RESUMEN
Since mid-to-late 2000s growing interest for sustainable remediation has emerged in initiatives from several international and national organisations as well as other initiatives from networks and forums. This reflects a realisation that risk-management activities can about bring environmental, social, and economic impacts (positive or negative) in addition to achieving risk-based remediation goals. These ideas have begun to develop as a new discipline of "sustainable remediation". The various initiatives have now published a number of frameworks, standards, white papers, road maps and operative guidelines. The similarities and differences in the approaches by these outputs and general trends have been identified. The comparison is based on a set of criteria developed in discussion with members of these various initiatives, and identifies a range of similarities between their publications. Overall the comparison demonstrates a high level of consensus across definitions and principles, which leads to the conclusion that there is a shared understanding of what sustainable remediation is both across countries and stakeholder groups. Publications do differ in points of detail, in particular about the operational aspects of sustainable remediation assessment. These differences likely result from differences in context and legal framework. As this analysis was carried out its findings were debated with members of the various international initiatives, many of whom have been included as authors. Hence the outcomes described in this paper can be seen as the result of a sort of multi-level debate among international experts (authors) and so can offer a starting point to new sustainable remediation initiatives (for example in other countries) that aim to start developing their own documents.
Asunto(s)
Restauración y Remediación Ambiental/métodos , Conservación de los Recursos Naturales/métodos , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , Cooperación Internacional , Gestión de Riesgos/métodos , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
The multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) method provides for a comprehensive and transparent basis for performing sustainability assessments. Development of a relevant MCDA-method requires consideration of a number of key issues, e.g. (a) definition of assessment boundaries, (b) definition of performance scales, both temporal and spatial, (c) selection of relevant criteria (indicators) that facilitate a comprehensive sustainability assessment while avoiding double-counting of effects, and (d) handling of uncertainties. Adding to the complexity is the typically wide variety of inputs, including quantifications based on existing data, expert judgements, and opinions expressed in interviews. The SCORE (Sustainable Choice Of REmediation) MCDA-method was developed to provide a transparent assessment of the sustainability of possible remediation alternatives for contaminated sites relative to a reference alternative, considering key criteria in the economic, environmental, and social sustainability domains. The criteria were identified based on literature studies, interviews and focus-group meetings. SCORE combines a linear additive model to rank the alternatives with a non-compensatory approach to identify alternatives regarded as non-sustainable. The key strengths of the SCORE method are as follows: a framework that at its core is designed to be flexible and transparent; the possibility to integrate both quantitative and qualitative estimations on criteria; its ability, unlike other sustainability assessment tools used in industry and academia, to allow for the alteration of boundary conditions where necessary; the inclusion of a full uncertainty analysis of the results, using Monte Carlo simulation; and a structure that allows preferences and opinions of involved stakeholders to be openly integrated into the analysis. A major insight from practical application of SCORE is that its most important contribution may be that it initiates a process where criteria otherwise likely ignored are addressed and openly discussed between stakeholders.
Asunto(s)
Conservación de los Recursos Naturales/métodos , Restauración y Remediación Ambiental/métodos , Técnicas de Apoyo para la Decisión , Contaminación Ambiental/estadística & datos numéricos , IncertidumbreRESUMEN
Investigations into laboratory reactors and landfills are used for simulating and predicting emissions from municipal solid waste landfills. We examined water flow and solute transport through the same waste body for different volumetric scales (laboratory experiment: 0.08 m(3), landfill: 80,000 m(3)), and assessed the differences in water flow and leachate emissions of chloride, total organic carbon and Kjeldahl nitrogen. The results indicate that, due to preferential pathways, the flow of water in field-scale landfills is less uniform than in laboratory reactors. Based on tracer experiments, it can be discerned that in laboratory-scale experiments around 40% of pore water participates in advective solute transport, whereas this fraction amounts to less than 0.2% in the investigated full-scale landfill. Consequences of the difference in water flow and moisture distribution are: (1) leachate emissions from full-scale landfills decrease faster than predicted by laboratory experiments, and (2) the stock of materials remaining in the landfill body, and thus the long-term emission potential, is likely to be underestimated by laboratory landfill simulations.