Integrating the Social Dimension in Remediation Decision‐Making: State of the Practice and Way Forward

Sustainable remediation guidance, frameworks, and case studies have been published at an international level illustrating established sustainability assessment methodologies and successful implementation. Though the terminology and indicators evaluated may differ, one common theme among international organizations and regulatory bodies is more comprehensive and transparent methods are needed to evaluate the social sphere of sustainable remediation. Based on a literature review and stakeholder input, this paper focused on three main areas: (1) status quo of how the social element of sustainable remediation is assessed among various countries and organizations; (2) methodologies to quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate societal impacts; and (3) findings from this research, including challenges, obstacles, and a path forward. In conclusion, several existing social impact assessment techniques are readily available for use by the remediation community, including rating and scoring system evaluations, enhanced cost benefit analysis, surveys/interviews, social network analysis, and multicriteria decision analysis. In addition, a list of 10 main social indicator categories were developed: health and safety, economic stimulation, stakeholder collaboration, benefits community at large, alleviate undesirable community impacts, equality issues, value of ecosystem services and natural resources, risk‐based land management and remedial solutions, regional and global societal impacts, and contributions to other policies. Evaluation of the social element of remedial activities is not without challenges and knowledge gaps. Identification of obstacles and gaps during the project planning process is essential to defining sustainability objectives and choosing the appropriate tool and methodology to conduct an assessment. Challenges identified include meaningful stakeholder engagement, risk perception of stakeholders, and trade‐offs among the various triple bottom line dimensions. ©2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Impacts of “metals” on human health: a comparison between nine different methodologies for Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)

This paper looks into the differences and uncertainties in determining the impact of “metals’” emissions on human health, in Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA). Metals are diverse substances, with different properties and characteristics, considered important in LCIA because of their toxicity to humans and ecosystems. First, we defined a list of the most significant metals in terms of impacts on human health. This was done according to precise criteria accounting for both physical and toxic properties of the metals. Second, we performed an LCIA on different key processes using various existing LCIA methodologies and including also USEtox: the recently developed consensus-model for LCIA. Last, we compared the results in relative terms using a contribution analysis. The analysis showed poor or no agreement between the methods: the relative contribution of each metal and of the metals in total to the total impact on human health changes greatly according to the LCIA method used. These differences are due mainly to the number of metals included in each method and to the technique used to calculate the characterization factors. Results obtained with USEtox show no apparent correlation with results calculated with other methods. At present time USEtox is recommended as the best model for LCIA on human toxicity, but mainly because of the large consensus behind it, because its uncertainties regarding metals are still high. The study gives a good and simple overview regarding the way different methods address the impact assessment for metals, and helps in the interpretation of LCIA results for actual LCA studies where metal emissions are involved.     

Eco-toxicological impact of “metals” on the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem: A comparison between eight different methodologies for Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)

The assessment of eco-toxicological impacts related to the emission of contaminants into the environment has peculiar characteristics in the context of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), and many different Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) methodologies can be used. However, previous studies recognized the presence of high uncertainties in the process, in particular when the analysis focuses on metal emissions. Metals are diverse inorganic substances relevant for their characteristic environmental chemistry, their high persistency into the environment and their toxicity at even low environmental concentrations. This study aims at expanding the discussion about how, and how differently, various methods for LCIA are estimating the impacts related to metals emissions, with a focus on eco-toxicological impacts. A comparison between eight different LCIA methods is presented in relative terms, using a contribution analysis at two levels: general and specific. Results show that there is a poor agreement between methods in the determination of the total eco-toxic impact attributable to metals, and in defining which metal provokes the highest eco-toxic impact per unitary emission. Furthermore, the characterization phase is critical in determining the disagreement between methods. However, some similarities were found: there is the tendency in most methods to associate the largest share of the total eco-toxicological impacts to metals. Theoretical and practical differences between methods are discussed and suggestions for the choice of the proper, case-specific, LCIA method are provided.     

Pollutants and sperm quality: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Environmental Science and Pollution Research - Male fertility and semen quality have declined over recent decades. Among other causes, exposure to environmental and occupational pollution has been...     

Regional risk assessment for contaminated sites part 1: vulnerability assessment by multicriteria decision analysis

As highlighted in the EU Soil Communication, local contamination is one of the main soil threats and it is often related to present and past industrial activities which left a legacy of a high number of contaminated sites in Europe. These contaminated sites can be harmful to many different receptors according to their sensitivity/susceptibility to contamination, and specific vulnerability evaluations are needed in order to manage this widely spread environmental issue. In this paper a novel comprehensive vulnerability assessment framework to assess regional receptor susceptibility to contaminated site is presented. The developed methodology, which combines multi criteria decision analysis (MCDA) techniques and spatial analysis, can be applied to different receptors recognized as relevant for regional assessment. In order to characterize each receptor, picked parameters significant for the estimation of the vulnerability to contaminated sites have been selected, normalized and aggregated by means of multi criteria decision analysis (MCDA) techniques. The developed MCDA methodology, based on the Choquet integral, allows to include expert judgments for the elicitation of synergic and conflicting effects between involved criteria and is applied to all the geographical objects representing the identified receptors. To test the potential of the vulnerability methodology, it has been applied to a specific case study area in the upper Silesia region of Poland where it proved to be reliable and consistent with the environmental experts' expected results. The vulnerability assessment results indicate that groundwater is the most vulnerable receptor characterized by a wide area with vulnerability scores belonging to the highest vulnerability class. As far as the other receptors are concerned, human health and surface water are characterized by quite homogeneous vulnerability scores falling in the medium-high vulnerability classes, while protected areas resulted to be the less vulnerable receptor with only one protected area falling in the medium vulnerability class. The vulnerability assessment results will support the regional risk assessment for the ranking of potentially contaminated sites at regional scale.     

Regional risk assessment for contaminated sites part 2: ranking of potentially contaminated sites

Environmental risks are traditionally assessed and presented in non spatial ways although the heterogeneity of the contaminants spatial distributions, the spatial positions and relations between receptors and stressors, as well as the spatial distribution of the variables involved in the risk assessment, strongly influence exposure estimations and hence risks. Taking into account spatial variability is increasingly being recognized as a further and essential step in sound exposure and risk assessment. To address this issue an innovative methodology which integrates spatial analysis and a relative risk approach was developed. The purpose of this methodology is to prioritize sites at regional scale where a preliminary site investigation may be required. The methodology aimed at supporting the inventory of contaminated sites was implemented within the spatial decision support sYstem for Regional rIsk Assessment of DEgraded land, SYRIADE, and was applied to the case-study of the Upper Silesia region (Poland). The developed methodology and tool are both flexible and easy to adapt to different regional contexts, allowing the user to introduce the regional relevant parameters identified on the basis of user expertise and regional data availability. Moreover, the used GIS functionalities, integrated with mathematical approaches, allow to take into consideration, all at once, the multiplicity of sources and impacted receptors within the region of concern, to assess the risks posed by all contaminated sites in the region and, finally, to provide a risk-based ranking of the potentially contaminated sites.     

A spatial risk assessment methodology to support the remediation of contaminated land

When soil and groundwater contaminations occur over large areas, remediation measures should be spatially prioritized on the basis of the risk posed to human health and in compliance with technological and budget constraints. Within this scope, the application of human health risk assessment algorithms in a spatially resolved environment raises a number of methodological and technical complexities. In this paper, a methodology is proposed and applied in a case study to support the entire formulation process of remediation plans, encompassing hazard assessment, exposure assessment, risk characterisation, uncertainty assessment and allocation of risk reduction measures. In the hazard assessment, it supports the selection of Contaminants of Concern (CoC) with regard to both their average concentrations and peak concentrations, i.e. hot spots. In the exposure assessment, it provides a zoning of the site based on the geostatistical mapping of contaminant. In the risk characterisation, it generates vector maps of Risk Factors on the basis of the risk posed by multiple substances and allows the interrogation of most relevant CoC and exposure pathways for each zone of the site. It also supports the Monte Carlo based probabilistic estimation of the Risk Factors and generates maps of the associated uncertainty. In the risk reduction phase, it supports the formulation of remediation plans based on the stepwise spatial allocation of remediation interventions and the on-time simulation of risk reduction performances. The application of this methodology is fully supported by an easy-to-use and customized Geographical Information System and does not require high expertise for interpretation. The proposed methodology is the core module of a Decision Support System (DSS) that was implemented in the DESYRE software aimed at supporting the risk-based remediation of megasites.