TOOLS, METRICS AND INDICATORS “The risks for workers ... 2/Elisabetta_Bemporad_145.pdf ·...
Transcript of TOOLS, METRICS AND INDICATORS “The risks for workers ... 2/Elisabetta_Bemporad_145.pdf ·...
The 3°International conference on Sustainable Remediation
Elisabetta Bemporad (INAIL Ricerca - Italy)
Simona Berardi (INAIL Ricerca - Italy)
Emma Incocciati (INAIL Contarp - Italy)
The 3° Sustainable Remediation Conference – Ferrara (Italy), September 17-19
TOOLS, METRICS AND INDICATORS “The risks for workers during remediation as
an element of sustainability”
OUTLINE
The 3° Sustainable Remediation Conference – Ferrara (Italy), September 17-19
! Introduction ! Risks for workers on contaminated sites ! Screening of available tools and methodology ! Comparison of tools and methodology
considering workers’ health and safety ! Some considerations about a case study ! Conclusions ! How INAIL could contribute
INTRODUCTION
The 3° Sustainable Remediation Conference – Ferrara (Italy), September 17-19
! Decision making for contaminated land management is based on the assessment of risks to human health and environmental receptors
! Negative impacts include risk of injury at the remediation site and acute contamination risks during remediation, which affect workers
! Workers’ health and safety are included among sustainability parameters to be integrated during the remediation process
INTRODUCTION (CATEGORIES AND METRICS)
The 3° Sustainable Remediation Conference – Ferrara (Italy), September 17-19
Social
Economic Environment
Bearable Equitable
Viable
Sustainable
Community involvement and satisfaction
Human Health and Safety
Ethical and equity considerations Fit with planning and policy
strategies and initiatives
Impacts on neighbourhoods or regions
…… Risks to site workers Uncertainty, evidence
and verification
Flexibility
Direct costs and benefits
Undirect costs and benefits
Employment / human capital
…… Costs of techniques
(including direct costs of safety)
Safety costs (cost saving) should be included?
Life-span and “project risks”
RISK FOR WORKERS ON CONTAMINATED SITES
The 3° Sustainable Remediation Conference – Ferrara (Italy), September 17-19
Remediation operators Other workers
OCCUPATIONAL RISKS
Health risks Safety risks
Injuries Occupational diseases
Chronic exposure acute exposure Sub- chronic exposure
INTERFERENCE OR ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
RISKS related to remediation
activities
Generally included in all assessment
Not always included in sustainability assessment
The 3° Sustainable Remediation Conference – Ferrara (Italy), September 17-19
! Workers are stakeholders of the whole process, both if operating remediation or other works on the contaminated (or remediated) site
! Risks for on site workers other than remediation operators are generally included in human health risk assessments prescribed by different regulatory regimes to define remediation goals
! Depending on the remedial approach some of the inherent risks associated with any remediation activity are similar while some of them differ greatly
RISK FOR WORKERS ON CONTAMINATED SITES
AVAILABLE TOOLS AND METHODOLOGIES FOR SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT
(specific for remediation)
The 3° Sustainable Remediation Conference – Ferrara (Italy), September 17-19
Software/Tool/Framework Version Author Free/Proprietary Environment Social Economic RISKS TO SITE WORKERS
Sustainable Remediation Tool (SRT)
2.1 - 2009 (now in revision)
U.S. Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment
and their partners
free (at the moment
unavailable)yes yes yes YES
SiteWise 3.0 - 2013United States (US) Navy, United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), and Battellefree yes yes no YES
Sustainable Remediation and Green Chemistry & Engineering -
Technology Assessment Methodology
2009 Army Environmental Policy Institute (AEPI) only for Army use yes yes yes YES
Green Remediation Evaluation Matrix (GREM) 2009 California EPA, Department of
Toxic Substances Control free yes no no NO
Greener Cleanups: How to Maximize the Environmental Benefits of Site Remediation
2008 Illinois EPA free yes no no NO
"SEFA" (Spreadsheets for Environmental Footprint
Analysis)2012 U.S. EPA free yes no no NO
Tools Developed by Government Entities
AVAILABLE TOOLS AND METHODOLOGIES FOR SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT
(specific for remediation)
The 3° Sustainable Remediation Conference – Ferrara (Italy), September 17-19
Software/Tool/Framework/ Document Version Author Free/Proprietary Environment Social Economic RISKS TO SITE
WORKERS
BalancE3™ (Environmental sustainability, Economic
sustainability and social Equity )2010 ARCADIS proprietary yes yes yes YES
SAF (Sustainable Assessment Framework) CH2MHILL proprietary yes yes yes YES
GoldSET-CN-SR 2011Golder Associatesin partnership withCanadian National
proprietary yes yes yes OPTIONAL
AECOM Holistic Tool AECOM proprietary yes yes no YES
Sustainable Remediation Evaluation Tool (SRET)
(implementation of GREM)2012
Haley & Aldrich, Inc for Pacific Gas and Electric
Companyproprietary yes yes yes YES
SimaPro (per LCA) 8.0.3 PRé Consultants (Global Partner Network - Italia: 2B S.r.l.) proprietary yes yes yes NO
Multi-Criteria Analysis MCA-Tool 2009 FRIST, Chalmers University proprietary yes yes yes YES
UK Sustainable Remediation Forum (SuRF-UK) framework document
[DEFRA, 2010]2010
CL:AIRE Technology and Research Group and SuRF-UK
Steering Groupyes yes yes YES
Regeneration of European Sites in Cities and Urban Environmet - Sustainability Assessment Tool
(RESCUE-SAT)
ultima versione 2006
Consorzio - Progetto Europeo 5° Programma Quadro (2005) -
Leader GermaniaYES
REC Risk reduction, Environmental merits and Cost 1998 Netherlands (Universities, Public
and Private Entities) free yes yes yes OPTIONAL
DESYRE DEcision Support sYstem for the REhabilitation of
contaminated megasites (DESYRE)2000-2006
Università di Venezia e Consorzio Venezia Ricerche - Sviluppato da
INSIEL SpAproprietary yes yes yes NO
Tools Developed by Remediation Industry Service Providers
RISKS TO SITE WORKERS VS. REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY
The 3° Sustainable Remediation Conference – Ferrara (Italy), September 17-19
Technologies SRT SITEWISE SRGCE-‐TAM Balance3 AECOM HT DEFRAExcavation ü ü üSoil Vapor Extraction (SVE) ü ü üSoil washing üSoil flushing üPump & treat ü ü üEnhanced Bioremediation ü in-‐situ üThermal Treatment ü in-‐situ ü üChemical Oxidation in-‐situ in-‐situ üPermeable Reactive Barrier ü ü üLong -‐term Monitoring (LTM)/ Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) ü ü ü
Multi-‐phase extraction (MPE)
Jet grouting üCapping/Covers üAirsparging/Biosparging ü üSoil mixing in-‐situ üSoil stabilization and solidification ü üVitrification üEx-‐situ soil treatment ü*hereto tested only for this technology
it considers different phases and activity. The manual provides some of the
commonly used remedial
technologies on the different phases of the tool and also
certain activities that are
commonly part of a remedial
action. The activities can
be further broken down into certain
inputs that are part of the tool
RISKS TO SITE WORKERS VS. REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY (DEFRA, 2010)
The 3° Sustainable Remediation Conference – Ferrara (Italy), September 17-19
Chemical exposure hazards Vehicle movements Excavation and drilling Noise
Chemical oxidation and reductionCon: Oxidants and/or
reductants may pose safety hazard.
Pro: Low due to being an in situ process.Con: Moderate. May require high density
treatment/monitoring borehole network to be drilled.Pro: Minimal (low)
Electro-‐remediation Pro: None Pro: Low due to being an in situ process.Con: Low – Moderate. Electrodes / probes will need to be installed into the ground. May require moderate
monitoring borehole network to be drilled.
Con: Dependent on power generation unit being required
on site.
Enhanced bioremediation (redox amendments) – Dependent on amendment
used
Con: Oxidants and/or reductants may pose safety
hazard.Pro: Low due to being an in situ process.
Con: Moderate -‐ Low. May require moderate treatment/monitoring borehole network to be drilled.
Pro: Minimal (low)
Flushing (with amendments)Con: Conditioning
amendments used for flushing.
Pro: Low due to being an in situ process.Con: Moderate -‐ Low. May require moderate
treatment/monitoring borehole network to be drilled.Con: Plant required
Monitored natural attenuation Pro: NonePro: Low -‐ None due to being an in situ
process.Pro: Low. May require moderate monitoring borehole
network to be drilled.Pro: None during operation.
Permeable reactive barriers (PRBs)Con: Reactive media may
pose safety hazard.
Con: Moderate. Excavation and significant engineering may be required resulting in
vehicle movements.
Con: Moderate / High. Excavation required for installing PRB. Likely to require moderate monitoring borehole
network to be drilled.
Pro: Once active, none/low.Con: During construction,
medium to high.
Phytoremediation Pro: None Pro: Low due to being an in situ process Pro: None Pro: None
SpargingCon: If methane or ozone is used as enhancements then they may pose safety hazard.
Pro: Low due to being an in situ process.Con: Moderate -‐ Low. May require moderate
treatment/monitoring borehole network to be drilled.
Con: Moderate, but relatively short-‐lived. Headworks and
treatment tanks.
Stabilisation/solidificationCon: Chemical reagents used may pose safety hazard.
Pro: Low due to being an in situ process.Con: Moderate – Low. May require a high density
network of injection points to be drilled.Pro: Moderate
Thermal Treatment (Steam Injection, Hot Air Injection, Conductive Heating, Resistive
Heating, Microwave Heating)Pro: None Pro: Low due to being an in situ process.
Con: Moderate. May require moderate treatment/monitoring borehole network to be drilled.
Con: Moderate
Venting (inc Bioventing, Bioslurping, Soil Vapour Extraction and Dual Vapour
Extraction) Pro: None Pro: Low due to being an in situ process.
Con: Moderate -‐ Low. May require moderate treatment/monitoring borehole network to be drilled.
Con: Moderate but relatively short-‐lived. Headworks and vapour treatment vessels.
Vitrification Pro: None Pro: UnlikelyCon: High due to excavation requirement of in situ process. Dependant on volume of excavation.
Con: Moderate
IN SITU remediation technologiesRISKS TO SITE WORKERS: Health and Safety
RISKS TO SITE WORKERS VS. REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY (DEFRA, 2010)
The 3° Sustainable Remediation Conference – Ferrara (Italy), September 17-19
Chemical exposure hazards Vehicle movements Excavation and drilling Noise
Biological treatment (Biopiles, Windrows, Landfarming)
Pro: NoneCon: Moderate – High. Due to being an ex
situ process, many on-‐site vehicle movements are likely.
Con: High due to excavation requirement of ex situ process. Dependant on volume of excavation.
Pro: Minimal (low)
Chemical oxidation and reductionCon: Oxidants and/or
reductants may pose safety hazard.
Con: Moderate – High. Due to being an ex situ process, many on-‐site vehicle
movements are likely.
Con: High due to excavation requirement of ex situ process. Dependent on volume of excavation.
Pro: Minimal (low)
Soil washing
Con: Strong chemical acids or ligands are frequently used for chemically enhanced soilwashing and may pose safety
hazard.
Con: High. Due to being an ex situ process, whereby all material needs to be
transported to and from a treatment plant, many on-‐site vehicle movements will be
required.
Con: High due to excavation requirement of ex situ process. Dependent on volume of excavation.
Con: Significant. May required dedicated noise abatement.
Stabilisation / SolidificationCon: Chemical reagents used may pose safety hazard.
Con: Moderate – High. Due to being an ex situ process, many on-‐site vehicle
movements are likely.
Con: High due to excavation requirement of ex situ process. Dependent on volume of excavation.
Con: Moderate
Thermal treatment (Thermal Desorption / Incineration)
Pro: None
Con: High. Due to being an ex situ process, whereby all material needs to be
transported to and from an (on-‐site) treatment plant.
Con: High due to excavation requirement of ex situ process. Dependent on volume of excavation.
Con: Significant. May required dedicated noise abatement
Venting (inc Bioventing, Soil Vapour Extraction)
Pro: NoneCon: Moderate – High. Due to being an ex
situ process, many on-‐site vehicle movements are likely.
Con: High due to excavation requirement of ex situ process. Dependent on volume of excavation.
Con: Moderate.
Vitrification Pro: None Con: ModerateCon: High due to excavation requirement of ex situ
process. Dependent on volume of excavation.Con: Moderate
EX SITU remediation technologySafety
RISKS TO SITE WORKERS VS. REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY
The 3° Sustainable Remediation Conference – Ferrara (Italy), September 17-19
Examples of a “Safety and Health Compliance Cost Matrix” [U.S. Department of Energy, 2001]
Lyfe Cycle Cost Model
Starting point
BEST PRACTICES TO MANAGE RISKS TO SITE WORKERS
The 3° Sustainable Remediation Conference – Ferrara (Italy), September 17-19
Project Planning and Office-‐Based
Tasks
Remedial Investigation
Feasibility Study
Remedial Design and
Implementation
Operation and Maintenance/Closure
iii) Solicit and evaluate each potential contractor’s proposed health and safety plans, practices, and safety record before or during the contractor selection processiv) Consider each potential contractor and supplier’s social responsibility to its employees (wages, benefits, etc.) before or during the contractor and supplier selection process.
Examples of Sustainable Best Management Practices (to check) for Occupational Health and Safety in SRET
v) Provide suitable training for the local workforce.vi) Provide employee rest areas in shaded locations.
i) Address worker safety issues via a site-‐specific Health and Safety Plan.ii) Ensure adequate sanitary facilities for workers.
Ensure worker health and safety requirements are adhered to
Generic recommendations for different phases
RISKS TO SITE WORKERS METRICS
The 3° Sustainable Remediation Conference – Ferrara (Italy), September 17-19
SRT SITEWISE SRGCE-TAM Balance3 SAF AECOM
HT SRET MCA RESCUE-SAT REC
for operations ü ü ü ü ü ü ü üfor transportation ü ü ü ü ü
ü üü ü ü
ü ü ü ü ü
ü ü
ü ü ü üindicators ü ü ücategories ü ü ü ü
ü ü optional
It considers only the
presence and the
requirements of a health and safety
plan
METRICS FOR WORKERS HEALTH AND SAFETY
Safety Risks to workers (eg. injury and/or fatality rates)
weighted (normalized score)
OUTPUT (COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES)
corrections (sensitivity analysis)
optional
Lost work time
Chemical exposure
Risk related to ergonomic issues, stress, noise, humidity, temperature, odor, vibration or ranking of workers' confort
Risks related to the lack of expertise or percentage of employees required to be trained
direct
RISKS TO SITE WORKERS METRICS
The 3° Sustainable Remediation Conference – Ferrara (Italy), September 17-19
[Site Wise Version 2 User Guide]
[E.Becvar, SRT – How it works, 2009] Examples of injury and/or fatality rates used in
tools
SRGCE-TAM:
Rates of injury / exposure resulting from the treatment technology, based on statistics from previous projects, normalized by projected hours of
operation
RISKS TO SITE WORKERS METRICS
The 3° Sustainable Remediation Conference – Ferrara (Italy), September 17-19
Examples of chemical exposure appraisal in tools
[A.Landstrom & A.S.Ostlund, (MCA), 2010]
If a soil remediation project does not result in a significant risk reduction for local residents or the ecosystem, it may be decided to carry out a supplementary assessment of different risks or of risks of exposure to other objects. REC considers remedial workers. As part of such a risk assessment, other risks could be assessed based on the same conceptual framework. To assess the exposure of remedial workers as a result of soil contamination, X is expressed as [E. Beinat, M.A. van Drunen (REC), 1997]:
RI = exposure / MAC value n = number of remedial workers
In general, 0.3 and 0.5 times the MAC values are used as action values to reduce exposure
ITALIAN METRICS ON WORKERS SAFETY
The 3° Sustainable Remediation Conference – Ferrara (Italy), September 17-19
In Italy safety indicators are defined by the technical standard UNI 7249: 2007 “Statistics on occupational injuries” (the European Statistics on Accidents at Work feeding INAIL database, also define these indicators as a part of complex metrics): Ø fatal / non fatal injury rate Ø severity rate and severity ratio
nT = number of temporary accidents dTDi = days of temporary disability of the ith temporary accident nP = number of permanent accidents Ddj = disability degree of the jth permanent accident nM = number of fatal accidents
Italian data generally refer to employed persons
SOME CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT CASE STUDIES
The 3° Sustainable Remediation Conference – Ferrara (Italy), September 17-19
[J.T.Cohen et al., 1997]
YPLL = Years of Potential Life Lost
In this case YPLL per accidental fatality substantially exceed the YPLL for each cancer fatality!
IS SUCH A CONCLUSION STILL VALID AT PRESENT ?
Data to be updated
Conclusions
The 3° Sustainable Remediation Conference – Ferrara (Italy), September 17-19
! To date various available tools and methodologies to assess the sustainability of remediation activities consider workers safety (about 70% of the analyzed ones)
! Most of them take into account risk to site workers qualitatively or semi-quantitatively, referring to remediation technologies, activities and/or to sustainable best management practices to be adopted in different activities
! When the tools/methodologies assess safety issues quantitatively, the metric is generally limited to the expected fatality and/or injury rates normalized by work hours and differentiated by type of activity (mainly process or transport)
Conclusions
The 3° Sustainable Remediation Conference – Ferrara (Italy), September 17-19
! The need of more specific but solid (official) data about injury/fatalities rates emerges, especially for EU context, particularly with reference to: Ø remedial activities Ø hours of work (in Italy official data now refers to employed
people) Ø sistematic combination of frequency and severity indicators (not
only fatality vs. injury or injuries with permanent disability) ! The need of a specific consideration of chemical exposure to
remedial workers (acute and sub-chronic exposure) could also be pointed out
! Some safety and health issues could be also considered into the economic aspect paying attention to avoid duplication
How INAIL could contribute to remediation sustainability
The 3° Sustainable Remediation Conference – Ferrara (Italy), September 17-19
General approach to cost estimation of the
effects of occupational diseases and accidents
basic health data
quantified indicators economic
consequences
health hospitalisation
disability fatalities
willingness to pay transfers and compensations
loss of resources loss of potential output data sources national
statistics notification data
surveys
monetarised costs
human costs other
externalities
sick leave damages
administration prevention extraction,
attribution to work
valuationand pricing
INAIL is tuning up a software called CO&SI (Costs and Security) which allows the entrepreneur to evaluate no-security costs on the basis of few data regarding his own company. A special algorithm exploiting company data and INAIL database information can calculate the cost of prevention and protection measures, of insurance premium and the costs related to the consequences of work-related accidents and ill health.
The 3° Sustainable Remediation Conference – Ferrara (Italy), September 17-19
Ø Absence from work for illness Ø Substitution of injured or sick worker Ø Survey and investigation on accident at work Ø Loss of production Ø Legal sanctions at the expense of the
company Ø Legal costs Ø Insurance premium or reduction of the
discount Ø Plant stoppage Ø Training of new workers Ø Productivity loss due to new workers
employment Ø Corporate image loss Ø New machineries purchase Ø New investments on security
In perspective some of them (sectoral) could be integrated in tools
For their calculation the company may employ national average data collected by INAIL databases. This makes the evaluation less accurate but is useful for micro, small and medium companies (typical of the Italian production system), which may run into remarkable difficulties in this kind of evaluation
CO&SI ITEMS: OSHA (Occupational Safety & Health Administration) has shown the complexity of the costs of occupational accidents and diseases for the individual employee, for the company and for society as a whole. Some of the cost items are impossible or very difficult to quantify. However, this does not mean that they cannot be used as arguments in support of a more economical appraisal of health and safety measures.
How INAIL could contribute
THE END
Elisabetta Bemporad [email protected]
Simona Berardi [email protected]
Emma Incocciati e.incocciati @inail.it
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
ANY QUESTION OR CONSIDERATION?
AND….