1
1
Welcome to the CLU-IN Internet SeminarUS and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable
RemediationDelivered: July 12, 2010, 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM, EDT (14:00-16:00 GMT
Presenters:Carlos Pachon, U.S. EPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, [email protected]
Dietmar Müller, [email protected] Côté, Environment Canada Environmental Protection Operations, [email protected]
Stephanie Fiorenza, [email protected] Bardos, [email protected]
Laurent Bakker, [email protected] Maurer, CH2M HILL International, [email protected]
Dominique Darmendrail, [email protected]
Moderator:Carlos Pachon, U.S. EPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, [email protected]
Visit the Clean Up Information Network online at www.cluin.org
2
2
Housekeeping• Please mute your phone lines, Do NOT put this call on hold
– press *6 to mute #6 to unmute your lines at anytime• Q&A • Turn off any pop-up blockers• Move through slides using # links on left or buttons
• This event is being recorded • Archives accessed for free http://cluin.org/live/archive/
Go to slide 1
Move back 1 slide
Download slides as PPT or PDF
Move forward 1 slide
Go to seminar
homepage
Submit comment or question
Report technical problems
Go to last slide
Although I’m sure that some of you have these rules memorized from previous CLU-IN events, let’s run through them quickly for our new participants.
Please mute your phone lines during the seminar to minimize disruption and background noise. If you do not have a mute button, press *6 to mute #6 to unmute your lines at anytime. Also, please do NOT put this call on hold as this may bring delightful, but unwanted background music over the lines and interupt the seminar.
You should note that throughout the seminar, we will ask for your feedback. You do not need to wait for Q&A breaks to ask questions or provide comments. To submit comments/questions and report technical problems, please use the ? Icon at the top of your screen. You can move forward/backward in the slides by using the single arrow buttons (left moves back 1 slide, right moves advances 1 slide). The double arrowed buttons will take you to 1st and last slides respectively. You may also advance to any slide using the numbered links that appear on the left side of your screen. The button with a house icon will take you back to main seminar page which displays our agenda, speaker information, links to the slides and additional resources. Lastly, the button with a computer disc can be used to download and save today’s presentation materials.
With that, please move to slide 3.
3
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable
RemediationUS EPA Perspectives on Green Remediation
Carlos PachonUSEPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
12 July 2010 3
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 4
What is “Green Remediation”?
The practice of considering all environmental effects of remedy
implementation and incorporating options to minimize the environmental
footprints of cleanup actions.
US EPA
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 5
Related But Not Synonymous
RenewableEnergy
ClimateChange
GreenRemediation
Sustainable Reuse
US EPA
6
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 6
Core Elements of Green Remediation
US EPA
“Reduction, Efficiency,
and Renewables…”
“Protect Air Quality; Reduce
Greenhouse Gases…”
“Minimize, Reuse,
and Recycle…”
“Conserve, Protect,
and Restore…” “Improve Quality;
Decrease Quantity of Use…”
Core Elements
7
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 7
Diesel Consumption in an IllustrativeExcavation and Soil Amendment Project
Diesel Consumption (gallons)
PM Emission
(pounds)(a)
NOxEmission
(pounds)(a)
CO2 Emission (tons)(a)
Removing contaminated soil through use of an earth mover with a 1990 200-hp engine operating for 100 days
6,400 100 1,100 70
Hauling 35,000 yard3 of excavated soil to an offsite waste disposal facility 300 miles away, by way of 60-yard3, 425-hp tractor trailers(b)
77,000 770 10,970 850
Importing wood milling and agricultural waste from sources 50 miles away, by way of a 60-yard3, 300-hp truck(b) 2,400 100 1400 30
Applying 2,000 tons of soil amendments over 20 acres, using a 1990 290-hp, 60-yard3 dump truck and 1990 170-hp grader 260 8 1 3
Using two medium-duty pickup trucks for site preparation and remedy construction over six months(b) 380 7 170 4
Total diesel consumption and air emissions(a) Diesel Emissions Quantifier; http://cfpub.epa.gov/quantifier/view/welcome.cfm(b) including use of ULSD, as required for on-road applications
86,440gallons
985 pounds
13,641pounds
957tons
Adding retrofitting devices such as a NOx catalyst and a diesel particulate filter could reduce these emissions by as much as
25% for NOx and 90% for PM.
Estimating the Baselines
US EPA
7
8
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 8Source: www.clu-in.org/market
Long Term GoalsEstimated Number of Sites and Cleanup Cost
2004-2033*
US EPA
99
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 9
A Priority at Many LevelsOSWER Policy: Principles for Greener CleanupsAs a matter of policy, OSWER’s goal is to evaluate cleanup actions comprehensively to ensure protection of human health and the environment and to reduce the environmental footprint of cleanup activities, to the maximum extent possible. (OSWER A.A. MathyStanislaus)
EPA Strategic Plan: Goal 5 Compliance and Environmental StewardshipStewards of the environment recycle wastes to the greatest extent possible, minimize or eliminate pollution at its source, conserve natural resources, and use energy efficiently to prevent harm to the environment or human health. By 2011, enhance public health and environmental protection and increase conservation of natural resources by promoting pollution prevention and the adoption of other stewardship practices by companies, communities, governmental organizations, and individuals. (EPA Administrator Steve Johnson)
EO 13514: Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic PerformanceIt is the policy of the United States that Federal agencies shall increase energy efficiency; measure, report, and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions from direct and indirect activities; conserve and protect water resources through efficiency, reuse, and stormwatermanagement; eliminate waste, recycle, and prevent pollution (President Obama)
US EPA
Sub-objective 5.2.1: Prevent Pollution and Promote Environmental Stewardship.By 2011, reduce pollution, conserve natural resources, and improve other environmental stewardship practices while reducing costs through implementation of EPA’s pollution prevention programs.*********************Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate ChangeProtect and improve the air so it is healthy to breathe and risks to human health and the environment are reduced. Reduce greenhouse gas intensity by enhancing partnerships with businesses and other sectors.Objective 1.3: Protect the Ozone LayerStrategic Targets:- By 2015, reduce U.S. consumption of Class II ozone-depleting substances to less than 1,520 tons per year of ozone depleting potential from the 2003 baseline of 9,900 tons per year.Objective 1.5: Reduce Greenhouse Gas EmissionsSub-objective 1.5.1: Buildings Sector. By 2012, 46 MMT of carbon equivalent will be reduced in the buildings sector (compared to the 2002 level).Sub-objective 1.5.2: Industry Sector. By 2012, 99 MMT of carbon equivalent will be reduced in the industry sector (compared to the 2002 level).Sub-objective 1.5.3: Transportation SectorBy 2012, 15 MMT of carbon equivalent will be reduced in the transportation sector (compared to the 2002 level).
10
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 1010
OSWER Green Remediation “Strategy”
• Principles for Greener Cleanups: Common policy position for all U.S. EPA cleanup programs
• Superfund Green Remediation Strategy:“Operationalizing” the Principles in the Superfund Cleanup Program
• Voluntary Green Cleanup Standards & Certification System: Robust tool for fostering greener cleanups in various cleanup programs
• RE-Powering America’s Land: Renewable energy on contaminated lands
• Regional Initiatives:– Climate change strategies– Policy and guidance development, etc.
US EPA
10
111111
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 11
www.clu-in.org/greenremediation
More Information from U.S. EPA
www.epa.gov/superfund/greenremediation
• Guidance Documents• Special Issues Primers• Technical Bulletins
• Fact Sheets / Case Studies• Technology Descriptions• Internet Resources
US EPA
12
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 1212
ThankThank YouYou!!Carlos Pachon
USEPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
US EPA
13
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable
Remediation
12 July 2010
EURODEMO+Dietmar MÜLLER - Environment Agency Austria
13
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 1414
Constituency
• European co-ordination action (2004 – 2006)• since 2008 – umbrella to a voluntary network
– 4 national/regional demonstration platforms– 18 partners from 9 European countries
• assist and connect stakeholders on "good quality" demonstration practices across Europe
• promoting innovation for sustainable and cost-effective remediation practices
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 1515
Drivers and Constraints
• European Policy:– Environmental Technology Action Plan– Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources– Climate and Energy targets (20-20-20-target)
• Regulatory: None– (hindering: draft European Soil Framework Directive)
• Market:– decreasing awareness and willingness to act/pay– decreasing public funds– innovation-resistant and sensitive regarding uncertainties– windows of opportunity through redevelopment
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 1616
Impact of Drivers and Constraints
• emphasis towards relations of economic and ecological aspects: eco-efficiency
• raise understanding and confidence regarding innovate technologies and strategies
• encourage stakeholders for voluntary norms• voluntary network
– asks for commitment – missing monetary background limits activities
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 17
ECO-EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY
• better understanding through economic and ecological analysis
• to optimize processes and products and create benchmarks
decouplingfactor 4
equitable
From viable to efficient!
bearable
viable
18
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable
RemediationIntegrating Sustainability in the Canadian Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan
Chantale Côté, Environment Canada
12 July 2010 18
FCSAP Secretariat
514 [email protected] www.federalcontaminatedsites.gc.ca
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010
Constituency• Who are your members
– Federal departments and consolidated Crown corporations
• Who are you seeing to influence– Program partners including members, remediation
industry and academia• What do you want to achieve
– Develop and implement a framework to support the use of sustainable approaches to remediation that considers the environmental and socio-economic effects of a remediation strategy, resulting in an optimization of benefits
Environment Canada
19
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010
Drivers
• Drivers for sustainable remediation we are responding to are:– Policy:
• Federal Sustainable Development Act (June 2008)• Federal Government Policy on Management of Real Property• Climate change adaptation
– Regulatory• none
– Market• none
Environment Canada
20
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010
Constraints
• What we consider as sustainable remediation is also constrained by:– Policy
• Potential misuse of sustainable approaches• Property transaction: low levels of uncertainties and time constraint• Demonstration of costs and savings associated with sustainable
approaches – case studies
– Regulatory• No real regulatory constraint
– Market• Availability and market sensitization of sustainable technologies,
approaches and best practices
Environment Canada
21
FA parag. 36(3) no person shall deposit or permit the deposit of a deleterioussubstance of any type in water frequented by fish or in any place under anyconditions where the deleterious substance or any other deleterious substance thatresults from the deposit of the deleterious substance may enter any such water.
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010
Impact of Drivers and Constraints• On “scope” of what is considered
– Improve decision-making by providing tools, training and indicators that assess the impacts of various remediation options on sustainability
• On how it is presented– Flexible framework, decision support tools
• On the “platform”: i.e. regulation / industry guidance / voluntary framework etc– Sustainability principles– Voluntary framework– Incentives : eligible costs, awards– Greener procurement
Environment Canada
22
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010
STEP 1Identify suspect site
STEP 2Historical review
STEP 3 Initial Testing Program
STEP 4 Classify Contaminated Site using NCS
STEP 5 Detailed Testing Program
STEP 6 Reclassify the site using NCS
STEP 7 Develop Remediation/risk management strategy
STEP 8 Implement best sustainable remediation/risk
management strategy
STEP 9Confirmatory sampling and final reporting
STEP 10Long-term monitoring
STEP 3ASustainable Site Assessment including future climate conditions
STEP 5ASustainable site and risk assessment and future climate conditions
STEP 7ADevelopment of remediation or risk management goals
Sustainable Options appraisal
STEP 11Sustainable site reuse
STEP 10AAdopt sustainable long-term monitoring practices including climate
change adaptation considerations
A sustainable approach to federal contaminated sitesProposed framework
Tier 1 – Qualitative assessment based on environmental, social and economical indicators
including climate change considerations
Tier 2 – Quantitative assessment including simplified LCA
Tools, Guidance & Training
Innovative Site Investigation Cost-effective site assessment Remote data collection Etc.
Sustainable Decision Support Tool
Quantitative decision-support tools such as CBA, SRTTM
Toolkit on Greener Practices for business, site development and site cleanups
Green procurement of goods and services
Etc.
On-line/Real Time monitoring tools
Energy Conservation & renewable energy and alternative fuels in monitoring programs
Long-term stewardship BMPs Use of soil amendments for
revitalization and reuse
Environment Canada
23
24
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable
Remediation
Stephanie Fiorenza, Ph.D.
12 July 2010
SURF
24
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 25
Constituency• Our members are from academia, consulting, industry,
and government• SURF is a non-profit corporation and professional society
and refrains from activities that would be in conflict with its tax-exempt status, such as lobbying or exerting influence
• SURF’s primary objective is to provide a forum for various stakeholders in remediation — industry, government, environmental groups, consultants, and academia — to collaborate, educate, advance, and develop consensus on applying sustainability concepts throughout the lifecycle of remediation projects, from site investigation to closure
SURF
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 26
SURF
•Drivers for sustainable remediation we are responding to are:– Policy
• Member-driven desire to improve remediation as historically practiced• Inconsistencies in environmental and sustainability policies have
created conflicting objectives
– Regulatory• Need to integrate sustainability into different regulatory programs at
US Federal and State levels
– Market• Increased focus on sustainability for corporations and governmental
entities has increased interest in and practice of sustainable remediation, along with a desire to reduce GHGs
• Need to increase value of remediation expenditures by integrating sustainability, aligning with stakeholder goals and demonstrating that burdens are not merely shifted among impact categories
Drivers
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 27
Constraints• What we consider sustainable remediation is constrained by:
–– KnowledgeKnowledge• Lack of understanding of subject, unfamiliarity with metrics and
life cycling thinking, and availability of data and tools for analysis• Lack of a significant number of case studies documenting benefits
– Regulatory• Rigid cleanup process at state and federal level
– Market• Private tools for application and analysis• Lack of experience in balancing trade-offs between costs and
sustainability benefits
SURF
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 28
Impact of Drivers and Constraints• On “scope” of what is considered
– For SURF, the drivers are what led to initiatives that we are undertaking
• On how it is presented– Our emphasis is multidisciplinary and multi-
stakeholder• On the “platform”:
– the constraints indicate where we need to focus effort, e.g., education, training modules, development of a framework, mapping of metrics
SURF
29
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable
RemediationSuRF-UK framework for evaluating
sustainable remediation optionsProfessor Paul Bardos
12 July 2010 29
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 30
Co-authors
• R. P. Bardos• B. D. Bone, Environment Agency • R. Boyle, Homes and Communities Agency• D. Ellis, Du Pont• F. Evans, National Grid Properties Ltd• N. Harries, CL:AIRE• J.W.N. Smith, Shell Global Solutions• (Steering Group for SURF-UK)
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
SuRF-UK
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 31
Content• SuRF-UK
– Constituency, drivers, constraints
• SuRF-UK framework for sustainable remediation• Published outputs• What next?: SuRF-UK Phase 2
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
SuRF-UK
32
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 32
SuRF-UK Constituency• Established in 2007, following the lead of SURF.• UK-based collaboration of regulators, industry, academics and
consultants. Open forum meetings.
• Independent co-ordination by CL:AIRE (www.claire.co.uk/surfuk)• Focus on holistic sustainability assessment of
– remediation input to high-level land-use planning – remediation input to overall site / project design (‘Better by design’)– remedial strategy selection and remediation technology selection– remediation implementation and verification
• Goals– A framework for assessing sustainable remediation
• effective, practical, regulatory acceptance
– Sustainability indicator review
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
SuRF-UK
Set-up as a collaborative, voluntary project. HCA provided funding for CLAIRE to co-ordinate the project and for venue hire etc, but all other input was in-kind support.
Small steering group that did most of the drafting:
CLAIRENicola Harries
IndustryFrank Evans, National Grid, ChairJonathan Smith, Royal Dutch Shell
RegulatorBrian Bone, Environment Agency
Government brownfield regeneration agencyRichard Boyle
ConsultantPaul Bardos, r3 environmental
LiaisingD Elli D P t (SURF)
32
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 33
Drivers• Industry (SAGTA)
– Good practice, Business ethics, Sustainable procurement, CSR• Regulatory (and indeed cross-sectoral)
– Appropriate and reasonable solutions– Soil Framework Directive (draft); Water Framework Directive
• Planning – Sustainability tests in planning applications– Sustainablity criteria in regional and local spatial planning
• Soil framework Directive• Cross-sectoral backing in the UK• Also response to worldwide interest:
– EU (NICOLE, SURF-UK, SURF-NL?, EURODEMO+)– USA (e.g. SURF, US EPA “green remediation”, ASTM)– Canada, Australia
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
SuRF-UK
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 34
Constraints
• Voluntary code only• Consensus based (Achieved! So = opportunity?)• May be more difficult as we head into guidance on tools and
indicators and cut across existing interests (e.g. existing offerings from service providers)
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
SuRF-UK
3535
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 35
SuRF-UK definition• Based on Brundtland Commission, 1987
• ‘the practice of demonstrating, in terms of environmental, economic and social indicators, that the benefit of undertaking remediation is greater than its impact and that the optimum remediation solution is selected through the use of a balanced decision-making process’
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
SuRF-UK
36
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 36
SuRF-UK: Key principles
• Optimise risk-management based on consideration of social, environmental and economic factors, but always ensure:
– Principle 1: Protection of human health and the wider environment
– Principle 2: Safe working practices– Principle 3: Consistent, clear and reproducible evidence-based
decision-making– Principle 4: Record keeping and transparent reporting. – Principle 5: Good governance and stakeholder involvement– Principle 6: Sound science
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
SuRF-UK
SuRF-UK emphasise a number of principles, that apply within an overarching holistic decision-making framework that requires environmental, social and economic factors to be considered.
The primary requirement is that risk-management objectives are achieved, both to protect human health and the wider environment, and this applies both to the contamination and to actions taken to remediate it.
The key principles effectively set out the non-negotiable boundaries for a sustainability assessment. Appropriate safety measures, for example, are not-negotiable, though there may, of course be different ways of achieving those levels of safety, which should be considered in the assessment.
36
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 37www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
38
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 38
SuRF-UK, www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
38
38
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 39www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
Regulatory acceptance: Foreword to report
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 40
SuRF-UK Phase 2
• Objectives:– Trial the framework with real cases studies– Investigate the indicator categories further– Benchmark different assessment methods for the same site(s)
• Timescale– April 2010 to April 2011
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
SuRF-UK
41
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable
RemediationSURF-NL
Sustainable Soil Quality ManagementLaurent Bakker MSc. Tauw bv
12 July 2010 41
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 42
Set up of SURF NL
• Initiative of Hans Slenders (Arcadis), Laurent Bakker (Tauw) and Elze-Lia Visser (WMA) started during NICOLE WS
• Initiative was presented on National Soil Congress in NL in 2009(‘Bodembreed’)– About 15 organizations are interested
• Funding request SKB (Dutch Foundation on Soil Quality Management) in February 2010
• ‘Positive’ response from MT SKB, but still under negotiation• Hopefully start second half of 2010, objectives:
– ‘How to express, embed and balance sustainability in the field of Soil Quality Management in NL => SUSQM!
– Case based versus Areal approach– Interaction and communication with SURF-UK, SURF-US and NICOLE
Sustainability WG – Setting up decision support framework based on the Dutch ROSA (and
REC) tool
SURF-NL
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 43
Drivers• Drivers for sustainable remediation we are responding to are:
– Policy:• Need for Soil Quality Management – soil as a common good, the use
of soil functions• Sustainable sourcing and procurement at governmental organisations• CO2 reduction, energy saving programs: e.g. Integrated Groundwater
management for implementation of ATES systems– Regulatory
• EU WFD: Approach for large scale groundwater contamination– Market Industry
• Costs savings• Sourcing and procurement as driving forces for sustainable business
for the industry (image building)
SURF-NL
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 44
Constraints• Conflicting interests - Sectorial approaches and verification• Re-evaluation of the holistic approach environmental benefits of soil
remediation – Impact of soil remediation not considered– What is the balance between risk reduction and environmental benefits?
• Dilemmas in Soil Quality Management: – Exploitation vs protection– Individual vs common good– Short term vs long term– Fast vs slow– Set free vs secure– Centralised vs decentralised– Ratio vs heart
• Soil remediation business is fading out too soon
SURF-NL
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 45
Impact of Drivers and Constraints
• There is a ‘will’ but no consensus• There a lot of opportunities but difficult to ‘score’• But… some good examples are availableSo..• Discussion needed on the dilemma's and existing approaches• Let sustainable assessments be a forerunner of sustainable legislation• Adaptation of strategies from other disciplines to help implementation• Look at all the functions of the soil system • Integrated management of contaminated groundwater bodies =
revaluation of contaminated sites
SURF-NL
46
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable
RemediationNICOLE’s Shared vision on Sustainable Remediation
Olivier Maurer
12 July 2010 46
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010
• NICOLE = European Network of site remediation professionals– Industry + Consultants + Academics + Regulators
• Research on sustainability and remediation– Barcelona 2003, Akersloot 2007, London 2008 (with SAGTA), Leuven
2009
• Steering Group decision to launch a dedicated Workgroup on SR, kickoff October 2008
• Charter– Provide a working definition of sustainability applied to remediation – Describe how sustainability thinking can be applied to remediation projects – Leverage other Think Tanks– Guidance Document, to support remediation projects of any size
• Work Group of about 20 active members, 5 subgroups: Communication, Risk management, Economics, Indicators, Case studies www.nicole.org
47
Background
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 48
Nicole’s position• A Sustainable Remediation project is about building consensus from
stakeholders on the solution that benefit the best considering environmental, social and financial factors.
• The earlier the stakeholders agree on a project’s goals, scope, boundary conditions and performance indicators, the more opportunity it generates for sustainable gain.
• Green Remediation is a component of Sustainable Remediation, typically focusing on the remedial option appraisal once a strategy has been adopted by stakeholders.
• Measuring performance throughout the execution of a SR project is key to build trust and consensus.
• Not a technical issue.
• Communication is Number one barrier and enabler.
• Conflicting interests between Liability Management, or Risk Assessment, and Sustainable Remediation.
• Favor a“Bottom-up” approach.www.nicole.org
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 49
2009 Questionnaire outcome• Confirms SR is a new concept• SR principles are currently referred to and used
across Europe in very different ways• Legislation refers to sustainable principles to
varying degrees across the European countries• Risk assessment is widely used and referred to in
Europe• Cost benefit analysis (or equivalent) is an accepted
tool only in some countries• Economic and social impacts are not widely
considered in remediation projectswww.nicole.org
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010www.nicole.org 50
Levels of decision making
Regional / Locality
Site(s) or Project(s)
Remedy selection
Spatial planning
Consequences, e.g.; available land use and project possibilities
Project design / site use
Consequences: e.g.: risk management needs
Remediation design
Consequences: e.g.: remediation plan Implementation
Verification
optimisation
Consequence: completion
Sustainability A
ssessment
Remediation Process
Remediation Technical A
pproachRem
ediation Specification
Feedback to improve ongoing and future
decision making
Roadmap:
Sustainability management
Sustainability Assessment Road Map
Sustainability Management Road Map (under finalization)
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 51
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT ROAD
MAP(under finalization)
Agreed approach
Agreed findings?
Design verification
Application
no
yes
no
yes
NICOLE Indicators Guidance
NICOLE Techniques and Tools Guidance
Roadmap:
Sustainability assessment
Focused evidence collection
Engagement (setting approach)
Review options
Review opportunities & objectives
Review parties involved
Agree objectives and options
Agree indicators / Metrics
Assign weightings (eg importance)
Define boundaries
Agree tools / techniques
Objectives
Scope
Engagement
(findings)
Sustainability appraisal
Findings / conclusions
Sensitivity analysis
Analysis
www.nicole.org
51
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010
www.nicole.org
52
Guidance document1. ROAD MAP
– 4-page booklet – Fall 2010– links to full documentation
2. “Full” document– Introduction, NICOLE’s objectives,
SRWG methodology, definition.– Separate Chapters
• Economics, check list of tools, guidance, references
• Indicators, check list, guidance, references
• Risk assessment • Illustrations with Case studies
(web based, dynamic)– Pilot testing (duration TBD).
• Factual• Neutral• Practical• Simple
Levels of
decisio
n making
Regio
nal / Loca
lity
Site(s) or P
roject
(s)
Remedy selection
Spatial
planni
ng
Conse
quence
s, e.g.;
availab
le land
use and
project po
ssibilities
Project d
esign
/ site use
Conse
quence
s: e.g.:
risk
manag
ement
needs
Reme
diation
design
Conse
quence
s: e.g.:
remedi
ation pla
n
Implem
entation
Verific
ation
optimisation
Conse
quence
:
comple
tion
Sustainability Assessment
Remediation Process
Remediation Technical Approach
Remediation Specification
Feedback to improve ongoing and future
decision making
Roadmap:
Sustainability
management
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 53
Thank you
www.nicole.org
54
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable
RemediationRegulators point of view
D. DARMENDRAIL / COMMON FORUM ON CONTAMINATED LAND IN EUROPE
12 July 2010 54
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 55
Constituency (1/2)• Network of contaminated land policy experts and
advisors (since 1994)– Ministries and Environment agencies, 16 countries– Guests / research networks, Community Unions
• Mission:– Being a platform for exchange of knowledge and
experiences, for initiating and following-up of international projects among members,
– Establishing a discussion platform on policy, research, technical and managerial concepts of contaminated land,
Common Forum
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 56
Constituency (2/2)• Who are you seeing to influence
– MS Governments– European Commission– Other stakeholders (Industries, Communities, …)– researchers
• What do you want to achieve– New concept for an efficient policy based on risk
management and sustainable remediation at national and European levels
Common Forum
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 57
Drivers
• Drivers for sustainable remediation we are responding to are:– Policy:
• Essentially policies at National Levels• EU level: “Risk” around the Soil Protection Directive – State
of Discussion
– Regulatory• EU Directives (IPPC, Waste, ELD, Renewable Energies)
having soil provisions
– Market• Not really of concern for our network
Common Forum
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 58
Constraints• What we consider as sustainable remediation is also
constrained by:– Policy:
• Do we need an EU Policy?• Real need of integration of current policies
– Regulatory• Several levels of legislation/regulations in MS (i) systemic
approach focused on soil contamination, ii) risk assessment, iii) risk based land management
– Market• More exchange and common tools for expanding new
concept – new techniques
Common Forum
US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 59
Impact of Drivers and Constraints
• On “scope” of what is considered– Integration of SR in new generation of
policy/regulation (i.e. in NL)– Bottom-up approach?
• On how it is presented– Show the bigger/greener objectives and the savings
• On the “platform”: i.e. regulation / industry guidance / voluntary framework etc– More discussion for a better consensus on the
concept / How to balance stakeholder wishes?
Common Forum
60
Resources & Feedback• To view a complete list of resources for this
seminar, please visit the Additional Resources • Please complete the Feedback Form to help
ensure events like this are offered in the future
Need confirmation of your participation today?
Fill out the feedback form and check box for confirmation email.