The Experts below are selected from a list of 234189 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Valérie Cappuyns - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Environmental impacts of soil Remediation activities: quantitative and qualitative tools applied on three case studies
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2013Co-Authors: Valérie CappuynsAbstract:When evaluating Remediation technologies for contaminated soil and groundwater, the beneficial effects of the Remediation are mostly emphasized without consideration of the environmental impacts of the Remediation activities themselves. Nevertheless, different qualitative and quantitative methods to estimate the environmental impacts of soil Remediation activities are available. In the present study, three case studies were worked out, for which several Remediation options were evaluated for a soil and groundwater contamination with mineral oil and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene, based on data of the soil Remediation project itself or on data from pilot projects. The evaluation tools that were simultaneously used for all the case studies consisted of the ‘Best Available Technique not Entailing Excessive Costs’ method, a life cycle-based evaluation method and a CO2 calculator. The results highlight the most important aspects to take into account for the evaluation of the environmental footprint of soil Remediation activities and provide a guidance for environmental impacts assessment within the framework of contaminated site management.
-
Environmental impact of soil Remediation activities: evaluation of quantitative and qualitative tools
2012Co-Authors: Valérie CappuynsAbstract:WHEN EVALUATING Remediation TECHNOLOGIES FOR CONTAMINATED SOIL AND GROUNDWATER, THE BENEFICIAL EFFECTS OF THE Remediation ARE MOSTLY EMPHASIZED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE Remediation ACTIVITIES THEMSELVES. NEVERTHELESS, DIFFERENT (SEMI)-QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE METHODS TO ESTIMATE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF SOIL Remediation ACTIVITIES ARE AVAILABLE. IN THE PRESENT STUDY, 3 CASE STUDIES WERE WORKED OUT, FOR WHICH SEVERAL Remediation OPTIONS WERE EVALUATED, BASED ON DATA OF THE SOIL Remediation PROJECT ITSELF OR ON DATA FROM PILOT PROJECTS. THE EVALUATION TOOLS THAT WERE USED CONSISTED OF A MULTICRITERIA ANALYSIS, DIFFERENT TYPES OF CO2 CALCULATORS AND A LIFE CYCLE-BASED EVALUATION METHOD. THE RESULTS OF THE COMPARISON HIGHLIGHT THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECTS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT FOR THE EVALUATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT OF SOIL Remediation ACTIVITIES AND PROVIDE A GUIDANCE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF CONTAMINATED SITE
Christian Jeitner - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
risk to ecological resources following Remediation can be due mainly to increased resource value of successful restoration a case study from the department of energy s hanford site
Environmental Research, 2020Co-Authors: Joanna Burger, Michael Gochfeld, Christian Jeitner, David S Kosson, Kevin G Brown, Jennifer SalisburyAbstract:Abstract Many nations are faced with the need to remediate large contaminated sites following World War II, the Cold War, and abandoned industrial sites, and to return them to productive land uses. In the United States, the Department of Energy (DOE) has the largest cleanup challenge, and its Hanford Site in the state of Washington has the most extensive and most expensive cleanup task. Ideally, the risk to ecological resources on Remediation sites is evaluated before, during, and after Remediation, and the risk from, or damage to, ecological resources from contaminants should be lower following Remediation. In this paper, we report the risk to ecological resources before, during, and as a consequence of Remediation on contaminated units requiring cleanup, and then examine the causes for changes in risk by evaluating 56 cleanup evaluation units (EUs) at the Hanford Site. In this case, Remediation includes a restoration phase. In general, the risk to ecological and eco-cultural resources is currently not discernible or low at most contaminated units, increases during Remediation, and decreases thereafter. Remediation often causes physical disruption to ecosystems as it reduces the risk from exposure to contaminants. Most new Remediation projects at the Hanford Site include ecological restoration. Ecological restoration results in the potential for the presence of higher quality resources after Remediation than currently exists on these contaminated lands and facilities. Although counter-intuitive, our evaluation of the risk to ecological resources following Remediation indicated that a significant percentage of units (61%) will be at increased risk in the post-Remediation period. This increased risk is due to DOE's successful Remediation and restoration that results in a higher percent of native vegetation and higher ecological value on the sites in the post-Remediation period than before. These newly-created resources can then be at risk from post-Remediation activities. Risks to these new higher quality resources include the potential for spread of invasive species and of noxious grasses used in previous cleanup actions, disruption of ecosystems (including those with state or federally listed species and unique ecosystems), compaction of soil, use of pesticides to control invasive species, and the eventual need for continued monitoring activities. Thus, by greatly improving the existing habitat and health of eco-receptors, and maintaining habitat corridors between high quality habitats, the ecological resources in the post-remediated units are at risk unless care is taken to protect them. Many of the negative effects of both Remediation and future monitoring (or other future land uses) can be avoided by planning and management early in the Remediation process. We suggest DOE and other agencies convene a panel of managers, Remediation scientists, regulators, environmental and ecological scientists, Native Americans, economists, and the public to develop a generic list of performance metrics for the restoration phase of Remediation, including evaluation of success, which could be applied across the DOE complex.
-
Functional Remediation components: A conceptual method of evaluating the effects of Remediation on risks to ecological receptors.
Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part A, 2016Co-Authors: Joanna Burger, Michael Gochfeld, Amoret L. Bunn, Janelle L. Downs, Christian Jeitner, Taryn Pittfield, Jennifer A. SalisburyAbstract:ABSTRACTGovernmental agencies, regulators, health professionals, tribal leaders, and the public are faced with understanding and evaluating the effects of cleanup activities on species, populations, and ecosystems. While engineers and managers understand the processes involved in different Remediation types such as capping, pump and treat, and natural attenuation, there is often a disconnect between (1) how ecologists view the influence of different types of Remediation, (2) how the public perceives them, and (3) how engineers understand them. The overall goal of the present investigation was to define the components of Remediation types (= functional Remediation). Objectives were to (1) define and describe functional components of Remediation, regardless of the Remediation type, (2) provide examples of each functional Remediation component, and (3) explore potential effects of functional Remediation components in the post-cleanup phase that may involve continued monitoring and assessment. Functional reme...
Joanna Burger - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
risk to ecological resources following Remediation can be due mainly to increased resource value of successful restoration a case study from the department of energy s hanford site
Environmental Research, 2020Co-Authors: Joanna Burger, Michael Gochfeld, Christian Jeitner, David S Kosson, Kevin G Brown, Jennifer SalisburyAbstract:Abstract Many nations are faced with the need to remediate large contaminated sites following World War II, the Cold War, and abandoned industrial sites, and to return them to productive land uses. In the United States, the Department of Energy (DOE) has the largest cleanup challenge, and its Hanford Site in the state of Washington has the most extensive and most expensive cleanup task. Ideally, the risk to ecological resources on Remediation sites is evaluated before, during, and after Remediation, and the risk from, or damage to, ecological resources from contaminants should be lower following Remediation. In this paper, we report the risk to ecological resources before, during, and as a consequence of Remediation on contaminated units requiring cleanup, and then examine the causes for changes in risk by evaluating 56 cleanup evaluation units (EUs) at the Hanford Site. In this case, Remediation includes a restoration phase. In general, the risk to ecological and eco-cultural resources is currently not discernible or low at most contaminated units, increases during Remediation, and decreases thereafter. Remediation often causes physical disruption to ecosystems as it reduces the risk from exposure to contaminants. Most new Remediation projects at the Hanford Site include ecological restoration. Ecological restoration results in the potential for the presence of higher quality resources after Remediation than currently exists on these contaminated lands and facilities. Although counter-intuitive, our evaluation of the risk to ecological resources following Remediation indicated that a significant percentage of units (61%) will be at increased risk in the post-Remediation period. This increased risk is due to DOE's successful Remediation and restoration that results in a higher percent of native vegetation and higher ecological value on the sites in the post-Remediation period than before. These newly-created resources can then be at risk from post-Remediation activities. Risks to these new higher quality resources include the potential for spread of invasive species and of noxious grasses used in previous cleanup actions, disruption of ecosystems (including those with state or federally listed species and unique ecosystems), compaction of soil, use of pesticides to control invasive species, and the eventual need for continued monitoring activities. Thus, by greatly improving the existing habitat and health of eco-receptors, and maintaining habitat corridors between high quality habitats, the ecological resources in the post-remediated units are at risk unless care is taken to protect them. Many of the negative effects of both Remediation and future monitoring (or other future land uses) can be avoided by planning and management early in the Remediation process. We suggest DOE and other agencies convene a panel of managers, Remediation scientists, regulators, environmental and ecological scientists, Native Americans, economists, and the public to develop a generic list of performance metrics for the restoration phase of Remediation, including evaluation of success, which could be applied across the DOE complex.
-
Functional Remediation components: A conceptual method of evaluating the effects of Remediation on risks to ecological receptors.
Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part A, 2016Co-Authors: Joanna Burger, Michael Gochfeld, Amoret L. Bunn, Janelle L. Downs, Christian Jeitner, Taryn Pittfield, Jennifer A. SalisburyAbstract:ABSTRACTGovernmental agencies, regulators, health professionals, tribal leaders, and the public are faced with understanding and evaluating the effects of cleanup activities on species, populations, and ecosystems. While engineers and managers understand the processes involved in different Remediation types such as capping, pump and treat, and natural attenuation, there is often a disconnect between (1) how ecologists view the influence of different types of Remediation, (2) how the public perceives them, and (3) how engineers understand them. The overall goal of the present investigation was to define the components of Remediation types (= functional Remediation). Objectives were to (1) define and describe functional components of Remediation, regardless of the Remediation type, (2) provide examples of each functional Remediation component, and (3) explore potential effects of functional Remediation components in the post-cleanup phase that may involve continued monitoring and assessment. Functional reme...
Michael Gochfeld - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
risk to ecological resources following Remediation can be due mainly to increased resource value of successful restoration a case study from the department of energy s hanford site
Environmental Research, 2020Co-Authors: Joanna Burger, Michael Gochfeld, Christian Jeitner, David S Kosson, Kevin G Brown, Jennifer SalisburyAbstract:Abstract Many nations are faced with the need to remediate large contaminated sites following World War II, the Cold War, and abandoned industrial sites, and to return them to productive land uses. In the United States, the Department of Energy (DOE) has the largest cleanup challenge, and its Hanford Site in the state of Washington has the most extensive and most expensive cleanup task. Ideally, the risk to ecological resources on Remediation sites is evaluated before, during, and after Remediation, and the risk from, or damage to, ecological resources from contaminants should be lower following Remediation. In this paper, we report the risk to ecological resources before, during, and as a consequence of Remediation on contaminated units requiring cleanup, and then examine the causes for changes in risk by evaluating 56 cleanup evaluation units (EUs) at the Hanford Site. In this case, Remediation includes a restoration phase. In general, the risk to ecological and eco-cultural resources is currently not discernible or low at most contaminated units, increases during Remediation, and decreases thereafter. Remediation often causes physical disruption to ecosystems as it reduces the risk from exposure to contaminants. Most new Remediation projects at the Hanford Site include ecological restoration. Ecological restoration results in the potential for the presence of higher quality resources after Remediation than currently exists on these contaminated lands and facilities. Although counter-intuitive, our evaluation of the risk to ecological resources following Remediation indicated that a significant percentage of units (61%) will be at increased risk in the post-Remediation period. This increased risk is due to DOE's successful Remediation and restoration that results in a higher percent of native vegetation and higher ecological value on the sites in the post-Remediation period than before. These newly-created resources can then be at risk from post-Remediation activities. Risks to these new higher quality resources include the potential for spread of invasive species and of noxious grasses used in previous cleanup actions, disruption of ecosystems (including those with state or federally listed species and unique ecosystems), compaction of soil, use of pesticides to control invasive species, and the eventual need for continued monitoring activities. Thus, by greatly improving the existing habitat and health of eco-receptors, and maintaining habitat corridors between high quality habitats, the ecological resources in the post-remediated units are at risk unless care is taken to protect them. Many of the negative effects of both Remediation and future monitoring (or other future land uses) can be avoided by planning and management early in the Remediation process. We suggest DOE and other agencies convene a panel of managers, Remediation scientists, regulators, environmental and ecological scientists, Native Americans, economists, and the public to develop a generic list of performance metrics for the restoration phase of Remediation, including evaluation of success, which could be applied across the DOE complex.
-
Functional Remediation components: A conceptual method of evaluating the effects of Remediation on risks to ecological receptors.
Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part A, 2016Co-Authors: Joanna Burger, Michael Gochfeld, Amoret L. Bunn, Janelle L. Downs, Christian Jeitner, Taryn Pittfield, Jennifer A. SalisburyAbstract:ABSTRACTGovernmental agencies, regulators, health professionals, tribal leaders, and the public are faced with understanding and evaluating the effects of cleanup activities on species, populations, and ecosystems. While engineers and managers understand the processes involved in different Remediation types such as capping, pump and treat, and natural attenuation, there is often a disconnect between (1) how ecologists view the influence of different types of Remediation, (2) how the public perceives them, and (3) how engineers understand them. The overall goal of the present investigation was to define the components of Remediation types (= functional Remediation). Objectives were to (1) define and describe functional components of Remediation, regardless of the Remediation type, (2) provide examples of each functional Remediation component, and (3) explore potential effects of functional Remediation components in the post-cleanup phase that may involve continued monitoring and assessment. Functional reme...
Arne Villumsen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
investigations of cu pb and zn partitioning by sequential extraction in harbour sediments after electrodialytic Remediation
Chemosphere, 2010Co-Authors: Gunvor Marie Kirkelund, Lisbeth M. Ottosen, Arne VillumsenAbstract:Abstract Electrodialytic Remediation was used to remove Cu, Zn and Pb from three different contaminated harbour sediments. Electrodialytic experiments lasting 2 and 4 weeks were performed and 48–86% Cu, 74–90% Zn and 62–88% Pb were removed from the different sediments and the removal increased with longer Remediation time. A three step sequential extraction scheme (BCR), with an extra residual step, was used to evaluate the heavy metal distribution in the sediments before and after electrodialytic Remediation. Cu was mainly associated with the oxidisable phase of the sediment, both before and after Remediation. Zn and Pb were found in the exchangeable and reducible phases before Remediation. Zn was still found in the exchangeable and reducible phases after Remediation, whereas most Pb was removed from these phases during electrodialytic Remediation.
