switzerland 19 2.6 Regulatory approach in the UK, Brian Bone, Environment Agency 21 2.7 Tools for evaluating sustainability: REC and ROSA, Laurent Bakker, TAUW, NL 24 2.8 Use of cost-benefit analysis to quantify sustainability of remediation, Stuart Arch, Worley Parsons Komex, UK 27 2.9 An example of sustainable remediation, Hans Slenders, ARCADIS, NL 28

3 Breakout Sessions 30 3.1 Defining Sustainable Remediation, Euan Hall, Land Restoration Trust; UK and Ruth Chippendale, Shell, UK 30 3.2 Towards Implementation, Co Molenaar, VROM NL; Hans Slenders, ARCADIS, NL; and Paul Bardos, r3 environmental technology ltd, UK 31

4 Discussion 32

5 Concluding Remarks 35

Annex 1 List of Participants 36


Page 8

1 Introduction Achieving sustainable development has been a long term goal of national policies throughout Europe. For the UK, development of Brownfield sites has been a particular aspect.

The possibility and implications of encountering contamination on such land as a result of both current and former land use has in turn been recognised and we have provisions in policy and guidance that acknowledge the need to properly characterise land and, when necessary, deal with contamination as part of development. In the European context, similar priorities apply.

Placing this in the wider context of the goal of achieving sustainable development, there is an inevitable need to undertake the individual elements of the development process in ways that will individually contribute to this aspiration. Indeed, there is an ever expanding portfolio of initiatives, regulation, design standards and guidance that seek to underpin the application of such principles throughout the development process of land preparation, infrastructure and building and ongoing management in both UK and within Europe.

Undertaking the land remediation components of development with approaches that recognise principles of sustainability therefore forms a significant element of the process. At the same time, these same principles would also be relevant to other circumstances where the undertaking of land remediation is a factor, such as work required to address statutory regulations.

The SAGTA / NICOLE Workshop on 3rd March drew together current thinking and approaches, issues of both benefits and costs as well as the perceived gaps and uncertainties that may act as specific challenges to achieving sustainable remediation. Previous reports produced by SAGTA and NICOLE are listed in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1 Selected SAGTA Reports from 2002 onwards1

Report No

18 Ecological Risk Assessment June 2002

19 Landfill Directive – Issues and Way Forward September 2002

20 Human Health Risk Assessment March 2003

21 Site Exit Criteria December 2002

22 Cost Benefit June 2003

23 Part IIA Reviewed September 2003

24 Reviewing Technologies: A Question of Confidence December 2003

25 Management of Financial Risks September 2004

26 Non-Chemicals - Perceived Risk? December 2004

27 In Situ Measurement March 2005

28 Part IIA - Extension to Include Radioactivity December 2005

29 Remediation Technologies- Strategies For Success March 2006

30 Water Issues and Land Contamination – Legislation and Management

June 2006

31 Waste Management – Landfill Directive December 2006

32 Risk Based Approaches to Managing Land Contamination March 2007

Presentations were divided into two themes: defining sustainable remediation and how sustainable development might be better implemented in remediation. Several speakers from NICOLE, SAGTA and

1 All reports can be found on SAGTA website: www.sagta.org.uk

http://www.sagta.org.uk


Page 9

English Partnerships provided scene setting viewpoints, with papers from the UK, Austria and Switzerland exploring industry and regulatory in more detail. A series of case studies of decision support approaches and examples of sustainable remediation provided examples of implementation. These two themes of defining and implementing “sustainable remediation” were then explored further in two parallel syndicate sessions to provide conclusions for the meeting.

This report provides summaries of the papers given, along with conclusions based on points raised during the meeting, and comments from a number of delegates after the meeting.


Page 10

Table 2 Selected NICOLE Publications from 2004 Onwards

2007 Report of the NICOLE Workshop: Using baselines in liability management – what do upcoming Directives require from us? Brussels, Belgium. See www.nicole.org/publications/library.asp?listing=1

2007 Report of the NICOLE Workshop: Redevelopment of sites – the industrial perspective, Akersloot, the Netherlands. See www.nicole.org/publications/library.asp?listing=1 and Land Contamination and Reclamation, 16 (1) 50-75

2007 NICOLE Position Paper (2007) Comments on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Waste. NICOLE, TNO, The Netherlands. Downloadable from www.nicole.org

2007

NICOLE Position Paper (2007) Concerning European Commission Communication “Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection” COM(2006)231 final (“strategy”)& Proposal for Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the protection of soil and amending Directive 2004/35/EC (“directive”). Available from NICOLE Secretariat, TNO, the Netherlands. www.nicole.org

2006

Report of the NICOLE 1996-2006 Ten Year Network Anniversary Workshop: Making Management of Contaminated Land an Obsolete Business - Challenges for the Future. 5 to October 2006, Leuven, Belgium. See http://www.nicole.org/publications/library.asp?listing=1, and Land Contamination and Reclamation, 15 (2) 261-287

2006 NICOLE News 2006 issue, www.nicole.org/publications/library.asp?listing=9

2006 Report of the NICOLE Workshop: Data Acquisition for a Good Conceptual Site Model 10 – 12 May 2006, Carcassonne, France. See www.nicole.org/publications/library.asp?listing=1, and Land Contamination and Reclamation, 15 (1) 94-144

2006

Report of the NICOLE Workshop: The Impact of EU Directives on the management of contaminated land, 1-2 December 2005, Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy. See www.nicole.org/publications/library.asp?listing=1 and Land Contamination and Reclamation 14 (4) 855-887

2005 NICOLE Report: Monitored Natural Attenuation: Demonstration and Review of the Applicability of MNA at Eight field sites, http://www.nicole.org/publications/library.asp?listing=5 (summary). The full report can be ordered from the NICOLE Secretariat

2005 NICOLE Report: The Interaction between Soil and Waste Legislation in Ten European Union Countries sites, http://www.nicole.org/publications/library.asp?listing=7 (summary). The full report can be ordered from the NICOLE Secretariat


2005 Report of the NICOLE Workshop: State of the art of (Ecological) Risk Assessment, 15-16-17 June 2005, Stockholm, Sweden see http://www.nicole.org/publications/library.asp?listing=1 and Land Contamination and Reclamation 14 (3) 745-773

2005

Report of the NICOLE Workshop: Unlocking the Barriers to the Recovery of Soil and the Rehabilitation of Contaminated Land. 15-16 November 2004, Sofia, Bulgaria see www.nicole.org/publications/library.asp?listing=1 and Land Contamination and Reclamation 14 (1) 137-164

2004 NICOLE Booklet Communication on Contaminated Land, www.nicole.org/publications/library.asp?listing=2


2004 Report of the NICOLE Workshop: Sediments and sludges: an issue for industry?, Frankfurt, Germany see www.nicole.org/publications/library.asp?listing=1 and Land Contamination and Reclamation 12 (4) 379-400

2004 Report of the NICOLE Workshop: NICOLE Projects Reporting Day, Runcorn, UK - see www.nicole.org/publications/library.asp?listing=1 and, Land Contamination and Reclamation 12 (3) 286 - 308

http://www.nicole.org/publications/library.asp?listing=1


















Page 11

2 Presentations 2.1 Sharing Experience Aids Policy to Practice, Paul Walker, Chairman SAGTA

The Soil and Groundwater Technology Association (SAGTA) is a non-profit making association of member organisations drawn from cross sectoral UK landholder companies with common interests in contaminated land management. It was initiated in 1995 with assistance for the then Department of the Environment to act as authoritative sounding board of industry’s views. The aims and objectives of SAGTA are to:

• Actively contribute to forming policy and translating it into practice; • Review and share members’ experiences through case studies; • Stimulate and accelerate development of most cost-effective technologies and methodologies. It targets areas where improvements can be made through working together and steers research towards knowledge gaps as well as feeding back experiences to regulators. It is not a lobbying organisation.

SAGTA is a network formed by memoranda of agreement. It operates on a non-profit making basis. It is led by a steering group and has an elected chair and deputy chair with one year tenure. Its interactions include members’ meetings and workshops, and it holds four formal meetings per year including its annual general meeting. Membership is on a corporate basis. SAGTA currently has 16 member organisations, which must be property ‘problem’ holders active in land management but not developers per se. Members have a primary interest as technology users. Activities also include knowledge sharing and dissemination; constructive review of UK research programmes in contaminated land; assessment and awareness raising for emerging methodologies/technologies; links to regulators and policy makers and other networks (e.g. NICOLE) and projects carried out by its members. SAGTA is also a supporter of the UK demonstration programme CL:AIRE (www.claire.co.uk) providing its chairman since its inception and two board members.

SAGTA has organised a wide ranging series of workshops, including recently:

• Risk based approaches in contaminated land management • Planning and consents • Research into land contamination • Effective use of statistics • Sustainable remediation

Planned future workshops are to cover:

• Mega-sites • Ecological risk assessment.

SAGTA outputs include the following, many of which are accessible via www.sagta.org.uk:

• SAGTA reports, issues papers and workshop position papers covering themes such as state of the art, exchanging perspectives, gaps and priorities and areas where SAGTA can contribute.

• Projects and initiatives such as “CLUSTER” a project investigating the prospects for technology use for small site remediation by using one site as a central hub ; and statistics guidance.

• Interaction with regulators – in particular meetings with the Environment Agency.

Overall To date, SAGTA has published 32 reports on workshops it has convened reports covering together with summaries on the proceedings of joint events with other bodies where SAGTA has made major contributions to the programme and its organisation. All reports can be found on its website.

Overall SAGTA has found that most stakeholders are willing to engage in constructive debate. However its view is that such debate must be translated into actions. Contaminated land management involves many disciplines, however topics must be considered holistically, for example sustainability. Engaging local authorities is difficult, while individuals attend, roll-out to over 400 local regulators in the UK is


http://www.sagta.org.uk:


Page 12

problematic. This is exacerbated because regulations and regulators are more regionalised with devolution. So while SAGTA regards inclusion as very important, it is conscious that it requires more input. Engagement with national regulators is very valuable to SAGTA and to help wide participation, SAGTA endeavours to ensure venues are convenient and adequate notice is available to ensure the resources of all parties are optimised. This does put a brake on progress, nonetheless useful progress is being made.

Future challenges identified by SAGTA include:

• Ensuring regulation is proportionate • Maintaining the profile of issues facing those managing land contamination with government • Use of sustainable remediation strategies and techniques • Encourage technology supply into the market • Impact assessment of draft legislation and guidance • Ensuring standard competencies for those involved in the industry

These challenges will only be met by joined-up thinking from joined-up teams. The opportunity to extend networking with NICOLE is therefore welcomed.

2.2 NICOLE Network on Industrially Contaminated Land in Europe, Johan De Fraye, Chairman NICOLE

The mission and ambition of NICOLE I to Enable European industry to identify, assess and manage industrially contaminated land efficiently, cost effectively and sustainably. A general organisation outline is provided on Page 2 of this report. NICOLE promotes Risk based land management, and its interests are to promote the following: • Sound scientific basis • Technology development • Best practises and evaluation tools • Intelligent policy • Communication • Sharing knowledge

NICOLE’s current membership includes 28 industrial companies, 41 service providing / technology developing companies and 73 members from universities, research institutions, non-profit organisations, and other networks. Its organisational structure is shown in Figure 1.

Steering Group

Industry Subgroup Service ProvidersSubgroup

Information Manager Secretariat

Steering Group

Industry Subgroup Service ProvidersSubgroup

Information Manager Secretariat

Figure 1 NICOLE Organisational Structure

The NICOLE Steering Group sets general policy and operational directions for the network. Organisational and dissemination tasks are implemented by its secretariat and information manager. NICOLE also includes two subgroups one for industry members (akin to SAGTA) and one for service / technology providers. Over the past year and a half NICOLE has begun to deliver a large amount of its technical activities via “Working Groups” which are open to any member of NICOLE. Currently the following Working Groups are operating in NICOLE:


Page 13

• Groundwater • Ecological Risk Assessment • Monitored Natural Attenuation • Soil • Waste • Site Characterisation • Brownfields. Many of these track EU level policy initiatives such as the Water Framework Directive and Groundwater Daughter Directive; The Soil Framework Directive and the Waste Framework Directive. Keynote position papers produced by NICOLE have been submitted to discussions for the Soil and Waste Framework Directives. The groundwater Working Group provided the vice-chair of the European Commission drafting group on risk assessment, and has been given the chairmanship of the drafting group on guidance documents for the Groundwater Daughter Directive. The ecological risk assessment Working Group tracks the implementation of Environmental Liability Directive in different countries, and its likely impacts. The brownfields Working Group is the latest to have been initiated. Its start-up meeting was held in Belgium, March 27 2008. Its aim is to develop approach to transfer of contaminated land allowing land holders to divest land with as much confidence and certainty of a ‘clean exit’ from liability as possible.

NICOLE has a longstanding interest in the consideration of sustainable development in contaminated land management. In March 2003 NICOLE organised a workshop on “Management of Contaminated Land towards a Sustainable Future: Opportunities, Challenges and Barriers for the Sustainable Management of Contaminated Land in Europe” in Barcelona2. It also supported a NICOLE project on “Sustainability of natural attenuation of aromatics” carried out by Bioclear, Port Authority Rotterdam, and Shell Global Solutions3.

The London workshop reflects both NICOLE’s longstanding interest in the sustainability of remediation and the initiation of a UK Sustainable Remediation Forum (SURF - UK), which links to a similar forum in the USA. SURF-UK is supported by SAGTA, CL:AIRE and English Partnerships.

2.3 Sustainable Remediation Forum (SURF UK), Nicola Harries, CL:AIRE, UK

The key elements of sustainable development are illustrated in Figure 2. Sustainable development requires a balance between economics, society and environment.

With an increasing focus on the sustainability of general business practices and being accountable for carbon emissions, the management of contaminated land has also come under the spotlight. Work on contaminated sites has traditionally been compartmentalised, which has not allowed the consideration of the environment in a holistic sense. To enhance the sustainability of outcomes in the remediation of contaminated land, this mindset must change.

In common with other countries, the UK has an increasing policy focus on sustainable development. For example the UK government has set an ambitious target of reducing CO2 emissions by 60% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels and have launched a number of initiatives to support these targets. Relevant to the brownfields sector they are looking at developing innovation in design and construction of the built environment and have recently launched the “Carbon Challenge”. Here they are challenging the house builders to build zero carbon/near zero carbon houses. This will act as a testing ground for the Government’s Code for Sustainable Homes and the new Planning Policy Statement on climate change and they see sustainable remediation of sites as a starting point.

The English Government, via Department of Communities and Local Government (CLG) and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and English Partnerships (EP) who are the National Regeneration Agency for England, have asked CL:AIRE to take forward an initiative to bring together

2 Available on-line at http://www.nicole.org/nicole2/news/ann246a.PDF 3 http://www.nicole.org/projects/DisplayProject.asp?Project=24

http://www.nicole.org/nicole2/news/ann246a.PDF

http://www.nicole.org/projects/DisplayProject.asp?Project=24


Page 14

stakeholders in the remediation industry to develop the concepts of sustainable remediation decision making.

PlanetENVIRONMENT

SUSTAINABLE

ProfitECONOMICS

PeopleSOCIAL

PlanetENVIRONMENT

SUSTAINABLE

ProfitECONOMICS

PeopleSOCIAL

PlanetENVIRONMENT

SUSTAINABLE

ProfitECONOMICS

PeopleSOCIAL

Figure 2: Key Elements of Sustainable Development

In June 2007, CL:AIRE brought together 35 key individuals from a variety of sectors within the brownfield/contaminated land industry to pursue this concept at a meeting. It was agreed at the meeting that participants would work collaboratively to develop a sustainable remediation framework. In developing the concept of a framework, provisional objectives have been identified: • Develop a common understanding within UK SURF of what sustainability means in the context of

soil and groundwater risk management/remediation and develop a definition. • Develop tools to quantify the net environmental value associated with soil and groundwater

management/remediation options. Incorporate the tools into a decision making framework for general use.

• Disseminate the learning through a series of position papers on sustainability in the soil and groundwater industry and case studies using the new tools on real examples.

In order to develop the framework, four discrete work packages (WP) were identified provisionally. Figure 3 sets out an overall project framework. The WPs are:

WP1 – Literature survey: Undertake a review of policy development, metrics/indicators.

WP2 – Review the Environment Agency Cost Benefit Analysis framework: Assess and testi how workable current guidance on cost benefit analysis (CBA) is to remediation. Guidance produced for the Environment Agency is contained in three reports, one for soil and two for groundwater. The Agency has also produced a report on “sustainable remediation, looking at wider environmental impacts. It needs to be separated out and the tiers unpicked to provide greater clarity and identify a set of generic indicators and metrics that can be applied on a site specific basis to pick up on the wider environmental impacts that may have applicability to remediation. This work is currently progressing through Shell and National Grid testing the CBA guidance out on existing case studies.

WP3 – Review existing tools outside the industry: Review existing tools and identify what parameters are covered by other industries’ sustainability assessment tools. The research will identify the different tools available, identify best practice examples for each type of tool and detail the key reasons for successful development and implementation of the tools.


Page 15

WP4 - Review existing industry tools: Review existing tools and identify what parameters are covered by the different tools within the industry and identify potential overlaps. Existing tools include: Dupont, National Grid, Atkins, Golders, Entec, Shell, BP, the Agency CBA guidance mentioned above and others.

CL:AIRE has recently secured funding through English Partnerships to move forward with this work. A very large amount of extremely positive feedback from those that attended the initial meeting was received, and there have been requests to continue running a quarterly meeting to maintain momentum. Now funding has been secured, CL:AIRE will be setting up a formal Steering Committee to take this work forward along with a wider sustainable remediation forum for anyone to participate in. We will also continue engagement with the SURF initiative in the US which is being co-ordinated by Dupont.

UKSURF/CL:AIRE have also been asked to co-ordinate a Special Session at Consoil 08 titled “Measuring Sustainability in Remediation” which SAGTA and NICOLE will be participating at, and have been invited to participate at Battelle 08 in a Special Session being co-ordinated by SURF USA on the same subject.

Review Existing Framework

Testing Framework (those viewed suitable for use)

Selection of most suitable and modification as required

Pilot Testing

Roll Out

Shell CBA Case studyShell CBA Case study

National Grid Case Study

National Grid Case Study

Inside & outside industry

Figure 3: CL:AIRE UK SURF Project Structure

Initial steps completed include: • Set up Steering Committee which is to include:

o Environment Agency o Industry – Shell & National Grid Properties (SAGTA Members) o CL:AIRE o r3 Environmental Technology Ltd o NICOLE Working Group ? – link to Europe o International Representative – US SURF

• Create Open Sustainable Remediation Forum for anyone to attend • Draft a “vision statement”: Develop a framework in order to embed balanced decision making in

the selection of the remediation strategy to address land contamination as an integral part of sustainable development.


Page 16

2.4 Sustainable remediation, regulatory and policy aspects - Possibilities and barriers in the EU, Dietmar Müller, EURODEMO+ and Federal Environment Agency (UBA), Austria

Controlling factors for the remediation of contaminated land remain: private and public interests, sites redevelopment interest, liability management based on needs for the protection of human health and the environment. Key considerations in selecting remedial approach are generally technical suitability, costs, feasibility and practicability. The impacts of secondary environmental effects (e.g. transport, waste generation) and integrated perspectives of sustainability tend to be ignored. These wider impacts may be significant. Even technologies considered environmentally friendly, such as biological soil treatments, may end up with a negative environmental balance if secondary environmental impacts are taken into account. Figure 4 illustrates the impact transport distance has on total energy consumption for a soil being biologically treated off site4.

02

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0km

100km

200km

300km

400km

TreatmentTransportSum

Figure 4 : Total energy consumption [TJ] for ex situ biological soil treatment of 10.000 t soil depending on transport distances

As early as the late 1990’s, the European CLARINET project suggested that consideration of sustainability should be a part of remediation decision making5. Not all EU Member States explicitly consider sustainable development in their contaminated land management policy and legislation. Taking Austria as an example, the funding guidelines for remediation projects ask for a solution which is both the most economic and has the best ecological performance. Besides the question if such ‘win-win’-solutions are possible in reality, there are no clear criteria or defined approaches how to perform the assessments implied. Thus the wider environmental effects of remediation options are, if addressed, evaluated by loose qualitative and not comparable approaches. Legislation on water protection is strict (e.g. groundwater is generally to be protected as drinking water), consequently there is only very limited space of flexibility for considering environmental effects or socio-economic aspects in a broader context.

The European Soil Thematic Strategy and drafting of the European Soil Framework Directive (to then of 2007) do not directly specify how sustainable development issues should be considered in contaminated land management decision making. While the last version recognised the importance of natural attenuation, it did not include explicit flexibility to consider a balance of costs and benefits, practicability, or secondary environmental impacts, which was pointed out by the Common Forum6.

Major problems within all discussions on sustainability in land remediation stem from the lack of a common understanding and agreed assessment approaches. The integration of “hard” and “soft”

4 From Shrenk (2005) Ökobilanzen zur Bewertung von Altlastensanierungs-maßnahmen (‘Environmental balancing to Evaluate Contaminated Land Remediation Projects’); Mitteilungshefte des Institutes für Wasserbau, University Stuttgart – Heft 141, ISBN: 3-933761-44-1; available from www.iws.uni-stuttgart.de 5 CLARINET (2002): Review of Decision Support Tools for Contaminated Land Management, and their Use in Europe. Available from www.clarinet/at 6 http://www.commonforum.eu/

http://www.iws.uni-stuttgart.de

http://www.clarinet/at

http://www.commonforum.eu


Page 17

information, such as financial costs and social impacts respectively) is a difficult task. “Eco-efficiency” is an assessment technique which could be used to support decision making that considers wider environmental impacts. It is ratio between a value (financial, ecological benefit, or social welfare) and environmental impacts, or inversely, the ratio of gained environmental value related to invested costs. Its relationship to sustainability appraisal in an overall sense is illustrated in Figure 5. There are precedents for the use of eco-efficiency in decision making It is also a tool that has already been used in policy making across Europe, for example7 by the: • 6th Environment Action Programme (6th EAP, 2001) which suggests: consumption of resources

does not exceed the carrying capacity, a de-coupling of resource use and waste generation from economic growth;

• Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources (2005) which encompasses Life cycle thinking integrated to sectoral policies

• European policy towards Energy Efficiency (e.g. Green Paper, 2005) Common eco-efficiency led goals are: “decoupling”, i.e. providing the same service for less environmental impacts, on particular “Factor 4”: double the service but half the impacts.

Figure 5 Relationship of eco-efficiency to sustainability appraisal

One of the key objectives of EURODEMO8 and its successor initiative EURODEMO+ is to support the selection of sustainable remediation approaches and to strengthen the competitiveness of ‘new’ technologies. The advantage seen is the reduction in wider impacts from remediation work. The prerequisites for sustainability considerations across Europe in remediation are: an appropriate legislative background; a common understanding; sound technical approaches; integration of “hard” (money) and “soft” information (ecological and social, socio-economic aspects and communication.

A ‘Framework for Sustainable Land Remediation and Management’ was proposed by EURODEMO, which focuses on developing a simple indicator based assessment system for the environmental dimension of sustainability for different levels of decision making as shown in Figure 6. Eco-efficiency was seen as a technique which could illustrate ratios between value (financial, cost, price, wealth, or social welfare) and environmental impacts; that was easy to control and effective; could be applied

7 EC papers: ‘Environment 2010: Our future, Our choice’ – the Sixth Environment action Programme’; COM (2001) 31 final; ‘Thematic Strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources’ COM (2005) 670 final; and ‘Green Paper on energy efficiency: Doing more with less’ COM (2005b) 265 final 8 www.eurodemo.info

http://www.eurodemo.info


Page 18

across different levels; that used easily available data; and could be easily communicate to stakeholders .

EURODEMO considered the following core parameters for eco-efficiency: • environmental improvements (benefits)

o area of rehabilitated land [m²], o mass of treated contaminants [kg], and o mass or volume of treated soil / groundwater [m³]

• environmental impact categories (wider impacts) o energy consumption [cumulative energy consumption: TJ], o water consumption [total water consumption: m³] o generated waste [total waste generation: kg] o global warming [indicator parameter: kg CO2]

For each comparison these core parameters could be used to derive assessments such as: • EURO / m² rehabilitated land • environmental intensity indicators such as cumulative energy consumption TJ / kg mass of treated

contaminant

The suggested core parameters could be estimated during the remediation planning phase and should be recorded along the implementation of a remediation. The site specific estimation at the planning phase would offer further understanding and arguments to prepare the decision on the remediation plan. The efforts on recording such data during remediation would be little, whereas the use to optimise the remediation site-specifically could be reasonable. Regarding soil vapour extraction there are established benchmarks for energy intensity (energy consumption / kg mass of CHC), which control the efficiency and trigger actions for optimisation (e.g. energy intensity > 1.000 kWh / kg CHC) and cessation (e.g. energy intensity > 2.000 kWh / kg CHC and no further environmental risks) . At the same time agreements to record and collect such data at regional or national level could support policy and by the information a new basis to discuss general policy targets could be established.

Figure 6 EURODEMO Sustainability framework for soil and water remediation


Page 19

EURODEMO suggested the development of new assessment methods for evaluating secondary environmental impacts of land remediation projects in a quick and easy way, such as the Project Energy Index proposed by SCHRENK (2005). EURODEMO+ also aims to develop an approach for qualitative sustainability appraisals. These tools could be used for a range of purposes by different contaminated land management actors: • Private Sector (technology development & vending)

o Measuring/reporting for technology development (demonstrating innovative technologies) o consultants, vendors and market entry of new products and services

• Private and Public Sector (technology application) o decision support at the planning phase of a site remediation project, o tendering of remediation projects and o final reporting of remediation projects

• Public Sector (monitoring and reviewing policy) o monitoring the land remediation sector for general developments (compilation, reporting

and review at regional, national and European level) o development and definition of general policy targets.

2.5 Sustainable remediation of contaminated sites in Switzerland, Bernhard Hammer, Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), Switzerland

The traditional view of Switzerland is a country of alpine mountains and meadows, cheese, chocolate, banks and watches. However, it is also a country with a heavily industrialised past leaving a legacy of brownfields and waste deposits. Current estimates are 50,000 polluted sites, 13,000 polluted sites to investigate, and 3,000 to 4,000 contaminated sites to remediate. The cost of managing contaminated land in Switzerland is estimated to be €3 billion, comprised of €30 million for registration of polluted, €570 million for site investigation and €2,400 million for remediation. Mostly these are small remediation projects< the remediation of 84% of sites is likely to cost < €600,000.

Switzerland distinguishes polluted sites are operating or closed waste disposal sites (landfills) and company and accident sites in which wastes were released; and contaminated sites which are polluted sites causing either harmful effects / nuisances or give rise to a substantial danger that such effects might occur. Such sites require remediation. The Swiss policy prefers remediation that is effective in the long-term and sustainable. “Sustainable” means that after no more than one or two generations, the remediated site can be safely left to posterity without any further measures. The Swiss vision is to “clean-up” the “sins of yesterday” within one generation.

Prioritisation of sites for remediation is determined by effective environmental hazard and not by construction projects or available funds. Where a site poses an immediate danger for its existing use (e.g. a threat to drinking water supply), remediation proceeds with no delay. Where a site poses a significant danger, or where concentration levels slightly exceed threshold levels, urgency is based on risk assessment. Remediation does not proceed without risk assessment. Sites must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The determining factor is not only the pollution itself, but also any possible impacts it may have on natural resources that is critical. Risk assessment is based on: • Pollutant potential – how dangerous are the pollutants and how much is present? • Release potential – how fast, how far and in what quantities will pollutants be released and

transported? • Exposure and importance of natural resources (water, soil, air) – how might pollutants impact on

natural resources?

The authorities require remediation projects to be authorised. The goal is that projects will be successful and reasonably priced. Remediation measures are scrutinised to ensure that they are ecologically sound, technically possible and financially bearable. The authorities assess the proposed measures and definitively establish in consultation with the affected parties the remediation objectives and measures.


Page 20

Remediation goals are to: • Stop emissions at source • Remove the need for further remediation • Protect natural resources (not necessarily complete removal of pollutants) • Achieve long-term, sustainable elimination of danger; no cost-intensive monitoring, treatment of

waste water or air over many generations • Promote co-operation among those affected

Swiss regulations allow a certain room to manoeuvre in balancing environmental impacts of remediation, remediation costs and quality requirements for natural resources: As regards rehabilitation for the purpose of groundwater protection, deviation from the objective shall be made if: by this means the total environmental impact can be lessened; disproportionate costs would otherwise result; and the exploitation of groundwater in category A groundwater protection areas is secured, or if surface waters that are associated with groundwater outside category A water protection areas fulfil the requirements of the water protection legislation regarding water quality. (Article 15)

The Swiss have adopted a differentiated approach to remediation decision making. Sites of particular concern are those: with a high percentage of persistent organic pollutants and/or heavy metals; where, without intervention, the degradation and lixiviation of pollutants would take >> 50 years; where substantial danger would exists over a long period, e.g. several hundred years; where containment systems would need to be monitored and maintained for many hundred years; or those which are dangerous and immediate risks to the environment. Figure 7 shows three scenarios that might militate on favour of “decontamination”, containment and natural attenuation.

T

C

Remediationgoal

Remediationdeadline

Remediation„Decontamination“

Remediationdeadline

Remediation„Decontamination“

50

In this scenario the time taken for decontamination would be less than 50 years (i.e. two generations), but if unremediated the contamination would persist for more than 50 years.

T

C

Degradation/Lixiviation

Remediationgoal

RemediationdeadlineRemediationdeadline

Remediation„containment“Remediation

„containment“ System break-down

50

System break-down

50

System break-down

50

Containment withnatural attenuation

In this scenario the time for clean-up is less than the persistence of the contamination in the absence of intervention, which is itself less than 50 years. The rationale for this is that by the time the containment fails the contamination impacts will be below the targets owing to natural processes. This only circumstance in which containment is accepted in Switzerland.

Degradation/Lixiviation

Remediationgoal

T= few years

CQuick degradation/lixiviation

Monitoring of NA

Remediationdeadline

In this scenario the time for remediation goals to be achieved would be quicker than implementing a decontamination measure.

Figure 7 Strategic choices in remediation selection in Switzerland (C = impact on natural resources, T = time)


Page 21

The management of a former hazardous waste site (Kölliken landfill) was reviewed as a case study. This site has an area of four hectares and operated from 1978-1985, and is close to a drinking water well. The site contains a large amount of persistent contaminants which pose a substantial danger over a period of several hundred years. Two control strategies were compared: decontamination versus containment, see Table 3. Based on this comparison excavation and removal (decontamination) was seen as most sustainable.

In 2003 the authorities decreed complete excavation of the landfill by 2012 and excavation work started in 2008. The speaker concluded that decontamination is the only solution for economic remediation that is effective in the long term. The decontamination costs for this project are estimated to be €330 million, including infrastructure work, excavation and off-site treatment. Containment methods would have had high costs for the long-term operation over hundreds of years. Containment costs to date have been €75 million, with annual treatment and monitoring costs of €3 million per year.

Table 3 Comparison of Options for the Kölliken landfill

Containment Excavation and removal

• long-term risk

• low initial costs

• long-term costs for treatment, maintenance, restoration, monitoring

• long-term use-restrictions

• polluter pays principle not ascertained

• financial risks for the public

not sustainable

• Excavation:

• risk removed

• high initial costs

• no follow-up costs

• re-use generally possible

• polluter pays principle fully applicable

• financial risks for polluters, banks

sustainable

2.6 Regulatory approach in the UK, Brian Bone, Environment Agency

Generally speaking “sustainable remediation” is a somewhat vague term; a more precise expression is “remediation in the context of sustainable development”. The background to sustainable development policy in the UK is based on the Brundtland report of 19879, which defined sustainable development as: “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. The Brundtland Commission also identified three “elements” of sustainable development which need be in balance in order to guarantee sustainable development. The three elements, also known as the “three pillars of sustainable development” are: People, Planet and Profit. The key elements of sustainable development are therefore environmental (planet), economic (profit) and social (people). It is this balance that is they essence of sustainable development, rather than some single parameter such as carbon use intensity or biodiversity. Figure 8 illustrates this balance. Three example decision making criteria might be to base a remediation decision on: cheapness, cost or carbon intensity. While laudable in their own right, these single criteria do not necessarily identify a sustainable solution; and they are only one of many possible indicators of sustainability. A sustainable solution takes a balanced view of a range of environmental, economic and social criteria.

Another perspective for balance is the spectrum between local and global needs. For example, reducing local carbon use and maintaining low costs may seem sustainable at a local level, but may actually be exporting impacts overseas.

9 Brundtland. G.H. (1987) Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press ISBN 0-19-282080-X. http://www4.oup.co.uk/isbn/0-19-282080-X.

http://www4.oup.co.uk/isbn/0-19-282080-X


Page 22

A sustainable development policy in the UK was first published in 1990. Most recently the Government has published “One Future – Different Paths” which has developed five themes from the Brundtland definition10: • Living within environmental limits • Achieving a sustainable economy • Ensuring a strong, healthy and just society • Promoting good governance • Using sound science responsibly The final theme dictates that uncertainties must be taken into account in understanding sustainability.

The Environment Agency’s aspiration is that [they] encourage developers to make use of sustainable techniques for dealing with land contamination and find appropriate solutions for treating and reusing contaminated soils11. This is currently an aspirational rather than an enforcement position. What is needed is a framework which industry and regulators can use to deliberately use both to decide to find sustainable solutions, and how to determine which solutions are sustainable.

In the UK the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Agency have published a handbook that sets out good practice in contaminated site management for England and Wales, called the Model Procedures. This handbook took more than a decade to agree and was finally published in 200412. It already includes the prospect of considering sustainable development in contaminated land management decision making.

Decision based on cheapness

Decision based on local community involvement

Decision based on carbon intensity

Figure 8 Illustration of sustainable development considerations (source www.wikipedia.org): single criteria will not necessarily provide a balanced sustainable approach

10 Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs – Defra (2005) One future – different paths, The UK’s shared framework for sustainable development. Product code PB10591 Defra Publications, Admail 6000, London, SW1A 2XX http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/publications/pdf/SD%20Framework.pdf 11 Barbara Young, Chief Executive, Environment Agency, in The Environmental Industries Commission Land Remediation Yearbook 2007, http://www.eic-yearbook.co.uk/ 12 Defra and the Environment Agency (2004) Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination Contaminated Land Report, 11. ISBN 1844322955. Environment Agency, Bristol www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/landquality/113813/881475/?lang=e

http://www.wikipedia.org):

http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/publications/pdf/SD%20Framework.pdf

http://www.eic-yearbook.co.uk

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/landquality/113813/881475/?lang=e




Page 23

The model procedures identify a number of overarching steps in contaminated land management: • Risk Assessment

o Preliminary o generic quantitative o detailed quantitative

• Options Appraisal o feasible options o detailed evaluation o remediation strategy

• Risk Management o implementation plan o design, implementation, verification o long-term monitoring and maintenance

Decision making for sustainable development begins at the options appraisal stage. The speaker’s view is that the focus of attention for sustainability in this sequence should be sustainable risk management and not remediation.

Scoring systems and multi-criteria analysis have begun to be used in options appraisal under the Model Procedures, as illustrated in Figure 9. However, it is very difficult to relate such analysis tables back to the original evidence base. A range of techniques may be used in sustainability appraisals such as multi-criteria analysis, life cycle assessment, cost benefit analysis and various assessments for added or wider environmental value. However, weaknesses of all of these are: their transparency, their accessibility and how easily they can be understood by interested parties. They can all potentially serve as a “black box” that takes rather than supports the decision making task.

Figure 9 Example Model Procedures Based Scoring

The ideal approach to considering sustainable development in contaminated land management decision making is that it is a tiered approach using a range of tools from generic approaches that can involve a range of stakeholders to more quantitative approaches. The consideration should be the overall remediation strategy for the management of a particular site, rather than generic rules of thumb that compare particular technologies, and this consideration may need to be integrated with


Page 24

considerations of wider activities for the site. The sustainability assessment is likely to be based on key indicators or metrics and may include steps from their identification and comparison for different strategy options; to perhaps their monetisation in a cost benefit appraisal if this is seen as necessary. There should also be a mechanism for feeding back to the sustainability assessment the outcome for a site: how accurate was the sustainability assessment?. There needs to be pilots and case studies to develop this framework and tools for supporting rather than submerging decision making. As a final point an important question is who should carry out a sustainability appraisal, and who is it being carried out for. A debate between experts will inevitably skew sustainability discussions to areas they feel most comfortable in.

2.7 Tools for evaluating sustainability: REC and ROSA, Laurent Bakker, TAUW, NL

The sustainable remediation debate is an emerging one. A 2004 survey carried out in the UK collected responses from 60 remediation practioners. It found that “commonly, the effects of contamination on these areas both immediately and in the long term are taken into account, but those of actually performing the remediation (transportation, waste etc) are often not and so progress towards a truly sustainable solution is hindered.” It further found that “professional judgement is exercised most commonly” as the sustainability assessment approach, and that more sophisticated methods are not as widely used, meaning that some sustainability aspects might be being neglected13. Two sustainability considerations can be identified for “sustainable remediation”: o the sustainability of the remediation objectives, which might take into account: impact of future

developments, impact of climate change, reducing future liabilities by setting the right requirements/constraints with respect to unacceptable risks, suitability for (future) land use function or plume behaviour (e.g. a stable end situation with limited need for after-care); and

o Sustainability of the remediation technology, which might take into account: the impact of the implementation of the remediation technique itself, reducing the impact of the technique on the environment by having the right expectations for the techniques and activities regarding the target concentrations, time frames or mass removal.

The impact of climate change in the Netherlands, for example, may have a noticeable impact on the sustainability of remediation objectives. Climate change in the Netherlands is expected to lead to higher temperatures and heavier and more frequent rainfall. Both of these consequences seem likely to have an impact on natural soil processes and so an impact on pollutant behaviour, for example as follows • Increased leaching / erosion (> 25 % ) increase in pollutant mobility • Increased wetting/drying fluctuations increase in pollutant mobility / damage to soil capping

measures • Changes in redox conditions increase in pollutant mobility • Enhanced biodegradation decrease in pollutant mobility Affecting mineral capping

Sustainability of remediation is directly linked to considerations of soil functionality and threats to soil. The EU Soil Thematic Strategy14 identified a number of threats to soil resources in Europe: contamination, sealing, erosion, organic matter decline, salinisation, erosion and landslides. Soil functionality provides another perspective for evaluation of the holistic approach environmental benefits of soil remediation. For example the case of oil contamination in soil. At low levels soil contamination with mineral oil is a sort of organic matter fixation in the soil. If remediation is required how much energy is consumed and CO2 produced to convert this oil into CO2 and so what is the balance between risk reduction and environmental benefits?

ROSA is a decision-making guideline for dealing with common soil and groundwater problems. This approach was developed for the situation in the Netherlands, and is based on the latest renewals and

13 SUBR:IM bulletin SUB 02 “Uncovering the True Impacts of Remediation” March 2007. http://www.claire.co.uk/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=19&Itemid=25 (Free to download, but requires registration / log-in first) 14 European Commission (2006) Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection. Communication From The Commission Brussels, 22.9.2006. COM(2006)231 final. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/pdf/com_2006_0231_en.pdf

http://www.claire.co.uk/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=19&Itemid=25

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/pdf/com_2006_0231_en.pdf


Page 25

interpretations of Dutch national soil protection legislation15. ROSA includes a simplification of the existing assessment process within the Dutch legislation and tools to arrive at a preferred remediation strategy in a way that is as objective as possible. However, it cannot be regarded as a cookbook with clear-cut solutions for problems. The guideline contains the elements and phases of a process that each need to be worked through in order to arrive at a point that offers (also for other stakeholders) an overview of the process and the choices that have been made. The document gives a guideline for an agreement concerning flexible remediation objectives and for the organisation and warranty of the realisation of the remediation. An important aspect of ROSA is the involvement of stakeholders to identify their interests and gain their commitment to the process with a view also to: addressing (future) developments and finding realistic solutions without overestimation of the potentials of technologies. It is an iterative approach to manage uncertainties. Table 4 shows the tiered approach in ROSA. Sustainability is considered once a series of risk management options have been determined. The REC tool is recommended for this assessment.

The REC system (Risks, Environmental Merits and Costs System) used in the Netherlands is designed to be a systematic quantitative remediation appraisal tool that considers risk management, wider “environmental merit” and costs. This can be used in remedial option appraisal to compare clean-up scenarios on the basis of a full range of environmental and financial costs and benefits. The aims of the REC system are to: reduce complexity to manageable proportions; raise the effectiveness of the decision-making process, facilitate communication-interpretation and improve the strategic design of clean-up. The sustainability aspects of the REC System are contained in its environmental merit concept which seeks a maximisation of environmental quality, with minimum use of scarce resources.

Table 4 The ROSA Tiered Approach

Step Results

A. Preliminary meetings with stakeholders (policy and sounding groups)

Inventory of interests, wishes and requirements of stakeholders, objectives of remediation

List of requirements and expectations, criteria to consider/weighing the different scenarios

Mass reduction - reduction of exposure

B. Scenario development (often a combination of feasible techniques)

Elaboration of possible remediation scenarios

C. Risks, Environmental Merits and Costs (REC)

Uniform and transparent overview of REC for each scenario

D. Preferential Scenario Stepwise and transparent deduction of scenarios, resulting in one accepted scenario

E. Remediation plan Agreement on monitoring, milestones and aftercare

F/G. Remediation, monitoring, evaluation and aftercare

Remediation evaluation, registration and aftercare program

REC considers risk reduction to be the degree to which a remedial action reduces risks for humans, ecosystems and other targets. REC considers costs as the total costs of remediation practice including: preparation, operation, maintenance and monitoring at all stages of the operation, i.e. costs and risk reduction are considered with a fairly narrow focus on the basis of reasonably quantifiable parameters. Environmental merit is defined as the balance between environmental benefits and costs. LCA principles are used to determine environmental merit. Remediation with good "environmental merit" is where limited use of natural resources and limited pollution achieves a good environmental output. The components of environmental merit index are illustrated in Figure 10. A sample output from the REC system is shown in Figure 11.

15 Summary in English: http://www.nicole.org/news/downloads/ROSA%20English%20Summarylmb%20v2.pdf

http://www.nicole.org/news/downloads/ROSA%20English%20Summarylmb%20v2.pdf


Page 26

• There is increasing interest in “extensive” technologies, i.e. technologies with lower use of resources, often trading time for resource intensity.

• Wind energy is being used to support soil venting, both infiltration of air (high pressure) and extraction (low pressure), with the aeration being by wind. Windmills are also being used to support landfill gas extraction, for example at Volgermeerpolder which is a 100 ha landfill in a rural area. The energy surplus (wind and landfill gas) is exported to the Dutch grid. Solar energy is being used for heating to enhance processes such as biodegradation, dissolution, diffusion and evaporation.

• Phytoremediation offers a range of potential remedial solutions, for example in the management of organics dissolved in groundwater, either by using evapotranspiration as a “pump” to remove contaminated groundwater from soil, using root zone enhancement of microbial activity to accelerate biodegradation, or both.

• Bioremediation and biological soil treatment is seen as a remediation approach with a low carbon intensity that can degrade some contaminants and immobilise others, and for ex situ processes create soil for re-use, and for in situ processes avoid waste generation.

• An intriguing possibility is combining water infiltration and extraction into the subsurface both for seasonal heat management in buildings and land remediation (an approach discussed in Section 2.9).

• The re-use of secondary (recycled materials) for solidification / stabilisation of soil to create new aggregates for use in road construction.

Soil remediation is a long and expensive business. The need for sustainability encompasses both sustainable remediation objectives to minimise impact of future changes (such as climate change); and sustainable technical solutions to minimise environmental impacts from remediation itself. It is a component of a more overarching need: sustainable soil quality management. This forms p[art of Europe wide discussions on soil quality and functionality and the linkage of these with water quality.

hotsp

ot +

in-sit

u

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

cont

ribut

ion

to e

nviro

nmen

tal m

erit

M1 soil quality

M2 groundwater quality

M3 loss of soil

M4 loss of groundwater

M5 use of energy

M6 air emissions

M7 surface water emissions

M8 waste creation

M9 use of space

refe

renc

e

theo

retic

max

imum

in s

itucont

rol

exca

vatio

n+

pum

p +

treat

hotsp

ot +

in-sit

u

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

cont

ribut

ion

to e

nviro

nmen

tal m

erit

M1 soil quality

M2 groundwater quality

M3 loss of soil

M4 loss of groundwater

M5 use of energy

M6 air emissions

M7 surface water emissions

M8 waste creation

M9 use of space

refe

renc

e

theo

retic

max

imum

in s

itucont

rol

exca

vatio

n+

pum

p +

treat

Figure 10 Environmental Merit Components (example comparison)


Page 27

Exposure to• humans• ecosystems• other targets

Gain and losses• environmental quality• scarce resources• emissions

Costs• continuous costs• replacement/depreciation• overheads,…

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Ris

k re

duct

ion

[-]

Exposure to humans

Exposure toecosystems

Exposure toother objects

exca

vatio

n +

pump a

nd tre

at

contr

ol in-

situ

Theoretic maximum

MF-reference

Theoretisch maximum

MF-referentieMF-referentie

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

Envi

ronm

enta

l mer

it in

dex

exca

vatio

n +

pump a

nd tre

at

contr

ol

in-sit

u

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

exca

vatio

n +

pump a

nd tre

at

contr

ol

in-sit

u

Net

Cas

h Va

lue

k€]

Exposure to• humans• ecosystems• other targets

Gain and losses• environmental quality• scarce resources• emissions

Costs• continuous costs• replacement/depreciation• overheads,…

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Ris

k re

duct

ion

[-]

Exposure to humans



exca

vatio

n +

pump a

nd tre

at

contr

ol in-

situ

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Ris

k re

duct

ion

[-]

Exposure to humans



exca

vatio

n +

pump a

nd tre

at

contr

ol in-

situ

Theoretic maximum

MF-reference

Theoretisch maximum


-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

Envi

ronm

enta

l mer

it in

dex

exca

vatio

n +

pump a

nd tre

at

contr

ol

in-sit

u

Theoretic maximum

MF-reference

Theoretisch maximum


-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

Envi

ronm

enta

l mer

it in

dex

exca

vatio

n +

pump a

nd tre

at

contr

ol

in-sit

u

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

exca

vatio

n +

pump a

nd tre

at

contr

ol

in-sit

u

Net

Cas

h Va

lue

k€]

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

exca

vatio

n +

pump a

nd tre

at

contr

ol

in-sit

u

Net

Cas

h Va

lue

k€]

Figure 11 Example of REC System Output

2.8 Use of cost-benefit analysis to quantify sustainability of remediation, Stuart Arch, Worley Parsons Komex, UK

The speaker suggests that economic remediation strategies are almost by definition sustainable at one level as they pay for themselves. To bring wider sustainability considerations into corporate decision making they need to be put in terms of “money”, because that is what fundamentally drives business decision-making. The Brundtland Commission in 1987defined sustainable development as development that “...meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” This could be translated in terms of remediation to: a “strategy to repair damage caused by contamination of land or water that balances the interests of the problem holder, the environment and society, now and into the future.” This is the concept used behind cost benefit analysis.

Cost benefit analysis attempts to value in monetary terms two sets of costs and benefits: those that are “internal”, i.e. directly related to the project being carried out, and those that are external, i.e. wider costs or benefits affecting the environment or society as a whole. The difference between costs and benefits is its “net benefit”. Usually this is expressed in terms of “net present value” (NPV) which is a conversion to estimate current and future values into an equivalent value “today”. Predictive cost benefit analysis can therefore be used as an appraisal tool to compare different remediation options under consideration to see which ones will deliver greatest Present Value (PV), as illustrated in Figure 12.

Examples of private costs include: management costs, investigation and remediation, consultancy, loss in production. Examples of private benefits include: property value, avoidance of prosecution, corporate responsibility and liability management. Examples of externalities include: groundwater resources, ecological resources, human health protection, property blight, Greenhouse Gas emissions, transportation impact, option value16 and bequest value17.

16 Where an individual derives benefit from ensuring that the resource will be available for his or her own use in the future. 17 Associated with the knowledge that the resource will be passed on – in suitable quantity and quality - to descendants and other members of future generations

Environmental meritRisk Management Cost


Page 28

Guidance on the use of cost benefit analysis was produced by the Environment Agency in 199918 and this has been applied subsequently by Worley Parsons Komex as an options appraisal tool that uses high level economic evaluations to compare a range of remedial approaches, monetising risk / damage averted to identify which option gives the greatest increase in human welfare, as measured by “present value”. Options appraisal follows characterisation of the nature and extent of contamination and the technical risks it poses (to human health, controlled waters, resources, environment, property) regulations and stakeholder views.

PV costs & benefits

PV costs

Option 4Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

PV external costs

PV external benefitsPV internal benefits

Figure 12 Conceptual Comparison of Four Remediation Options on the Basis of Present Value (PV)

Key considerations in using cost benefit analysis in remedial option appraisal are: • the need to identify clear risk management goals before select technology, • that external costs are explicitly accounted for, • that all stakeholders’ concerns are considered on an equal basis.

Cost benefit analysis helps determine the appropriate level of expenditure for a given site. However, economic analysis is a “double-edged sword”: it can justify lower or higher expenditure, depending on the benefits produced.

2.9 An example of sustainable remediation, Hans Slenders, ARCADIS, NL

Philips started its activities at its former Strijp Site in the city centre of Eindhoven in 1915, and within 15 years its 27 hectares site was fully build over. At the peak more than 10,000 people worked at this site. Redevelopment of the site began in 2005. Historic buildings will receive new functions and new buildings and houses will be erected to create a mixture of living, leisure and work space. The site planning includes ambitious sustainability concepts, including an integrated approach to groundwater remediation with groundwater energy, due to be operational in autumn 2008. This was the first time in the Netherlands that these two concepts had been combined.

18 Cost-benefit analysis for remediation of land contamination, R&D Project P5-015, Report TR P316 prepared by Risk & Policy Analysts Limited and WS Atkins http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/epages/eapublications.storefront/47ff705700ea1d16273fc0a802960677/Product/View/STR&2DP316&2DE&2DE

http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/epages/eapublications.storefront/47ff705700ea1d16273fc0a802960677/Product/View/STR&2




Page 29

Sustainable energy can be obtained from groundwater by pumping large flows, with large reductions in carbon intensity. For this site models indicate a reduction of potentially 3,000 tonnes of CO2 per hear for heating and cooling compared with traditional heating. While the use of electricity would increase from 2.4 to 4.7 million kWh per year resulting from the use of heat pumps, use of natural gas across the 27 ha site is projected to be reduced from 2.8 million to less than 600,000 m3. This results in a projected reduction in energy costs of 30-40%.

In the winter heat can be extracted with a heat-pump, in the summer heat can be deposited to provide a cooling effect. The combination of heat-pumping and remediation with remediation creates a number of potential design paradoxes. The aim of a groundwater energy system is to maximise the energy transfer capacity, which requires large groundwater flows. This is the first paradox with the remediation of groundwater. Normally the remediation of contaminated groundwater is designed with minimal flows to reduce cost. The second paradox lies in the containment of groundwater. Conventionally, in the Heat-Cold-Storage (HCS) approach, groundwater is pumped from a cold zone to a warm zone. With such an approach contaminants would have been moved and spread as well. A remediation system is primarily designed to contain and reduce the extent of contaminants. The approach taken to resolve these paradoxes and create a synergy was to use large groundwater flows both for hydraulic containment of contaminants and heat transfer.

Being the first to draft and engineer such a groundwater system, the project faced several challenges, for example: • The requirements for durability and continuous groundwater pumping for the heat system required

the avoidance of well clogging, and hence the avoidance of stimulating biological activity or transfer of soluble ions, such as iron, around the well both of which can lead to well clogging.

• Permitting and regulations fell under two different jurisdictions: remediation permit falls under the jurisdiction of the municipality whilst the groundwater permit is the responsibility of the Province of Noord-Brabant.

• A large number of parties were involved in the project, for example: the developer, the energy company, consultants, contractors, and authorities.

• In parallel with the groundwater system design and realisation planning of the redevelopment of the site still goes on. These plans change and evolving decisions about existing infrastructure (buildings, sewers, cables etc.) have to be anticipated or taken into account.

• The total flow in the extraction wells is dominated by the energy demand in the buildings. On the other hand these flows must be used to contain contaminated groundwater, and to manipulate the groundwater flow field. The adjustment of these two demands (energy-containment) is essential and complex. The design of the groundwater system, coupling of wells, the management of pumps, sensors, as well as the in house installations etc. had to be well tuned to provide a coherent design.

ARCADIS took up this design challenge19 and found the first part of the answer by changing the basic concept for the groundwater system. Instead of using cold and warm zones in the subsurface it was decided to use a recirculation system. This system uses a constant flow direction and extracts heat or cold from groundwater (which has a constant temperature at the Eindhoven site of 12-13oC).

Contamination problems at the site were mainly chlorinated solvents in the saturated zone (cis-dichloroethylene and vinyl chloride) from 30 to 60 m below the ground surface. These contaminants had started to move since the groundwater extraction that had taken place while the site was active had stopped.

By using a circulation system for energy extraction, an effective approach for containment is possible, that also enables the stimulation of natural degradation. In actual practice the recirculation system consists of a smartly designed system of extraction and infiltration wells, as illustrated in Figure 13. Figure 13 shows how the cluster of infiltration wells is surrounded by extraction wells, which capture the contaminated groundwater.

19 Feasibility testing and implementation is being carried out by Volker-Wessels.


Page 30

m-mv0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

m-mv0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

Figure 13 Groundwater Infiltration and Extraction Schematic for the Strijp Site System

Natural degradation at the site is limited by the rate of the mixing of bacteria, nutrients and contaminants. The large volumes of water circulation greatly increase mixing to create a “biowashing machine”. In case natural conditions are insufficient, or if there is a lack of nutrients, the set up offers the opportunity to add the necessary substances into the in situ treatment zone created Taking into account constraints imposed by the need to avoid well fouling).

Process design was modelled to determine how far the groundwater system could achieve containment with a neutral water balance (water out = water in); the development of soil and groundwater temperatures; and the environmental impacts of the system for the groundwater permit. Likely containment was estimated to lie between 90-100%. In a strong flow field it is possible that injected heat in the summer reaches the (cool) extraction wells whilst cold is still needed. Modelling found that heat or cold travel much more slowly than groundwater. After a modelled period of 20 years, it found that either heat or cold would not reach further than 30% of the distance between infiltration and extraction.

3 Breakout Sessions Two parallel syndicate sessions took place, one focused on defining sustainable remediation and the other on the implementation of sustainability in remediation.

3.1 Defining Sustainable Remediation, Euan Hall, Land Restoration Trust; UK and Ruth Chippendale, Shell, UK

The “definitions” subgroup found its task a difficult one. Different stakeholder groups, and different individuals had very different perspectives on what constituted sustainable remediation. In addition, strategic decision making in contaminated land management follows land use contexts, locally, regionally and nationally. The syndicate group quite liked the UK Sustainable Remediation Forum20 (SURF-UK) definition, and adapted it to provide an interim position for NICOLE and SAGTA for a

20 SURF-UK is co-ordinated by CLAIRE, www.claire.co.uk



Page 31

description of sustainable remediation: a “framework in order to embed balanced decision making in the selection of the strategy to address land [and/or water contamination] as an integral part of sustainable land use”.

There was also debate as to whether the concept of sustainable remediation should not be better approached “as remediation in a sustainability context”. The revised concept encompasses remediation and how this impacts sustainable development at different levels. The former concept appears to be limited to considering whether the remedial exercise alone is carried out in a sustainable way, for example, considering emissions during transport and excavation, etc.

3.2 Towards Implementation, Co Molenaar, VROM NL; Hans Slenders, ARCADIS, NL; and Paul Bardos, r3 environmental technology ltd, UK

The obvious starting point for implementation is for all those involved to have a common understanding of what “sustainable remediation” actually is. While this was the objective of the other syndicate group, the “implementation” syndicate group identified a number of key requirements for any definition: • The goal of remediation should be risk management, now or in the future • Sustainability expresses a balance between environmental, economic and social objectives • There are “narrow” objectives related to the drivers for a particular project, and “wider” objectives

related to its consequences for environment, economy and society as a whole • Any definition of comparison must consider a series of “boundaries” to ensure that like is compared

with like. These boundaries include the system being considered, spatial and temporal boundaries and life cycle boundaries, as set out in Table 5.

• The land use context plays a major role in determining sustainability of site re-use, and sustainable remediation is a part of this, as it is a part of the soil functionality debate.

Implementation issues were then discussed in terms of “needs” and “barriers”.

The key implementation needs began with a requirement for leadership from some entity, leadership with an inspirational approach. It was felt that this need was an urgent one. Implementation would not be easy unless the agreed concept and implementation approach for “sustainable remediation” was agreeable to the different stakeholders involved in the contaminated land management sector. Preferably any sustainable remediation framework would be consensus based from the “bottom up”, rather than imposed from the “top down”. The framework should be adaptable to changing circumstances in the future (such as climate change). It should also be simple…

A series of tools are needed to engage stakeholders and support consensus based decision making, which is an integral part of sustainable development; and these should be supported by a demonstration and validation programme.

The barriers to the implementation of sustainable remediation included the current divergence in ideas of what sustainability is in the context of remediation. In addition, the rigid regulatory contexts affecting many projects are a significant obstacle to the selection of a sustainable approach, and tend to make conventional approaches easier to adopt: there is insufficient “regulatory space” for sustainable remediation. Technical implementation is difficult while there appears to be no strategic approach to the management of subsurface processes and systems, and no agreed ways of considering the various boundaries to any assessment or comparison. The final barrier is of course the identification and engagement of those who ought to be interested, and the removal of “professional blinkers” by all to enable a more holistic vision.


Page 32

Table 5 Sustainability Appraisal Boundaries21

Life Cycle Life Cycle boundaries consider how far the option being considered should be broken down into sub-units requiring some sort of analysis. A key part of understanding life cycle boundaries is the concept of cradle to grave or indeed cradle to cradle.

System The system boundary describes the “edges” of the system being considered, i.e. where it interfaces with the surrounding environment, society or economic processes or other systems: e.g. the scope of the project and its operations

Spatial The intuitive understanding most people have of geographical boundaries is a site perimeter. However the sustainability appraisal has to consider impacts and benefits across the system and life cycle and these may occur: at the site being remediated; at other sites (for example treatment centres) supplier sites (including how a project approach might affect waste collection); through transportation and distribution and through distant impacts for example effects on air and water, or distant effects of increased traffic.

It may be appropriate for some appraisal purposes to distinguish between local and distant effects.

Temporal The initial time boundary, is the commencement of the operations defined by the system boundary22. The remaining time boundary is of course the point in time beyond which effects are no longer considered.

4 Discussion This discussion has been drawn from the discussions through the workshop including its closing plenary session, and from comments kindly sent in by a number of delegates and SAGTA/NICOLE members after the workshop.

There is now a general acceptance that the aim of remediation is the control of risks to human health and the environment, whether a project is driven by a development need, a regulatory need or a corporate need like mergers and acquisition. Following Brundtland countries have elaborated detailed sustainable development policies. The “sustainable remediation” debate is that these risk management actions (remediation) must themselves be a sustainable development. For example, in somewhat simplistic terms: is the removal of 100 grams of diesel range hydrocarbon from a tonne of soil sustainable if litres of non renewable fossil fuel have to be expended and CO2 subsequently produced? This debate is summarised by the Figure 14.

The NICOLE / SAGTA workshop arrived at the following description of sustainable remediation: a “framework in order to embed balanced decision making in the selection of the strategy to address land [and/or water contamination] as an integral part of sustainable land use”. Any definition must allow ability to – Make risk based decisions – Consider [and define] boundaries in time and space – Ensure a balance of outcomes can be achieved – Consider land [and water] use first as part of the process

21 Summarised from: “Sustainability Appraisal for the Use of Compost-Like Outputs – A Simple Qualitative Approach” (n prep)Bardos, Chapman et al r3 environmental technology Limited. www.r3environmental.com, and Bardos et al (2000) Assessing the Wider Environmental Value of Remediating Land Contamination. Environment Agency R&D Technical Report P238. http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/epages/eapublications.storefront/47ff753701080170273fc0a80296060d/Product/View/STRP238&2DE&2DE 22 Conceptualisation, design, delivery, construction, utilisation, production, refurbishment and maintenance, decommissioning etc

http://www.r3environmental.com

http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/epages/eapublications.storefront/47ff753701080170273fc0a80296060d/Product/View/STRP2




Page 33

The key elements behind this approach are as follows. The basic decision making rationale behind contaminated land management is a basis in risk assessment. However, the means of achieving risk management must in itself not place unreasonable demands on the environment, economy and society, the three key elements of sustainable development.

Sustainable Remediation Considerations

“Good”environment

“Bad”environment

Once upon a time the journey was enough

Now we have to take a sustainable route as well

Figure 1 The Sustainable Remediation Context Cartoon (from NICOLE London Workshop Report)

This description is not yet a definition, but rather describes a process to arrive at sustainable remediation. While the concept of sustainability is founded in the Brundtland report there are differences in its interpretation in the context of soil remediation. Key areas of debate include the following.

Technical people tend to like measurable and quantifiable things. The Brundtland concept can be seen as a little woolly to be used in a quantitative comparison of risk management options. A number of delegates preferred a concept that was more limited in scope than Brundtland, focussing in particular on measurable environmental and resource impacts (such as by life-cycle based tools, carbon footprints / intensity and cost benefit analysis). However such quantitative tools do not express the full scope of dimensions of sustainable development(see Box 1), and as such will not address a wide range of wider sustainable development considerations as diverse as soil functionality to “inclusiveness” in decision making. There was support for a tiered approach which began with simple indicator based qualitative tools, with quantitative tools used only where these simpler tools could not reliably distinguish between options, or where there was serious disagreement between stakeholders. This was also seen as a means of reducing the costs and complexity of decision making. There was a clear message that “sustainability is more than carbon”, and scepticism about the usefulness of generalised metrics for remediation technologies such as €/m2 or kg carbon per kg contaminant removed.

A lot of discussions centred, effectively, on what are the systems being compared. For example, remediation may be a component part of a larger redevelopment project: should a separate sustainability appraisal of the remediation step be undertaken in this situation? Some felt that it was unnecessary as the major sustainable development decisions and impacts were at the level of the redevelopment projects. Others felt that redevelopment was not the only driver for risk management, which in itself should be intrinsically “sustainable”, and that it would be invidious to treatment (say) for risk management activities for ongoing facilities in a different way to risk management activities for sites being redeveloped. Another point raised several times was to ask if risk management objectives themselves should be modifiable in the light of sustainability assessments.


Page 34

Box 1 Dimensions of Sustainable Remediation19

Sustainable remediation takes a holistic view and seeks a balanced approach to risk management. This is a multi-dimensional consideration, illustrated in Figure 15. Figure 15 is a representation of two remedial options “blue” and “red”. Both options have the same “core” risk management benefit, but each has different overall economic, environmental and social value, and hence different sustainability. Each “value” is of course a composite of a number of individual “indicators” of sustainable development which may be collated in a generic sense, or based on an existing sustainable development indicator set.

economic

environmental

social

so1

ec1

ev1

s1

s2

ev2

so2

ec2

Figure 15 Simple comparison of “sustainability” for two different remediation options .

An issue raised several times was the role of subjectivity in sustainability appraisal, for example in valuation processes, or where “weightings” are used in qualitative assessments. Stakeholders from different backgrounds might hold widely varying views about particular individual indicators of sustainability. As such subjectivity appears to be unavoidable, it should be explicitly catered for in appraisal tools and made transparent to all users.

Sustainable development will be a consideration at more than one level, affecting remediation work, for example policy levels at supra-national, national, regional or local levels, and at different project levels: dor example an entire remediation project versus the remediation segment; or an entire river basin management project versus mitigating problems at one particular site. What is seen as constituting sustainable development may be different at these different levels, and not only that but decisions taking at one level affect the available options at another. Therefore you cannot define sustainable remediation without first defining the context.


Page 35

5 Concluding Remarks NICOLE and SAGTA consider that a risk management approach to land contamination management should be viewed as a given. From the viewpoint of defining sustainable remediation, therefore, sustainability criteria needed to be taken into account in both setting the goals and, through appropriate options appraisal, the methods used to achieve them.

It was also suggested that sustainability might be a parallel consideration at more than one level, for example: selection of the risk management approach for a particular characterised and agreed problem site; for a redevelopment project requiring risk management works as a component; across a municipality or other such local area; and as a part of regional, national and supranational policy.

It was also widely suggested that NICOLE should adopt a leadership position in establishing and developing a sustainable remediation debate across Europe, and as such, through continuous support and feedback, it needed to link with the pioneering work now underway by CL:AIRE with its SURF-UK initiative.


Page 36

Annex 1 List of Participants

Organisation First name Family name Country

Total UK Ltd. Michael Dale UK Akzo Nobel NV Thomas Mezger NL Alcoa Mladen Vidovich Italy Arcadis Hans Slenders NL Arcadis Mark Webb UK Arcadis Guy Reed UK ASC Gill Taylor UK Atkins Limited Doug Laidler UK AWE Duncan McCallum UK AWE Claire Perks UK AWE Mike Loxley UK BAE Systems Jon Gettinby UK Bioclear BV Maurice Henssen NL BP International Hazel Burrows UK BRGM Sandra Béranger France BRGM Dominique Darmendrail France CH2M Hill España, SL Olivier Maurer Spain CL:AIRE Nicola Harries UK CL:AIRE Kirstie McCulloch UK CL:AIRE Natalie Sadler UK CL:AIRE Rob Sweeney UK CL:AIRE John Henstock UK CL:AIRE John Raeside UK Corus Steel BV Ruud Busink NL DE&S Roger Tollervey UK DE&S Paul Burden UK DE&S Shaun Grey UK Deltares/TNO Niels Hartog NL Deltares/TNO Eric van Nieuwkerk NL Dow Benelux BV Paul van Riet NL DuPont Markus Ackermann Switzerland E&RS Ltd. Richard Thurgood UK Environment Agency Brian Bone UK Environmental Knowledge Transfer Network Alec Tang UK EP Richard Boyle UK EP Paul Syms UK EP Tony Swindells UK EP Olga McFarland UK ERM John Waters UK EURODEMO+ / Federal Environment Agency Dietmar Müller Austria Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) Bernhard Hammer Switzerland Grontmij Arthur de Groof NL


Page 37


Grontmij Ed Bullivant UK Grontmij Mike Wilyman UK Grontmij Marlon Frost UK Grontmij Consulting Engineers Paul Verhaagen NL Grontmij-Carl Bro Kristian Kirkebjerg Denmark Honeywell Johan De Fraye Belgium ICI Richard Moss UK ICI Garry Preece UK IDOM S.A. Germán Monge Spain IDOM S.A. Ana Rojas Spain INERIS Isabelle Zdanevitch France International Science and Technology Center (ISTC) Valentina Rudneva

Russian Federation

IVL-Svenska Miljöinstitutet AB Östen Ekengren Sweden JM AB Jessica Paulin Sweden KemaktaKonsult AB Bertil Grundfelt Sweden Kerrier District Council Scott James UK Kerrier District Council Sarah Williams UK Land Restoration Trust Paul ? UK LRT Euan Hall UK Magnox Electric Ltd Glenda Crockett UK Ministry of the Environment Co Molenaar NL MWH UK Ltd. Giles Farrant UK National Grid Frank Evans UK National Grid Paul Walker UK Nexia Solutions Divyesh Trivedi UK Nexia Solutions Nick Barber UK

NICOLE ISG Secretariat Lida Schelwald-van der Kley NL

NICOLE Secretariat Marjan Euser NL NICOLE SPG Secretariat Elze-Lia Visser-Westerweele NL Parsons Brinckerhoff ESRM Nigel Snedker UK Parsons Brinckerhoff ESRM Adrian Dolecki UK Parsons Brinckerhoff ESRM Russell Thomas UK Petrom OMV Group Martin Dreiseitel Romania Philips Environment & Safety Jack Schreurs NL Port of Antwerp Joris Vanderhallen Belgium Port of Rotterdam Willem A. van Hattem NL R3 Environmental Technology Ltd. Paul Bardos UK Regenesis Ltd. Jeremy Birnstingl UK RSK GeoConsult Mike Summersgill UK RSK Group Plc Paul Upton UK Sévêque Environnement Jean-Louis Sévêque France Shanks Waste Management Nigel Wellsbury UK Shell Global Solutions (UK) Mike Spence UK Shell Global Solutions (UK) Ruth Chippendale UK Snamprogetti S.p.A. Michele Pellegrini Italy


Page 38


Solvay S.A. Roger Jacquet Belgium Sweco Viak Anneli Liljemark Sweden Sweco Viak AB Jenny Wickström Sweden Tauw BV Laurent Bakker NL Tauw NV Peter Janssens Belgium Taylor Wimpey Developments Ltd Ian Heasman UK Technical University Timo Heimovaara NL Thermo Fisher Scientific Todd Houlahan Germany TOTAL Alain Pérez France TOTAL Danny Kite France Total UK Ltd. Michael Dale UK UKAEA Mike Pearl UK UMICORE Lucia Buvé Belgium University of Nottingham Paul Nathanail UK URS Corporation Ltd. Mark Stevenson UK URS Corporation Ltd. Rick Parkman UK Virginia Polytecnic Institute and State University Kris Wernstedt USA Welsh Assembly Government Stephen Smith Wales, UK Worley Parsons Komex Stuart Arch UK WSP Environmental Alex Lee UK

Date post:	25-Nov-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	independent
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Report of the NICOLE/SAGTA workshop: sustainable remediation

Documents