This is not the document you are looking for? Use the search form below to find more!
A Framework for Net Environmental Benefit Analysis for Remediation ...
0.00 (0 votes)
Document Description
This paper provides a framework for NEBA, with special application to petroleum spills in terrestrial and wetland environments. A high-level framework for NEBA is presented, with sub frameworks for natural attenuation (the contaminated reference state), remediation, and ecological restoration alternatives. Primary information gaps related to NEBA include: non-monetary valuation methods, exposure-response models for all stressors, the temporal dynamics of ecological recovery, and optimal strategies for ecological restoration.
File Details- Added: February, 17th 2011
- Reads: 226
- Downloads: 0
- File size: 352.28kb
- Pages: 51
- content preview
- Name: katherine
Embed Code:
Related Documents
A Framework for Haptic Psycho-Therapy
by: walid, 4 pagesA growing body of evidence supports touch-based therapy for assisting sensory issues stemming from common social and psychological problems. Simulating touch through haptic devices can complement ...
A Cost-Benefit Analysis of an Olympic Games
by: shinta, 66 pagesEvery two years, the International Olympic Committee convenes to select the next host city for a Summer or Winter Olympic Games, and these decisions are preceded by strenuous marketing ...
A Framework for Analysis of Characteristics of Audit Experts
by: mine, 37 pagesChief audit executives (CAEs) and internal audit managers (IAMs) are responsible for the use and compliance with the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing ( ...
A Checklist For Buying A Home In Totowa New Jersey
by: danalsipes, 1 pagesA Checklist For Buying A Home In Totowa New Jersey
The Gateway to a Market-Driven Agricultural Economy: A Framework for Demand Chain Management in the Food Industry
by: samanta, 14 pagesIt has been recognized that agriculture and food companies have a long tradition for being commodity-driven, with an emphasis on production technology, high volumes, and quality consistency. With ...
A Framework for Addressing and Measuring Entrepreneurship
by: justin, 31 pagesThis, in part, reflects the greater availability of statistics on SMEs and the self-employed but it also reflects the general ambiguity relating to entrepreneurship. What compounds this ambiguity is ...
Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment Recent Developments
by: shinta, 13 pagesThe OECD has long championed efficient decision-making using economic analysis. It was, for example, one of the main sponsors of the early manuals in the late 1960s on project evaluation ...
Cost/Benefit Analysis
by: hakem, 26 pagesMake design decisions that deliver the best value to the building owner and future tenants. • Cost benefit analysis normally clarifies the trade-offs between first costs and operating ...
The IT Value Hierarchy: A framework for articulating IT Value ...
by: dania, 3 pagesThe IT Value Hierarchy is a simple model for articulating the progressive desire for increasingly sophisticated applications of information technology within competitive organizations using Maslow's ...
Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment: Recent Developments
by: rioko, 13 pagesThe OECD has long championed efficient decision-making using economic analysis. It was, for example, one of the main sponsors of the early manuals in the late1960s on project evaluation authored by ...
Content Preview
ORNL/TM-2003/17
A Framework for Net Environmental
Benefit Analysis for Remediation or
Restoration of Petroleum-Contaminated
Sites
January 2003
R. A. Efroymson
J. P. Nicolette
G. W. Suter II
Environmental Sciences Division
DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY
Reports produced after January 1, 1996, are generally available free via the U.S. Department
of Energy (DOE) Information Bridge.
Web site http://www.osti.gov/bridge
Reports produced before January 1, 1996, may be purchased by members of the public from
the following source.
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone 703-605-6000 (1-800-553-6847)
TDD 703-487-4639
Fax 703-605-6900
E-mail info@ntis.fedworld.gov
Web site http://www.ntis.gov/support/ordernowabout.htm
Reports are available to DOE employees, DOE contractors, Energy Technology Data
Exchange (ETDE) representatives, and International Nuclear Information System (INIS)
representatives from the following source.
Office of Scientific and Technical Information
P.O. Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
Telephone 865-576-8401
Fax 865-576-5728
E-mail reports@adonis.osti.gov
Web site http://www.osti.gov/contact.html
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored
by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the
United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of
their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or
assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus,
product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use
would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to
any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade
name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not
necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,
recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions
of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or
reflect those of the United States Government or any agency
thereof.
ORNL/TM-2003/17
Environmental Sciences Division
A FRAMEWORK FOR NET ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT ANALYSIS FOR
REMEDIATION OR RESTORATION OF PETROLEUM-CONTAMINATED SITES
Rebecca A. Efroymson
Environmental Sciences Division
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Joseph P. Nicolette
CH2M Hill
Atlanta, GA
Glenn W. Suter II
National Center for Environmental Assessment
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH
January 2003
Prepared for
U.S. Department of Energy
National Petroleum Technology Office
Budget Activity Number AC 10 15 00 0
Prepared by
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831
managed by
UT-BATTELLE, LLC
for the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725
CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. PRECEDENTS FOR NEBA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1 NATURAL ATTENUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2 TRADITIONAL REMEDIATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3 ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. STRUCTURE OF NEBA FRAMEWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1 PLANNING PHASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1.1 Management Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1.2 Stressors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.1.3 Ecological Services and Other Ecological Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.1.4 Comparative Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.1.5 Temporal Measures of Exposure and Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.1.6 Spatial Measures of Exposure and Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.1.7 Conceptual Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.1.8 Analysis Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.2 CHARACTERIZATION OF REFERENCE STATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.3 NEBA OF SINGLE ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.3.1 Time-integrated Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.3.2 Characterization of Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.3.2.1 Biodegradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.3.2.2 Bioavailability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.3.2.3 Chemical removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.3.3 Exposure-response Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.3.4 Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.4 COMPARISON OF MULTIPLE ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.4.1 Challenges of Comparative Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7. REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Fig. 1. Framework for Net Environmental Benefit Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Fig. 2. Characterization of the contaminated reference state or natural attenuation . . . . . . . . . . 10
Fig. 3. Net Environmental Benefit Analysis of remedial alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Fig. 4. Net Environmental Benefit Analysis of ecological restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Fig. 5. Trajectory of assessment endpoint entity (service or other ecological property) with
time, following a petroleum spill; conditions that would have been expected to
prevail in the absence of the spill; expected trajectory of the remediated state;
expected trajectory of the restored state. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Research sponsored by the Fossil Energy Office, U.S. Department of Energy, under
contract DE-AC05-00OR22725 with UT-Battelle, LLC. The views in the paper do not
necessarily reflect the policies of the U. S. Department of Energy or the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. We thank F. Dexter Sutterfield, Nancy Comstock, Kathy Stirling, and Daniel
Gurney, project managers at the DOE National Petroleum Technology Office in Tulsa,
Oklahoma, for their support of this project. We thank Jim Loar of Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Randy Bruins of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and three petroleum
industry reviewers for comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.
vii
A Framework for Net Environmental
Benefit Analysis for Remediation or
Restoration of Petroleum-Contaminated
Sites
January 2003
R. A. Efroymson
J. P. Nicolette
G. W. Suter II
Environmental Sciences Division
DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY
Reports produced after January 1, 1996, are generally available free via the U.S. Department
of Energy (DOE) Information Bridge.
Web site http://www.osti.gov/bridge
Reports produced before January 1, 1996, may be purchased by members of the public from
the following source.
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone 703-605-6000 (1-800-553-6847)
TDD 703-487-4639
Fax 703-605-6900
E-mail info@ntis.fedworld.gov
Web site http://www.ntis.gov/support/ordernowabout.htm
Reports are available to DOE employees, DOE contractors, Energy Technology Data
Exchange (ETDE) representatives, and International Nuclear Information System (INIS)
representatives from the following source.
Office of Scientific and Technical Information
P.O. Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
Telephone 865-576-8401
Fax 865-576-5728
E-mail reports@adonis.osti.gov
Web site http://www.osti.gov/contact.html
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored
by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the
United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of
their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or
assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus,
product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use
would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to
any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade
name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not
necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,
recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions
of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or
reflect those of the United States Government or any agency
thereof.
ORNL/TM-2003/17
Environmental Sciences Division
A FRAMEWORK FOR NET ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT ANALYSIS FOR
REMEDIATION OR RESTORATION OF PETROLEUM-CONTAMINATED SITES
Rebecca A. Efroymson
Environmental Sciences Division
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Joseph P. Nicolette
CH2M Hill
Atlanta, GA
Glenn W. Suter II
National Center for Environmental Assessment
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH
January 2003
Prepared for
U.S. Department of Energy
National Petroleum Technology Office
Budget Activity Number AC 10 15 00 0
Prepared by
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831
managed by
UT-BATTELLE, LLC
for the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725
CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. PRECEDENTS FOR NEBA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1 NATURAL ATTENUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2 TRADITIONAL REMEDIATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3 ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. STRUCTURE OF NEBA FRAMEWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1 PLANNING PHASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1.1 Management Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1.2 Stressors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.1.3 Ecological Services and Other Ecological Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.1.4 Comparative Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.1.5 Temporal Measures of Exposure and Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.1.6 Spatial Measures of Exposure and Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.1.7 Conceptual Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.1.8 Analysis Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.2 CHARACTERIZATION OF REFERENCE STATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.3 NEBA OF SINGLE ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.3.1 Time-integrated Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.3.2 Characterization of Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.3.2.1 Biodegradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.3.2.2 Bioavailability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.3.2.3 Chemical removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.3.3 Exposure-response Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.3.4 Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.4 COMPARISON OF MULTIPLE ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.4.1 Challenges of Comparative Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7. REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Fig. 1. Framework for Net Environmental Benefit Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Fig. 2. Characterization of the contaminated reference state or natural attenuation . . . . . . . . . . 10
Fig. 3. Net Environmental Benefit Analysis of remedial alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Fig. 4. Net Environmental Benefit Analysis of ecological restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Fig. 5. Trajectory of assessment endpoint entity (service or other ecological property) with
time, following a petroleum spill; conditions that would have been expected to
prevail in the absence of the spill; expected trajectory of the remediated state;
expected trajectory of the restored state. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Research sponsored by the Fossil Energy Office, U.S. Department of Energy, under
contract DE-AC05-00OR22725 with UT-Battelle, LLC. The views in the paper do not
necessarily reflect the policies of the U. S. Department of Energy or the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. We thank F. Dexter Sutterfield, Nancy Comstock, Kathy Stirling, and Daniel
Gurney, project managers at the DOE National Petroleum Technology Office in Tulsa,
Oklahoma, for their support of this project. We thank Jim Loar of Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Randy Bruins of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and three petroleum
industry reviewers for comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.
vii
Paid (e)Books
Add New Comment