Use of the Contingent Valuation Method in the assessment of a landfill mining project

A comprehensive approach for the evaluation of the economic feasibility of landfill mining (LFM) should take into account not only the direct costs and revenues for the private investor, but also the social benefits or costs (generally called externalities), in such a way that projects generating major social benefits (and no significant private revenues) are not overlooked.With a view to contributing to the development of a common framework for the evaluation of LFM projects, this paper presents the results of a case study where the issue of the assessment of social benefits from a LFM project is addressed. In particular, the Contingent Valuation Method is applied for the monetary assessment of the community-perceived benefits from the remediation of an old uncontrolled waste deposit by means of LFM and the conversion of the area into a park.Based on the results of a survey carried out on a random sample of people living near the old landfill, the economic values of the individual willingness to pay (WTP) for LFM and the subsequent creation of a public park were calculated and the correlations with the relevant variables (distance from the landfill site, age, income, sex, education level) assessed. The results were then suitably extended and the monetary value of the welfare increase of the whole population resident in the area and potentially affected both by LFM and the creation of the park was calculated.     

Economic Project Risk Assessment in Remediation Projects Prior to Construction: Methodology Development and Case Study Application

Probabilistic economic analysis, including uncertainty of probabilities and consequences of project risks, is not widely used in remediation projects. This article presents a project risk assessment (PRA) method to identify, quantify, and analyze risks in remediation projects. The suggested method is probabilistic and includes uncertainty analysis of input variables based on expert judgment. It was originally developed as a part of a sustainability assessment tool, but is viable as a stand‐alone tool for remediation projects. The method is applied to a case study: a former paint factory that is being redeveloped into a residential area. The PRA method is used for analyzing and comparing the project risks associated with four remediation options, all including excavation but with different degrees of onsite treatment. The result of the case study application shows which alternative has the lowest mean risk cost, the highest probability to have the lowest risk cost, and how the risk costs are distributed, but also, importantly, helps the user to prioritize between risk‐reduction measures. ©2015 Wiley Periodicals     

Integration of RBCA frameworks and remediation technologies

Decisions that determine the proper risk-based remediation approach are based on technical, regulatory, cost, legal, and political factors. A wide variety of options such as the ASTM RBCA tiered approach, the API Decision Support Software, and a host of agency-specific methods and commercial risk assessment software are all available. The optimization of a remediation project requires the right remediation technology coupled with the appropriate analytical framework. For groundwater remediation, the application of various “risk reduction” technologies can be classified as aggressive (pump and treat), moderate intensity (air sparging), low intensity (oxygen release compound-ORC®), and intrinsic (monitor only). The time frame of risk analysis will establish the proper risk reduction strategy. The selection process is inherently iterative, and the approach by which an optimal solution can be derived forms the basis of this article. A case study of a Texas site put these issues into context.     

Estimating Social Impacts of a Remediation Project Life Cycle With Environmental Footprint Evaluation Tools

This article presents a methodology to calculate the social cost of sustainability metrics with environmental footprint evaluation tools. Measuring the impacts of a remediation project on society is challenging because the methods by which these impacts can be measured have not been established. To perform a complete sustainability assessment of a project's life cycle, costs borne by society in terms of environmental, economic, and community impacts must be evaluated. Two knowledge gaps have been identified among the sustainability assessments currently being performed during a remediation project's life cycle: (1) lack of methodologies available to evaluate impacts on the socioeconomic aspects of remediation and (2) lack of sustainability assessments conducted during the site characterization stage. Sustainability assessments were conducted on two case studies using the methodology proposed in this article: one during the site characterization stage and the other during remedial action. The results of this study demonstrated that costs borne by society from a remediation project are significant and metric specific. This study also highlighted the benefits of conducting a sustainability assessment at the site characterization stage using environmental footprint analysis tools, cost benefit analysis, and an evaluation of costs borne by society. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Understanding technology trends for remediation projects

Success of future environmental remediation projects depends on applying knowledge gained from completed projects. This article examines the trends in technology implementation, quantifies the impact of different remediation technologies on project costs and execution risks, and quantifies the economies of scale experienced by remediation projects. Actual project data from remediation projects conducted by the private sector and government organizations form the basis of the analysis.     

Developing Effective Decision Support for the Application of “Gentle” Remediation Options: The GREENLAND Project

Gentle remediation options (GRO) are risk management strategies/technologies that result in a net gain (or at least no gross reduction) in soil function as well as risk management. They encompass a number of technologies, including the use of plant (phyto‐), fungi (myco‐), and/or bacteria‐based methods, with or without chemical soil additives or amendments, for reducing contaminant transfer to local receptors by in situ stabilization, or extraction, transformation, or degradation of contaminants. Despite offering strong benefits in terms of risk management, deployment costs, and sustainability for a range of site problems, the application of GRO as practical on‐site remedial solutions is still in its relative infancy, particularly for metal(loid)‐contaminated sites. A key barrier to wider adoption of GRO relates to general uncertainties and lack of stakeholder confidence in (and indeed knowledge of) the feasibility or reliability of GRO as practical risk management solutions. The GREENLAND project has therefore developed a simple and transparent decision support framework for promoting the appropriate use of gentle remediation options and encouraging participation of stakeholders, supplemented by a set of specific design aids for use when GRO appear to be a viable option. The framework is presented as a three phased model or Decision Support Tool (DST), in the form of a Microsoft Excel‐based workbook, designed to inform decision‐making and options appraisal during the selection of remedial approaches for contaminated sites. The DST acts as a simple decision support and stakeholder engagement tool for the application of GRO, providing a context for GRO application (particularly where soft end‐use of remediated land is envisaged), quick reference tables (including an economic cost calculator), and supporting information and technical guidance drawing on practical examples of effective GRO application at trace metal(loid) contaminated sites across Europe. This article introduces the decision support framework. ©2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Sustainable Remediation and Decision Analysis Practices at an Onshore Gas Well Site

Strategies for remediation of drilling mud wastes at a typical deep sour gas well site in the foothills of Alberta were assessed in terms of financial and social costs and benefits, in alignment with established sustainable remediation and decision analysis principles. Managers of contaminated sites containing historical drilling wastes are challenged with managing liability through several regulatory changes over time. Excavation and disposal of the contaminated soil from the site was the only means of securing regulatory release, with the nearest landfill located 150 km away. A perception exists that in many cases excavation and disposal inflicts unnecessary levels of site intrusiveness and public disturbance when other options achieving a similar risk end point may do so for lower social cost. The study tested this hypothesis to ascertain whether the currently accepted solution is the best option when the wider costs and benefits to society and the environment are included. Eight remedial strategies were assessed using cost–benefit analysis, including using environmental economics techniques to quantify social and environmental impacts. The economic model showed that methods such as capping in‐place or engineered encapsulation were superior to full excavation and disposal from financial and sustainability perspectives. Quantified external costs and benefits such as road damage, greenhouse gas emissions, public nuisance and safety, and community amenity value were influential in identifying superior options. It was demonstrated that $0.2 million of societal costs could be avoided by choosing capping over landfill disposal. This represents substantial implications when viewed in the context of this and other operators’ portfolios of hundreds of abandoned wells in the area. ©2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Resilience: A New Consideration for Environmental Remediation in an Era of Climate Change

There has been a growing movement within the environmental industry to develop more sustainable approaches in environmental remediation. These have generally included carbon footprint analysis, life cycle assessment, and best management practices to reduce the overall net environmental, social, and economic impacts of investigation and remediation activities. One of the foundational reasons net environmental impacts are currently evaluated is to identify and, subsequently, reduce contributions to climate change, primarily greenhouse gas emissions. While this trend toward sustainability and reduction in impact to the global environment is both important and admirable, the approach to remediation design and long‐term planning now needs to evolve further to better incorporate climate resilience into sustainable remediation design and implementation: designing remediation solutions that account for the projected impacts of climate change, as well as have the capacity to adapt to changing conditions. As a global population, we are now beyond the point of being able to prevent climate change and instead need to plan for adapting to it. In remediation, the effects of climate change create both risks and opportunities which should be considered during remedial design and long‐term planning. Responsible parties may see the push for—and management of—these considerations through their internal corporate risk management. The authors of this paper propose a simple framework for climate adaptation and resilience evaluations and plan development for remediation projects. ©2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Technical and economic analyses in the development of bioremediation processes

The very large extent of subsurface and groundwater contamination with toxic organic compounds has prompted research on a number of bioremedial processes. The justification of this research has been to achieve lower overall remedial costs than are incurred by currently existing technologies. Laboratory studies are often undertaken with the notion that a new set of process conditions can reduce reagent consumption or the time for treatment by a significant factor with an attendant reduction in overall remediation costs. Research programs are initiated on the basis of these simple premises. Our work has shown that many research projects have been undertaken for the wrong reasons and that experimental effort has often not been directed toward large-scale implementation. A preliminary process analysis has been shown to be a very valuable component of any research and development program on bioremedial and other innovative technologies. As described in this article, the analysis (1) identifies the critical engineering and cost parameters and (2) provides guidance to the research program in the design of experiments and the collection of data. The methodology is also useful in the review of proposed new technologies and treatment equipment. The article includes an example of a process analysis for an actual development project directed toward the remediation of solids contaminated with chlorinated hydrocarbons to illustrate the benefits and the power of the technique.     

Best management practices for environmental restoration programs

Based on a review of hundreds of environmental restoration program optimization reviews, this article describes management tools found in successful and efficient remediation programs. Projects that consistently struggled to achieve their objectives were observed to be missing certain, or to have inadequately used, these tools. The tools are articulated as best practices because when they are present and actively used, project shortcomings were minimal. Priority objectives for site owners and project managers include improving efficiency and effectiveness through performance management, reducing resource usage and energy consumption, ensuring protectiveness, and reducing uncertainty in management decision making. Restoring environmental resources damaged by historic waste management practices began in earnest in the late 1960s and early 1970s with the broad recognition of the problems caused by environmental discharges and spills when wastes are not managed appropriately. Under new regulations, soil and groundwater remediation projects could be, and were, conducted within a defined framework. The number and variety of restoration projects that were launched resulted in a slew of projects progressing through the stages of characterization, decision, and cleanup, and more were added to the cleanup process each year. In the 1990s, the Department of Defense noted that many cleanup efforts were projected to incur substantial operational, maintenance, and monitoring costs for decades into the future. This was correctly perceived as an opportunity to optimize those systems and programs, minimize costs, and reduce health and environmental risks. The best practices outlined in this article address management tools that were identified in optimization efforts that led to effective and efficient environmental remediation projects. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

The value of composting in Germany – Economy,ecology, and legislation

Based on a recent survey of German composting plants an evaluation of costs and benefits of composting was attempted. In this regard, several economical, ecological and legal aspects and some interrelations are discussed in this paper. A special emphasis is placed on the fees and compost prices of composting plants. It is also shown how the legal framework provides the economic basis for composting in Germany, how economical and ecological costs and benefits could be assessed, and why it is so difficult to determine the value of composting.     

Applying sustainable development principles to contaminated land management using the SuRF‐UK framework

In the past decade, management of historically contaminated land has largely been based on prevention of unacceptable risks to human health and the environment, to ensure a site is “fit for use.” More recently, interest has been shown in including sustainability as a decision‐making criterion. Sustainability concerns include the environmental, social, and economic consequences of risk management activities themselves, and also the opportunities for wider benefit beyond achievement of risk‐reduction goals alone. In the United Kingdom, this interest has led to the formation of a multistakeholder initiative, the UK Sustainable Remediation Forum (SuRF‐UK). This article presents a framework for assessing “sustainable remediation”; describes how it links with the relevant regulatory guidance; reviews the factors considered in sustainability; and looks at the appraisal tools that have been applied to evaluate the wider benefits and impacts of land remediation. The article also describes how the framework relates to recent international developments, including emerging European Union legislation and policy. A large part of this debate has taken place in the “grey” literature, which we review. It is proposed that a practical approach to integrating sustainability within risk‐based contaminated land management offers the possibility of a substantial step forward for the remediation industry, and a new opportunity for international consensus. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Choosing remediation and waste management options at hazardous and radioactive waste sites

This article discusses a process for finding insights that will allow federal agencies and environmental professionals to more effectively manage contaminated sites. The process is built around what Etzioni (1968) called mixed‐scanning, that is, perpetually doing both comprehensive and detailed analyses and periodically re‐scanning for new circumstances that change the decision‐making environment. The article offers a checklist of 127 items, which is one part of the multiple‐stage scanning process. The checklist includes questions about technology; public, worker, and ecological health; economic cost and benefits; social impacts; and legal issues. While developed for a DOE high‐level radioactive waste application, the decision‐making framework and specific questions can be used for other large‐scale remediation and management projects. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Ten years later: The progress and future of integrating sustainable principles,practices, and metrics into remediation projects

In 2009, the Sustainable Remediation Forum released a white paper entitled “Integrating sustainable principles, practices, and metrics into remediation projects” (Ellis & Hadley, 2009, Remediation, 19, pp. 5–114). Sustainable remediation was a relatively new concept, and the white paper explored a range of approaches on how sustainability could be integrated into traditional remediation projects. This paper revisits the 2009 white paper, providing an overview of the early days of the evolving sustainable remediation practice and an assessment of the progress of sustainable remediation over the last 10 years with a primary focus on the United States. The current state of the sustainable remediation practice includes published literature, current practices and resources, applications, room for improvement, international progress, the virtuous cycle that applying sustainable remediation creates, and the status of the objectives cited in the 2009 white paper. Over the last decade, several sustainable remediation frontiers have emerged that will likely be a focus in advancing the practice. These frontiers include climate change and resiliency, weighting and valuation to help better consolidate different sustainable remediation metrics, programmatic implementation, and better integration of the societal impacts of sustainable remediation. Finally, as was the case for the 2009 white paper, this paper explores how sustainable remediation may evolve over the next 10 years and focuses on the events and drivers that can be significant in the pace of further development of the practice. The events and drivers include transformation impacts, societal influences, and the continued development of new technologies, approaches, and tools by remediation practitioners. The remediation industry has made significant progress in developing the practice of sustainable remediation and has implemented it successfully into hundreds of projects. While progress has been significant, an opportunity exists to implement the tenets of sustainable remediation on many more projects and explore new frontiers to help improve the communication, integration, and derived benefits from implementing sustainable remediation into future remediation projects.     

化学淋洗—H2O2-O3-UV复合催化氧化技术修复硝基甲苯一氯、二氯代物污染土壤工程实例

针对某退役化工企业地块的关注污染物硝基甲苯一氯、二氯代物的历史形成、污染状况和土质特点,在小试技术验证的基础上,采用化学淋洗—H₂O₂-O₃-UV复合催化氧化技术进行受污染土壤异位修复的工程实践。结果表明,该技术能较好地适用于关注污染物的土壤修复工程,修复后指标明显优于目标值,且造价和运行费用较低,具有显著的社会效益、经济效益和环境效益,有一定的推广价值。     

Expect the best but plan for the worst: Negotiating contracts for remediation services

The risks associated with environmental remediation projects are of concern to engineers, consultants, contractors, owners, and the public. The cost, scheduling, and other uncertainties inherent in performance of construction at sites contaminated by hazardous substances dictate caution with respect to contract terms. Further, the possibility that conditions will be exacerbated by the work, or the public or workers exposed to on-site substances, makes remediation projects of particular concern to those who will be held accountable for the effects and impacts of such substances. This article discusses particularly important contractual issues and suggests approaches for liability allocation and incentives. Practical, effective, realistic approaches to management of environmental remediation are presented, including the form of contract utilized, negotiated terms, attention to contractor selection and management, and the parties' relative economic strength.     

Integrating Remediation and Reuse to Achieve Whole‐System Sustainability Benefits

This perspective article was prepared by members of the Sustainable Remediation Forum (SURF), a professional nonprofit organization seeking to advance the state of sustainable remediation within the broader context of sustainable site reuse. SURF recognizes that remediation and site reuse, including redevelopment activities, are intrinsically linked—even when remediation is subordinate to or sometimes a precursor of reuse. Although the end of the remediation life cycle has traditionally served as the beginning of the site's next life cycle, a disconnect between these two processes remains. SURF recommends a holistic approach that brings together remediation and reuse on a collaborative parallel path and seeks to achieve whole‐system sustainability benefits. This article explores the value of integrating remediation into the reuse process to fully exploit synergies and minimize the costs and environmental impacts associated with bringing land back into beneficial use. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Solid waste management by application of the WAMED model

This article aims to develop a general model for the evaluation of ecological-economic efficiency that will serve as an information support tool for decision making at the corporate, municipal, and regional levels. It encompasses cost-benefit analysis in solid waste management by applying a sustainability promoting approach that is explicitly related to monetary measures. A waste managements’ efficient decision (WAMED) model based on cost-benefit analysis is proposed and developed to evaluate the ecological-economic efficiency of solid waste management schemes. The employment of common business administration methodology tools is featured. A classification of competing waste management models is introduced to facilitate evaluation of the relevance of the previously introduced WAMED model. Suggestions are made for how to combine the previously introduced EUROPE model, based on the equality principle, with the WAMED model to create economic incentives to reduce solid waste management-related emissions. A fictive case study presents the practical application of the proposed cost-benefit analysis-based theory to the landfilling concept. It is concluded that the presented methodology reflects an integrated approach to decreasing negative impacts on the environment and on the health of the population, while increasing economic benefits through the implementation of solid waste management projects.     

Sustainable soil remediation by refrigerated condensation at sites with “high‐concentration” recalcitrant compounds and NAPL: Two case studies

Remediation of recalcitrant compounds at sites with high concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or nonaqueous‐phase liquids (NAPLs) can present significant technical and financial (long‐term) risk for stakeholders. Until recently, however, sustainability has not been included as a significant factor to be considered in the feasibility and risk evaluation for remediation technologies. The authors present a framework for which sustainability can be incorporated into the remediation selection criteria focusing specifically on off‐gas treatment selection for soil vapor extraction (SVE) remediation technology. SVE is generally considered an old and standard approach to in situ remediation of soils at a contaminated site. The focus on off‐gas treatment technology selection in this article allows for more in‐depth analysis of the feasibility evaluation process and how sustainable practices might influence the process. SVE is more commonly employed for recovery of VOCs from soils than other technologies and generally employs granular activated carbon (GAC), catalytic, or thermal oxidation, or an emerging alternative technology known as cryogenic‐compression and condensation combined with regenerative adsorption (C3–Technology). Of particular challenge to the off‐gas treatment selection process is the potential variety of chemical constituents and concentrations changing over time. Guidance is available regarding selection of off‐gas treatment technology (Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, 1996; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006). However, there are common shortcomings of off‐gas treatment technology guidance and applications; practitioners have rarely considered sustainability and environmental impact of off‐gas treatment technology selection. This evaluation includes consideration of environmental sustainability in the selection of off‐gas treatment technologies and a region‐specific (Los Angeles, California) cost per pound and time of remediation comparisons between GAC, thermal oxidation, and C3–Technology. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.