What is efficient remediation and how can it be measured? SustRem - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

What is efficient remediation and how can it be measured? SustRem 2016, Montréal, Canada Robert Anderson, Jenny Norrman, Lars Rosén, Yevheniya Volchko Chalmers University of Technology Tore Söderqvist, Frida Franzén Enveco Environmental Economics Consultancy

SAFIRE - Sustainability Assessment For Improved Remediation Efficiency � Overall purpose: To evaluate how sustainability assessments can improve the efficiency of site remediation in Sweden. � Project period: 2015-2017 � Funder: Swedish research council Formas (10 million SEK = 2 million CAD) � Collaboration: ▫ Researchers ▫ Problem-owners ▫ Service providers ▫ Authorities

Concerns Swedish EPA is concerned about the slow progress of remediation and that the national environmental objective A Non-Toxic Environment may not be reached. Remediations are too expensive and have a low level of technological innovation , with the vast majority of remediations being performed by excavation and disposal off-site.

Problem Statement How can sustainability assessments improve the efficiency of site remediation in Sweden ? What is efficient remediation? What is effective remediation?

Contents � Conceptualization � Literature review � Stakeholder views � Results - Efficiency Indicators � Conclusions

Conceptualization � Technical Scale – Efficiency and effectiveness of a specific soil treatment for a specific contaminant. � Project Scale – Efficiency and effectiveness on a project level. Comparison between project sites using efficiency indicators. � National Scale – Efficiency and effectiveness of national remediation programs.

Literature Review Challenges: � Written problem statement in Ef#icient: ¡ Achieving ¡maximum ¡productivity ¡ with ¡minimum ¡wasted ¡effort ¡or ¡expense. ¡ Swedish with the Swedish word Preventing ¡the ¡wasteful ¡use ¡of ¡a ¡particular ¡ resource. ¡Working ¡in ¡a ¡well-­‑organized ¡and ¡ ” effektivitet”. competent ¡way. ¡(Oxford) ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ Effective: ¡ Successful ¡in ¡producing ¡a ¡desired ¡or ¡ � Different nomenclature used in intended ¡result. ¡(Oxford) ¡ ¡ ¡ the field. Relevant literature can be easily missed. � Endless literature on the technical level but much less on the project and national scales.

Literature Review – Technical Scale � Efficiency and effectiveness of physical, chemical, biological and thermal treatment types, both in-situ and ex-situ. � Efficiency typically considered as a percentage removal, isolation or stabilization of a specific contaminant. � Technical efficiency and effectiveness also considered in terms of time and cost.

Literature Review – Project Scale Examples: � Swedish EPA (Rosén et al., 2014) • Effectiveness in being sustainable. • Some indicators: • Total amount removed ( kg ) • Total project cost ( Mkr ) • Area remediated ( m 2 ) � Svenskt Näringsliv (Confederation of Swedish Enterprise, 2014) • Some indicators: • Total time/costs ( years, kr ) • Time per mass removed ( days/tonne ) • Cost per mass removed ( kr/tonne ) • Cost per risk-ratio ( kr/risk-ratio )

Literature Review – National Scale � Sweden • Annual Swedish EPA status reports • Stage goals: • >25% of risk-class 1 sites by 2025 • >15% of risk-class 2 sites by 2025 • Innovative remediation technique increase by 2020 • All risk-class 1 & 2 sites by 2050 � USA – Superfund Program • Annual accomplishment summaries • Six ”performance measures” • Measured as no. of sites

National Scale – Ex. Canada FCSAP Annual Reports Performance indicators: 1. Assessing sites 2. Starting remediation 3. Completing remediation 4. Reducing liability at key sites 5. Liability reduction effectiveness FCSAP Portal, www.federalcontaminatedsites.gc.ca

Indicator Summary Ef#iciency ¡ Effectiveness ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ NATIONAL ¡ No. ¡sites ¡assessed ¡ ¡ ¡ No. ¡sites ¡started ¡ Liability ¡reduc2on ¡ No. ¡sites ¡completed ¡ Sites ¡per ¡year ¡ PROJECT ¡ Time ¡per ¡amount ¡excavated ¡(days/tonne) ¡ ¡ Total ¡project ¡2me ¡(yrs) ¡ ¡ ¡ Cost ¡per ¡amt. ¡excavated ¡(kr/tonne) ¡ ¡ Total ¡project ¡cost ¡(kr) ¡ Cost ¡per ¡remedia2on ¡area ¡(kr/m 2 ) ¡ ¡ Cancer ¡risk ¡reduc2on ¡(%) b ¡ Cost ¡ per ¡ amount ¡ contaminant ¡ removed ¡ Total ¡amounts ¡contamina2on ¡removed ¡(kg) ¡ (kr/kg) ¡ No. ¡lives ¡saved ¡ ¡ Cost ¡per ¡risk-­‑ra2o ¡(kr/risk-­‑ra2o) ¡ ¡ Accident ¡risks ¡from ¡RA ¡ ¡ Cost ¡per ¡person ¡in ¡area ¡(kr/person) ¡ ¡ Area ¡remediated ¡(m 2 ) ¡c ¡ ¡ ¡ Amount ¡soil ¡remediated ¡(tonnes) ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ No. ¡soils ¡species ¡affected ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ Surface ¡water ¡protec2on ¡(kg/100yrs) ¡ Groundwater ¡protec2on ¡(m 3 /yr) ¡ ¡ Emissions ¡(kg) ¡ ¡ TECHNICAL ¡ Degrada2on ¡(%) ¡ Remedia2on ¡Time ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ Removal ¡(%) ¡ Immobiliza2on ¡(%) ¡ Cost ¡(US$/m 3 ) ¡ Cost ¡(US$/t) ¡ Transloca2on ¡Factor ¡

Stakeholder Views - Method � First information meeting with the project participants. � Short (30 – 45 min), semi-structured, focus group interview, recorded with notes. � Types of questions: • A set of questions on efficiency ( effektivitet ) in general • Case specific objectives and how this is measured • One question about the relation between efficiency and sustainability • Finally, the participants were asked whether something unexpected came out of the discussion

Stakeholder Views - Results (Järpen site) � 4 Participants: Swedish Geological Survey, Municipality (architect), County Government. � To achieve a high quality and durable result within short (project) time (and with low cost). � To use land efficiently and to not remediate TOO much, but just right. � Goals in Järpen: to turn a backside into a frontside, to create a modern industrial area, where people can be active, safe and to create conditions for the water course to recover over time. � Efficiency/effectiveness measures: • a living industrial area – new work opportunities/number of lots, • a living recreational area - numbers of visitors/km walking path, • SEK/risk reduction, SEK/kg contaminant (secondary in Järpen).

Results - Indicators Potential indicators to be used later in SAFIRE: � Amounts • Total time/costs (Investigation + remediation) • Time per amount remediated ( days/tonne ) • Cost per amount remediated ( kr/tonne ) ( kr/m 2 ) � Risk Reduction • Cost per risk-ratio ( kr/risk-ratio ) • Cancer risk reduction ( % ) • Lives saved, number of people longer at risk � Environmental • Emissions, species, recipients

Concluding Remarks � Compatibility of indicators with different technologies? � Compatibility of indicators with different types of projects (private vs public, large vs small)? � Difficult to to say that a project is completely efficient or inefficient. � Stakeholder views on efficiency; differences seen between representatives.

Thanks for your attention! robert.anderson@chalmers.se