Green Remediation Taking the Easy Wins ! September 2008 SAFESPUR Forum

download Green Remediation Taking the Easy Wins !  September 2008 SAFESPUR Forum

of 17

  • date post

    13-Jan-2016
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    40
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

description

Green Remediation Taking the Easy Wins ! September 2008 SAFESPUR Forum Colmore Plaza, Colmore Circus, Queensway, Birmingham B4 6AT Dr Alexander Lee WSP Environmental Ltd. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Green Remediation Taking the Easy Wins ! September 2008 SAFESPUR Forum

  • Green Remediation Taking the Easy Wins! September 2008

    SAFESPUR Forum

    Colmore Plaza, Colmore Circus, Queensway, Birmingham B4 6AT

    Dr Alexander LeeWSP Environmental Ltd

    Introduction

    The Value of Remediation

    The Challenge

    The Way Forward

    Carbon Footprinting

    Conclusions

    NDA Briefing Paper NSG57/2008 contaminated groundwater will remain in-situ (with or without engineered control or containment) and contaminated soil will be excavated and sent for disposal at the time of facility decommissioning and/ or at Final Site Clearance, which could be many decades in the future. We are challenged to determine whether this represents the most appropriate option, balancing technical feasibility, resource, and the impact on people and the environment, including consideration of the waste hierarchy

    Introduction

    The Value of Remediation

    The Challenge

    The Way Forward

    Carbon Footprinting

    Conclusions

    The Reality and the danger!

    Non time critical issue resolution is often the focusMoneterised as Direct Use Value (e.g. land value enhancement) Option value (e.g. enhanced land utilisation options)Absence of consideration toIndirect use Value (e.g. pristine water quality to rivers)Non Use value (altruistic and bequest values)

    Limited consideration is given to sustainability- green remediation else wider value to societyReduces to Problem Translocation

    Introduction

    The Value of Remediation

    The Challenge

    The Way Forward

    Carbon Footprinting

    Conclusions

    The ChallengeFinding the hidden value in:

    Challenging the need for intervention?

    Measuring else quantifying the hidden value in a given technology selection to a client

    Challenging the perception that more sustainable/green means more cost

    Introduction

    The Value of Remediation

    The Challenge

    The Way Forward

    Carbon Footprinting

    Conclusions

    No widely adopted or generally accepted standards nor approach exists to the delivery of remediation in the sector of ground remediation

    Numerous initiatives (SURF, Eurodemo, rescue europe,ROSA and REC) Environmental + Social + Financial = SustainableQuantifying the hidden value of technology selection

    Introduction

    The Value of Remediation

    The Challenge

    The Way Forward

    Carbon Footprinting

    Conclusions

    Quantifying the hidden value of technology selectionNo widely adopted or generally accepted standards nor approach exists to the delivery of remediation in the sector of ground remediation

    Numerous initiatives (SURF, Eurodemo, rescue europe,ROSA and REC)

    3Environmental + 1Social + 6Financial = Sustainable

    Introduction

    The Value of Remediation

    The Challenge

    The Way Forward

    Carbon Footprinting

    Conclusions

    Sustainability or Green Remediation!Green Remediation: The practice of considering all environmental effects of remedy implementation and incorporating options to maximise net environmental benefit of clean up US EPA

    Introduction

    The Value of Remediation

    The Challenge

    The Way Forward

    Carbon Footprinting

    Conclusions

    The Utopia of Green Remediation Delivery

    Introduction

    The Value of Remediation

    The Challenge

    The Way Forward

    Carbon Footprinting

    Conclusions

    Walk before we run Quantifying altruistic and bequest as hidden value delivery/cost of the remediation lifecycle isPROBLEMATIC/STAGNATION

    To seek delivery will require complex and often subjective modelling

    This remains the goal

    DANGER of being unworkable

    Quantify the known's First Focus on the show stoppers while building social models etc

    Introduction

    The Value of Remediation

    The Challenge

    The Way Forward

    Carbon Footprinting

    Conclusions

    The new focus in technology selectionGiant Microbes

    Introduction

    The Value of Remediation

    The Challenge

    The Way Forward

    Carbon Footprinting

    Conclusions

    A New Paradigm in Site ManagementMolecular Biological Tools (MBTs)DNA probes to ID key organisms (qPCR, insitu hybridization)Lipid analysis (PFLA) for specific and general community featuresbiomarkers Specialized Chemical Analysis Stable Isotope Probing (plume dynamics, natural attenuation)Field based measurements better, faster, cheaper

    Introduction

    The Value of Remediation

    The Challenge

    The Way Forward

    Carbon Footprinting

    Conclusions

    The Carbon Model The value of carbon/tCO2

    Social Cost of Carbon26.50 - 70

    UK Shadow Price. 26.50

    EU Emissions Trading Scheme.17.76

    Kyoto Clean Development Mechanism.13.301 tonne CO2 = 0.21 acres pine forest100PAX to Birmingham circa 4-6 acres from transport alone

    Introduction

    The Value of Remediation

    The Challenge

    The Way Forward

    Carbon Footprinting

    Conclusions

    Introduction

    The Value of Remediation

    The Challenge

    The Way Forward

    Carbon Footprinting

    Conclusions

    An IllustrationEmissions (tonnes CO2e)ProjectSummary

    Introduction

    The Value of Remediation

    The Challenge

    The Way Forward

    Carbon Footprinting

    Conclusions

    An IllustrationLess Carbon Efficient

    Introduction

    The Value of Remediation

    The Challenge

    The Way Forward

    Carbon Footprinting

    Conclusions

    Summary Conclusions

    Nuclear industry needs to focus on wider benefits to society from a given intervention

    Non intervention needs to be scientifically justified as a benefit to wider society

    Non intervention needs to be robustly proven

    Green technologies are available and can be audited

    Tools to support green remediation decisions are emerging to assist in informed judgement but more emphasis needed on communicating wider societal benefits

    Walk before we can run Take the easy wins BUT AN EYE ON THE LONGER TERM GOAL

    Introduction

    The Value of Remediation

    The Challenge

    The Way Forward

    Carbon Footprinting

    Conclusions

    Finally, thank you for listening

    Dr Alexander Lee0131 344 2300alexander.lee@wspgrpoup.com

    As an industry we define the value of remediation as an increase in overall human welfare resulting from the remediation taking place. Beyond imminent human health risks being avoided these benefits are expressed typically in terms of liability management or damages avoided. Economic benefits may then consequently accrue following Hardisty et al. 2006 by way of:

    Crudely the value of remediation is often simply moneterised. Environmental actions are most often commissioned on the basis of low probability yet high consequence risks, future cost protection and sensitivity with respect to time. Whilst remediation includes time critical work such as recent fuel and chemical spills much of the remediation works undertaken frequently focus upon non time critical clean up (historic spills) so as to minimise our clients baseline damages, as assets at risk, else their future market value with limited consideration towards bequest value in costing, designing else delivering site remediation versus the true environmental costs of clean up together with actual risk versus perceived risk. Whilst the issues may not be time critical when gauged on a risk based perspective many remediation schemes, especially those for developers are delivered in a time critical style. The delivery of environmental work creates secondary environmental impacts that must not negatively outweigh the risk when balanced by economic and social gain. Natural resources are consumed and by-products generated when investigation and remedial activities are conducted. Remedial technologies and assessments consume energy, produce atmospheric, solid and liquid based waste streams and rarely destroy or remove contaminants from the environment in totality. Certain remediation activities may therefore best be defined as removal and/or media transfer operations. Occasionally, the actual site risk may not exceed the level of exposure that may be caused by actually conducting the remediation. Furthermore, the subsurface soil and groundwater impacts present frequently do not represent an immediate or practical long term exposure despite risk assessment. By way of example, excavation and landfill disposal necessitates exposing impacted material by intrusive works, during which volatilisation of hydrocarbons and health risks may be incurred, while transporting the media often considerable distances and disposing to landfill consumes energy. The target site may be improved alongside the target sites liabilities yet exposure and work related impacts have been incurred and the problem material simply translocated to a secondary although managed location at the cost of energy consumption.. Additionally, the problem media in a disturbed state may still present a problem to the wider global environment albeit at a different location for example by way of leachate generation and accelerated GHG emissions. Consideration of the latter as a concern and in understanding the true environmental costs of a product is given in the publicly available specification document (draft) from the British Standards Institute entitled PAS 2050 Specification for the measurement of Embodied Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) in Product and Services. This document suggests that GHG emissions from transporting waste to landfill and GHG emissions from the waste whilst in the landfill site shall be attributed to the product i.e. must be attributed to the remedial action. Similarly, the volatile components of many treatment technologies are typically released directly to