Green Remediation Taking the Easy Wins ! September 2008 SAFESPUR Forum
17
Green Remediation Taking the Easy Wins! September 2008 SAFESPUR Forum Colmore Plaza, Colmore Circus, Queensway, Birmingham B4 6AT Dr Alexander Lee WSP Environmental Ltd
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 Lee
WSP 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 focus
• Moneterised as – Direct Use Value (e.g. land value enhancement) – Option value (e.g. enhanced land utilisation options)
• Absence of consideration to– Indirect 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 society
Reduces to Problem Translocation
Introduction
The Value of Remediation
The Challenge
The Way Forward
Carbon Footprinting
Conclusions
The ChallengeFinding the hidden value in:
1. Challenging the need for intervention?
2. Measuring else quantifying the hidden value in a given technology selection to a client
3. 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
FinancialSocial
Environmental + Social + Financial = Sustainable
Quantifying 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 selection
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
FinancialSocial
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
Air
WaterLand and
ecosystems
Materials and waste
Stewardship
Energy
Introduction
The Value of Remediation
The Challenge
The Way Forward
Carbon Footprinting
Conclusions
The Utopia of Green Remediation DeliveryAir Energy Water Land & Eco Materials &
WasteStewardship
Cleaner fuels, retrofit diesel
engines
Energy Efficient Plant Minimise Use passive techniques E.g. Bio plus phyto remediation
Reuse Min. GHG
Reduce Dust export
Renewable energy systems to offset
needs
Reuse/reclaim Use in situ Technologies Recycle Renewable energy systems to
offset needs
Reduce VOC’s, ozone etc
Passive energy technologies
Prevent indirect nutrient loading
Min. Soil/habitat disturbance + noise and light disturbance
Reduce Passive sampling techniques
Min. Heavy plant Min. Bioavailability
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 is
PROBLEMATIC/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 selection
The old party guests
The new party invitees
Applicability Energy Efficiency
Technical Feasibility
Water intensity
Effectiveness Soil intensity
Cost Material intensity
Duration Stewardship incl. GHG, social
considerations
Chemical Oxidation
(Free Radicals)
Chemical Reduction
(Largely Fe)
Biological Oxidation
(Aerobic)
Biological Reduction
(Anaerobic)
Giant Microbes
Introduction
The Value of Remediation
The Challenge
The Way Forward
Carbon Footprinting
Conclusions
A New Paradigm in Site Management
– Molecular Biological Tools (MBTs)
• DNA probes to ID key organisms (qPCR, insitu hybridization)
• Lipid analysis (PFLA) for specific and general community features
• biomarkers
– Specialized Chemical Analysis
• Stable Isotope Probing (plume dynamics, natural attenuation)
• Field based measurements – better, faster, cheaper
Signature Lipid BiomarkersDNA
•Quinones•Phospholipid Fatty Acids
•Community Level 16s•Targeted•Functional
Quantitative Quant/Qual
Introduction
The Value of Remediation
The Challenge
The Way Forward
Carbon Footprinting
Conclusions
The Carbon Model
The value of carbon £/tCO2
• Social Cost of Carbon £26.50 - £70
• UK Shadow Price. £26.50
• EU Emissions Trading Scheme. £17.76
• Kyoto Clean Development Mechanism. £13.30
1 tonne CO2 = 0.21 acres pine forest
100PAX to Birmingham circa 4-6 acres from transport alone
Introduction
The Value of Remediation
The Challenge
The Way Forward
Carbon Footprinting
Conclusions
Fill materials/Topsoil Fill materials/Topsoil
Soil excavation & processing(plant use)
Soil excavation & processing(plant use)
Plant & AccommodationPlant & Accommodation
TransportTransport
Raw Materials/Site setup
Remediation substrate (e.g. permanganate)
Remediation substrate (e.g. permanganate)
Remediation site activities
TransportTransport
TransportTransport
Disposal
Site supervision/staffing
Site supervision/staffing
Contaminant degradation (assumed oxidation)Contaminant degradation (assumed oxidation)
Contaminant mass Contaminant mass
Fuel Fuel
Construction materials (e.g. geomembrane)
Construction materials (e.g. geomembrane)
Landfill Landfill
TransportTransport
TransportTransport
Carbon emissions from waste
Carbon emissions from soil/groundwater
TransportTransport
Follow-up monitoring Follow-up monitoring
Soil treatment(plant use)
Soil treatment(plant use)
Groundwater treatment(plant use)
Groundwater treatment(plant use)
Soil hazardous/non-hazardous waste
Soil hazardous/non-hazardous waste
Municipal wasteMunicipal waste
TransportTransport
Natural organic carbon Natural organic carbon
TransportTransport
Raw Materials Transport Energy consuming process WasteRaw Materials Transport Energy consuming process WasteRaw Materials Transport Energy consuming process Waste
Introduction
The Value of Remediation
The Challenge
The Way Forward
Carbon Footprinting
Conclusions
ThermalDesorption
Off-sitedisposal
ConventionalBioremediation
Item / Technology ThermalDesorption
Off-sitedisposal
ConventionalBioremediation
Item / Technology
An IllustrationItem / Technology Conventional
BioremediationOff-site
disposalThermal
Desorption
Cost ($) $3.5M $4.7M $6.8M
Project duration (weeks) 22 14 14
No. WSP People on site 4 3 4
Contaminant mass (t) 161.1 161.1 161.1
Natural organic carbon mass (t) 15 15 15
Raw materials
Backfill etc0 80.56 0
Energy consuming processes
Plant, Treatment, Degredation594.7 763.1 1969.3
Waste
Soil and Municipal Waste28.6 129.3 28.6
Transport
Personal, Waste, Backfill, Plant6.54 43.03 4.89
Total (tonnes CO2e) 630 1,016 2,003
Em
iss
ion
s (
ton
nes
CO
2e)
Pro
jec
tS
um
mar
y
Introduction
The Value of Remediation
The Challenge
The Way Forward
Carbon Footprinting
Conclusions
An Illustration
Item / TechnologyConventional
BioremediationOff-site
disposalThermal
Desorption
Cost ($) $3.5M $4.7M $6.8M
Contaminant
Removal
Efficiancy
kgCO2e / kgCONTAM
5.68 6.30 12.42
Tree area
Equivelent
ha
53.54 86.35 170.21
Total (tonnes CO2e) 630 1,016 2,003
Less Carbon Efficient
ThermalDesorption
Off-sitedisposal
ConventionalBioremediation
Item / Technology ThermalDesorption
Off-sitedisposal
ConventionalBioremediation
Item / Technology
Thermal£53-140K
BIO£17-44k
Disposal£27-71K
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 2300
