Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Miljoevej, building 113, DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
Det Norske Veritas (DNV), Veritasveien 1, 1322 Hvik, Norway
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 21 November 2008
Received in revised form
18 December 2009
Accepted 10 January 2010
Available online 1 February 2010
Remediation methods for contaminated sites cover a wide range of technical solutions with different
remedial efciencies and costs. Additionally, they may vary in their secondary impacts on the environment i.e. the potential impacts generated due to emissions and resource use caused by the remediation activities. More attention is increasingly being given to these secondary environmental impacts
when evaluating remediation options. This paper presents a methodology for an integrated economic
decision analysis which combines assessments of remediation costs, health risk costs and potential
environmental costs. The health risks costs are associated with the residual contamination left at the site
and its migration to groundwater used for drinking water. A probabilistic exposure model using rst- and
second-order reliability methods (FORM/SORM) is used to estimate the contaminant concentrations at
a downstream groundwater well. Potential environmental impacts on the local, regional and global
scales due to the site remediation activities are evaluated using life cycle assessments (LCA). The
potential impacts on health and environment are converted to monetary units using a simplied cost
model.
A case study based upon the developed methodology is presented in which the following remediation
scenarios are analyzed and compared: (a) no action, (b) excavation and off-site treatment of soil, (c) soil
vapor extraction and (d) thermally enhanced soil vapor extraction by electrical heating of the soil.
Ultimately, the developed methodology facilitates societal cost estimations of remediation scenarios
which can be used for internal ranking of the analyzed options. Despite the inherent uncertainties of
placing a value on health and environmental impacts, the presented methodology is believed to be
valuable in supporting decisions on remedial interventions.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Decision support
Remediation
Contaminated sites
Groundwater
Life cycle assessment
Chlorinated solvents
Health risk
Uncertainty modeling
First- and second-order reliability methods
1. Introduction
The management of contaminated sites as undertaken by
municipal, regional or national authorities is not solely a matter of
whether or not a site is contaminated and if a site should be
remediated but also how the site should be remediated. Decisionmakers are often faced with a broad range of different technical
approaches for site cleanup, including biological, chemical and
physical (thermal) technologies that can be implemented either ex
situ or in situ. Efciency and cleanup times may vary substantially
between remediation technologies as may associated costs and
environmental impact of each method. While remediation of
a contaminated site reduces a local contamination problem, other
environmental impacts are also created on global, regional and
T
X
t 0 1
1
t
h
i
Bt Ct Rt
(1)
1170
Rt Pf t$Cf t
(2)
T
X
t 0 1
1
r
i
Ct Rt
(3)
Rosen et al. (1998) used this framework to evaluate two alternatives to reduce groundwater impacts from diffuse nitrate and
aluminium sources and monetized the groundwater contamination
risk based on the water price. Khadam and Kaluarachchi (2003)
used the risk-cost-benet approach to evaluate the optimal
pumping period for a pump-and-treat system, and expressed the
cost-effectiveness in terms of remediation costs per life saved.
Other decision support frameworks for contaminated site
management include multi-criteria utility theory, as used by Scholz
and Schnabel (2006), to calculate the overall utility of a decision
alternative. This is based on the sum of four partial utilities which
describe human health impacts, remediation costs, soil productivity and market value of land after remediation. The utilities were
normalized to absolute values between zero and one, with a single
utility score of 1 representing the most favorable outcome, i.e. no
health effects or a remediation cost of zero. In this way, the authors
overcome the difculties in monetizing the various impacts of the
remediation alternatives. Nevertheless the method implies an
internal weighting between the four utilities, and the nal utility
sum can be difcult to interpret. The decision support system by
Nasiri et al. (2007) aimed to assess the compatibility of groundwater remediation technologies based on characteristics of the
contaminated zone. Fuzzy sets theory was used to include uncertainty of linguistic data in their multiple attribute decision analysis.
In brief, none of the reviewed decision frameworks include
external environmental costs in their analyses, such as externalities
due to air emissions. These external societal costs should ideally be
zdemiroglu, 2005).
a part of a societal analysis (Hardisty and O
Studies which apply LCA to evaluations of environmental impacts
from remediation express these impacts in terms of an emission of
a reference substance (e.g. kg of CO2-equivalents for impacts on
climate change). The impacts may be normalized (e.g. expressed as
person equivalents, PE) and weighted to a single impact index but
Fig. 1. Overview of the framework for the integrated analysis of remediation costs, environmental costs and health costs of contaminated site remediation.
1171
h
i
P GX 0
f xdx
(4)
GX0
1
T
T
0
Cd tdt
T
0
Ctarget Cd t fT tdt
(5)
Table 1
Remediation costs estimated by Kruger. All costs are in million Euro (MEuro, 2007
prices). No discounting of costs is applied. Prices were converted from DKK 2005
values by updating to 2007 prices using Denmark Consumer Price Index (OECD Stat
Extracts) and converted to Euro using Purchasing Power Parities (OECD Stat
Extracts).
Phase
Excavation
Soil vapor
extraction
Electrical
heating
0.04
3.2
0
0
0
0.06
1.8
0.01
0.16
1.2
1.1
0.08
3.2
1.9
2.5
1172
Jt Cw t$I$A
(6)
2
1
dM
dCw
I$A$Cw t
Vqw Kd rb qa KH
dt
dt
(7)
Cw t Cw $explt
where l
(8)
I
Dqw Kd rb qa KH
Jt I$A$Cw $explt
(9)
(10)
where x denotes the fraction of the total area occupied by residual
phase contamination. For the no action scenario, Cw is the initial
solute concentration, whereas in the remediation scenarios Cw is
reduced as a consequence of the remedial effort. The resulting
solute concentrations after remediation are estimated from the
expected efciencies (effi) of the remediation technologies to
remove the source or prevent leaching of contaminant mass to the
saturated zone:
1
This modeling adjustment allows averaging out to be directly within the FORM/
SORM analysis by extending it one additional random variable, fT(t).
(11)
Cp t
Jt
Qp
(12)
Cd t 1 Ps $Cp t
(13)
r
rs
m a b a$
s b a$
r r
s
$
rs
r$r s 1
(14)
(15)
Symbol Unit
Inltration
Contaminated area
Fraction of area with
residual phase
contamination
Depth of contaminated
zone
Initial solute source
concentration of PCE
Porosity in source zone
I
A
x
Water saturation in
unsaturated zone
Bulk density of soil
Fraction of organic carbon
Pumping rate
Distribution Parameters
m yr1 Log-normal
m2
Log-normal
Decimal Beta
fraction
[0.15, 0.04]
[1150, 150]
(17.2, 40.1, 0, 1)
[0.3, 0.06]
(3, 2, 5, 7.5)
[6.5, 0.5]
(0.24, 1.4, 0, 227)
[33, 49]
(5.1, 5.1, 0.2, 0,5)
[0.4, 0,08]
(55.5, 18.5, 0, 1)
[0.75, 0.05]
[1.6, 0.1]
[0.0053, 0.0024]
6 106
Beta
Cw,initial g m3
Beta
Vol/vol
Beta
Sat
Decimal
fraction
kg L1
g kg1
m3 yr1
Beta
rb
foc
Qp
Log-normal
Log-normal
Fixed
1173
Table 3
Uncertainty modeling of remediation efciencies. For the beta distributions the
values in parentheses represent the two shape parameters and the upper and lower
limit of the parameter respectively (r, s, a, b). The corresponding mean and standard
deviation are given in brackets [m,s].
Variable
Symbol
Unit
Distribution
Parameters
Remediation efciency
excavation
Remediation efciency
soil vapor extraction
Remediation efciency
electrical heating
effexc
Decimal
fraction
Decimal
fraction
Decimal
fraction
Beta
(2.9, 0.03, 0, 1)
[0.98, 0.04]
(6.38, 0.61, 0, 1)
[0.91, 0.1]
(10.6, 0.33, 0, 1)
[0.97, 0.05]
effSVE
effheat
Beta
Beta
Cw
CT rb
qw Kd rb qa KH
(16)
2
Note that if several variables each have an importance factor of 10%, these of
course cannot all be removed.
1174
Table 4
Compound-specic parameters for PCE.
Variable
Symbol
Unit
Distribution
Parameter
LogKow
Fixed
2.71
Fixed
0.32
S
Ps
Dimension
less
Dimension
less
g m3
Decimal
fraction
Fixed
Fixed
227
0.70
KH
Table 5
Mean and standard deviation of the 30-year average PCE concentrations (Cd,av) as
found by tting the FORM/SORM results to a gamma distribution.
No action
Excavation
Soil vapor extraction
Electrical heating
Standard deviation
(mg L1)
1.80
0.03
0.12
0.04
0.63
0.08
0.20
0.11
ADD Cav $
IR ED$EF
BW AT
(17)
IELCR 1 expADD$CPF
(18)
IELCR ADD$CPF
(19)
Fig. 5. Importance factors of variables for determining the 30-year average contaminant concentration of drinking water of each scenario. The mean value and the
cumulative density function (CDF) of the contaminant concentration have been plotted
together with the importance factors.
Symbol
Unit
Distribution
Parameters
IR/BW
L kg1 d1
Log-normal
ED
AT
EF
yr
d
d yr1
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
[3.3 102,
1.3 102]
30
25 550 (70 yr)
350
CPF
kg d mg1
Fixed
0.051
Number of
people
Log-normal
[1.1 105,
1 104]
DTpfatality
DTpinjury
r0 1
1 VL2 E$pmin
c 2
1 1
r c
ET$pmin
log 0
c r0
pmin c
(20)
(21)
1175
33 340 Euro=yr
ICAF 591 yr$
10:9 MEuro
1:81
ICAI 48 yr$
33 340 Euro=yr
0:9 MEuro
1:81
(22)
Table 7
Recommended values by the European Commission (2001) for preventing
a cancer-related fatality for an average age population.
2.1
1.4
5.4
2.7
1.8
6.9
a
Based on the values 1.5, 1.0 and 3.8 multiplied with a factor of 1.43 to adjust for
an average age population.
b
The value is updated from 2000 to 2007 prices using the OECD-Europe
Excluding High Ination Consumer Price Index. (OECD Stat Extracts).
1176
Fig. 6. The cumulative probability distributions of the incurred health costs for each
scenario.
SVE scenario increases, but still the uncertainty in the ingestion rate
is of limited inuence.
5. Environmental cost model
5.1. Life cycle assessment modeling
The primary goal of the remediation efforts is to reduce a local
contamination problem, but secondary effects or externalities to the
environment are costs that should be included in the overall cost
evaluation. Seen in a life cycle perspective, the remediation activities consume energy and other non-renewable resources and
causes emissions on local, regional and global scales. In order to
quantify and compare these impacts in a systematic and consistent
way, a life cycle assessment (LCA) of each remediation method is
conducted. The LCA result describes the aggregated potential
environmental impacts over the entire life cycle of each remediation technology from extraction of raw materials to production of
components and electricity to end-of-life disposal, reuse or recycling of utilized materials.
The life cycle assessment was modeled using the GaBi 4 LCA
Software and the EDIP unit process database combined with
additional data collection. The EDIP97 Impact Assessment methodology was chosen as impact assessment method (Environmental
Design of Industrial Products, Wenzel et al., 1997). As the LCA itself
is not the primary scope for this paper, the analysis is only briey
presented.
The goal of the LCA is to compare the environmental impacts of
the three different approaches for site cleanup. The compared
service (the functional unit in the LCA) is dened as the treatment
of the 7500 m3 of contaminated soil within a 30-year time frame.
The functional unit does not dene a cleanup level for the remediation. This implies that different levels of residual contamination
will be left in the ground depending on the evaluated method. The
Table 8
Mean health cost values of each scenario. Standard deviations are given in
parentheses.
No action
Excavation
Soil vapor extraction
Electrical heating
0.94
0.016
0.062
0.022
0.27
0.005
0.018
0.006
(0.49)
(0.043)
(0.11)
(0.055)
(0.14)
(0.012)
(0.030)
(0.016)
Fig. 7. Importance factors of variables for determining the health costs of each
scenario. The mean and the cumulative density function (CDF) of the health cost have
been plotted together with the importance factors.
consequences of the residual contamination are dealt with specifically in the health cost part of this framework.
The main operation activities included in the different remediation scenarios are presented in Table 9. Raw material extraction
and production of materials (steel, activated carbon, plastic materials, concrete etc.) and energy sources (electricity, diesel) are not
mentioned specically in Table 9 but are also included. Average
Danish electricity is assumed for on-site operations and off-site soil
treatment. As a common limitation, the construction of vehicles
such as excavators, drill rigs, trucks and cars are excluded as it is
assumed that only a minor part of their service life is ascribed to
1177
Table 10
Unit cost for environmental impacts and resource consumption. The Stern Review
value is included for comparison only and is not used in the valuation.
Emission unit cost
Stern (2006)
Danish EPA (2007)
Euro/ton CO2
73
18
Euro/kg oil
0.434
Euro/PETc
570
140
Euro/PRd
10 700
All Currency conversion was done using Purchasing Power Parities from OECD Stat
Extracts.
a
The value in Euro/ton CO2 represents the alternative costs of reducing CO2
emissions as estimated at 180 Danish kroner per ton CO2 by Danish EPA (2007).
b
1 PET (Targeted Person Equivalent) is equal to the average emission of 8.7 tons
CO2-eq./cap/yr divided by the weighting factor for global warming of 1.12
(Stranddorf et al., 2005).
c
The value in Euro/kg of crude oil is based on the 2007 world average oil price of
69.2 USD/barrel (EIA, 2008).
d
1 PR (person reserve) is equal to the average consumption of 588 kg oil/cap/yr
divided by a weighting factor of 0.024 (LCA Center, 2005).
Table 9
Main activities included in the three life cycle assessments.
Excavation
Electrical heating
On site:
Excavation and backlling
Demolition of 2 houses
On site:
Drilling of wells
Materials for wells, pumps and activated carbon units
Electricity use for 30 y of soil ventilation, water
extraction and house ventilation
Activated carbon use for water and air treatment
On site:
Drilling of wells
Materials for wells
Materials for ventilation layer, isolation
and capping.
Electricity use for 8 months of heating
Activated carbon use for treatment
of extracted air
Off site:
Construction of 2 houses
Electricity for 1 y of soil aeration
Materials for construction of treatment facilitya
Activated carbon use for treatment
of extracted air
Extraction of soil for backlling
Off site:
Transport of soil to treatment (80 km) and to
nal disposal (40 km)
Transport of materials, equipment
and people
a
Transport:
Transport of materials, equipment and people
Transport:
Transport of materials, equipment
and people
Only a part of the materials are ascribed to this remediation project based on the assumed treatment capacity and lifetime of the facility.
1178
Fig. 8. Weighted environmental impact potentials quantied in the life cycle assessment (PET: Targeted Person Equivalent).
and electrical heating methods and to 0.9 MEuro for the SVE
method (see Fig. 11).
6. Ranking of remedial alternatives
As remediation benets are not included in the evaluation, the
riskcostbenet model is reduced to a riskcost minimization
model. The time frame of the analysis is set to 30 years. No discounting of costs and benets is carried out. However, it can be
shown that a decision model with a nite time frame, T, and a discounting rate, r, of zero is decision theoretically equivalent to
a decision model with an innite time frame and a discounting rate
of 1/T, see Friis-Hansen and Ditlevsen (2003). Consequently, a 30year time frame as used in the present analysis is essentially equal
to applying an innite time frame and a discount rate of 1/
30 3.3%, which is similar to currently recommended discount
rates by Danish EPA (2007). The total cost associated with a remediation initiative, 4, is thus calculated as the sum of the remediation
costs and the risks in terms of environmental and health costs
(equal to Eq. (3) without discounting):
T h
i
X
Ct Rt
(23)
t0
Fig. 12a illustrates the results of the total cost estimates made for
the no action scenario and each of the remediation scenarios. The
total societal costs of the three remediation scenarios range from 2.9
MEuro (soil vapor extraction) to 4.3 MEuro (excavation). All
Fig. 9. Weighted resource consumption quantied in the life cycle assessment (PR: person reserve).
1179
1180
Fig. 12. Remediation cost, environmental cost and health cost of each remediation scenario. All costs are in million Euro (MEuro). (a) Health costs based on an ICAF value of 10.9
MEuro. (b) Health costs based on an ICAF value of 2.7 MEuro. (c) Health costs based on an ICAF value of 10.9 MEuro, 100 year time frame for soil vapor extraction. (d). Health costs
based on an ICAF value of 2.7 MEuro, 100 year time frame for soil vapor extraction. The error bars mark the 5th and 95th percentile of the health cost distribution.
Table 11
Costs (MEuro) of remediation options. Values in parentheses are responding to
health costs calculated using an ICAF value of 2.7 MEuro.
No action
Excavation
Soil vapor
extraction
Electrical
heating
Remediation cost
Environmental cost
Health cost
0
0
0.9 (0.3)
3.2
1.0
0.02 (0.005)
1.9
0.9
0.06 (0.018)
2.5
1.0
0.02 (0.006)
Total cost
0.9
4.3
2.9
3.5
1181
Appendix I
Appendix II
It is not the intention to give a comprehensive summary of
FORM/SORM here, but only to refer to the main principles. Reference is left to Madsen et al. (1986) or Ditlevsen and Madsen (1996)
for an in-depth treatment.
A probability computation by FORM/SORM consists of four main
steps,
1. transformation of the random variables X into a standard
normal vector U by solving Fui Fxi , in which F$ is the
standard normal density function. This holds only for independent variables. It is worth emphasizing that FORM/SORM
are full distributional methods and the transformation from x-
Table A1
Normalization references and weighting factors for environmental impacts.
Impact category
Global warming
Ozone depletion
Acidication
Eutrophication
Photochemical oxidant potential
Ecotoxicity water chronic
Ecotoxicity water acute
Ecotoxicity soil chronic
Human toxicity air
Human toxicity water
Human toxicity soil
Bulk waste
Hazardous waste
Radioactive waste
Slags and ashes
Normalization reference
8700
0.103
74
119
25
352000
29100
964000
6.09 1010
52200
127
1350
20.7
0.035
350
Weighting factor
Unit
kg CO2-eq./cap/yr
kg CFC-11-eq./cap/yr
kg SO2-eq./cap/yr
kg NO3-eq./cap/yr
kg C2H4-eq./cap/yr
m3 water/cap/yr
m3 water/cap/yr
m3 soil/cap/yr
m3 air/cap/yr
m3 water/cap/yr
m3 soil/cap/yr
kg/cap/yr
kg/cap/yr
kg/cap/yr
kg/cap/yr
Global (1994)
Global (1994)
EU15 (1994)
EU15 (1994)
EU15 (1994)
EU15 (1994)
EU15 (1994)
EU15 (1994)
EU15 (1994)
EU15 (1994)
EU15 (1994)
DK (1991)
DK (1991)
S (1989)
DK (1991)
Global (2004)
Global (2004)
EU15 (2004)
EU15 (2004)
EU15 (2004)
EU15 (2004)
EU15 (2004)
EU15 (2004)
EU15 (2004)
EU15 (2004)
EU15 (2004)
DK (2000)
DK (2000)
DK (2000)
DK (2000)
1182
Table A2
Normalization references and weighting factors for nite resources.
Resource
Aluminium
Chromium
Copper
Crude oil
Hard coal
Iron
Lignite
Manganese
Natural gas
Nickel
Uranium
Zinc
Sand, gravel
Normalization reference
4.52
0.83
2.27
604
602
97.7
264
1.72
353
0.22
0.0056
1.42
3306
Unit
Reference region
(year)
kg/cap/yr
kg/cap/yr
kg/cap/yr
kg/cap/yr
kg/cap/yr
kg/cap/yr
kg/cap/yr
kg/cap/yr
kg/cap/yr
kg/cap/yr
kg/cap/yr
kg/cap/yr
kg/cap/yr
Global (2004)
Global (2004)
Global (2004)
Global (2004)
Global (2004)
Global (2004)
Global (2004)
Global (2004)
Global (2004)
Global (2004)
Global (2004)
Global (2004)
DK (1995)
Weighting factor
Reference region
(year)
0.0068
0.021
0.031
0.024
0.0080
0.0078
0.0039
0.029
0.015
0.023
0.010
0.041
0.0040
Global (2004)
Global (2004)
Global (2004)
Global (2004)
Global (2004)
Global (2004)
Global (2004)
Global (2004)
Global (2004)
Global (2004)
Global (2004)
Global (2004)
DK (2000)
References
Arvin, E., 1992. Udluftning Af Chlororganiske Forbindelser-Konsekvenser for Vandets Kvalitet. (Stripping of Chloroorganic Compounds-Consequenses for Water
Quality). In: Course in Water Supply, vol. 41. University of Aarhus, Danish Water
Association (in Danish).
Baalousha, H., Kongeter, E., 2006. Stochastic modelling and risk analysis of
groundwater pollution using FORM coupled with automatic differentiation.
Advances in Water Resources 29, 18151832.
Bass, D.H., Hastings, N.A., Brown, R.A., 2000. Performance of air sparging systems:
a review of case studies. Journal of Hazardous Materials 72, 101119.
Bayer, P., Finkel, M., 2006. Life cycle assessment of active and passive groundwater
remediation technologies. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 83, 171199.
Cadotte, M., Deschenes, L., Samson, R., 2007. Selection of a remediation scenario for
a diesel-contaminated site using LCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment 12, 239251.
Danish Cancer Society, 2006. Krft i Danmark en opslagsbog. (Cancer in Denmark
a reference book). FADLs forlag (in Danish).
Danish EPA, 2007. Ngletal for Samfundskonomiske Beregninger P Milj- Og
Naturomrdet. Miljprojekt Nr. 1199 2007. Danish Environmental Protection
Agency, Danish Ministry of the Environment (in Danish).
Ditlevsen, O., Friis-Hansen, P., 2007a. Cost and Benet Including Value of Life and
Limb Measured in Time Units. Paper from Special Workshop on Risk acceptance
and Risk Communication. 2627 March, 2007, Stanford University.
Ditlevsen, O., Friis-Hansen, P., 2007b. Life quality index - an empirical or
a normative concept? International Journal of Risk Assessment & Management
7, 895921.
Ditlevsen, O., Madsen, H.O., 1996. Structural Reliability Methods. John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester, UK, Edition 1. Edition 2.2.5: Internet Edition July 2005. http://www.
web.mek.dtu.dk/staff/od/books.htm.
EIA, 2008. Energy Information Administration. Ofcial Energy Statistics from the
U.S. Government. Accessed at: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_wco_
k_w.htm.
Einarson, M.D., Mackay, D.M., 2001. Predicting impacts of groundwater contamination. Environmental Science and Technology 35, 66A73A.
European Commission, 2001. Recommended Interim Values for the Value of Preventing a Fatality in DG Environment Cost Benet Analysis. Accessed at: http://ec.
europa.eu/environment/enveco/others/pdf/recommended_interim_values.pdf.
Freeze, R.A., Massmann, J., Smith, L., Sperling, T., James, B., 1990. Hydrogeological
decision-analysis .1. A framework. Ground Water 28, 738766.
Friis-Hansen, P., Ditlevsen, O., 2003. Nature preservation acceptance model applied
to tanker oil spill simulations. Structural Safety 25, 134.
Gosset, J.M., 1987. Measurement of Henrys Law constants for C1 and C2 chlorinated
hydrocarbons. Environmental Science and Technology 21, 202208.
Hamed, M.M., El-Beshry, M.Z., 2006. Application of rst-order reliability method to
modelling the fate and transport of benzene in groundwater. International
Journal of Environment and Pollution 26, 327346.
zdemiroglu, E., 2005. The Economics of Groundwater Remediation
Hardisty, P.E., O
and Protection. CRC Press, New York.
Johnson, N.L., Kotz, S., Balakrishnan, N., 1995. Continuous Univariate Distributions,
second ed., vol. 2. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Khadam, I., Kaluarachchi, J.J., 2003. Applicability of risk-based management and the
need for risk-based economic decision analysis at hazardous waste contaminated sites. Environment International 29, 503519.
Lemming, G., Hauschild, M.Z., Bjerg, P.L., 2010. Life cycle assessment of soil and
groundwater remediation technologies: literature review. International Journal
of Life Cycle Assessment 15, 115127.
LCA Center. 2005. List of EDIP factors downloaded from LCA Center Denmark 04-112008 at <http://www.lca-center.dk/cms/site.aspx?p=1595>. The updating was
done in 2005 by Henrik Fred Larsen from IPU Produktion, Denmark, according
to the principles of the EDIP methodology.
Madsen, H.O., Krenk, S., Lind, N.C., 1986. Methods of Structural Safety. Prentice Hall.
Massmann, J., Freeze, R.A., Smith, L., Sperling, T., James, B., 1991. Hydrogeological
decision-analysis .2. Applications to groundwater contamination. Ground Water
29, 536548.
Maxwell, R.M., Pelmulder, S.D., Tompson, A.F.B., Kastenberg, W.E., 1998. On the
development of a new methodology for groundwater-driven health risk
assessment. Water Resources Research 34, 833847.
McGuire, T.M., McDade, J.M., Newell, C.J., 2006. Performance of DNAPL source
depletion technologies at 59 chlorinated solvent-impacted sites. Ground Water
Monitoring and Remediation 26, 7384.
Nasiri, F., Huang, G., Fuller, N., 2007. Prioritizing groundwater remediation policies:
a fuzzy compatibility analysis decision aid. Journal of Environmental Management 82 (1), 1323. Ref Type: Generic.
NRC, 1997. Valuing Ground Water-Economics, Concepts and Approaches. National
Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington.
Riddick, J.R., Bunger, W.B., Sakano, T.K., 1986. Organic Solvents, fourth ed. John
Wiley & Sons, New York.
Rosen, L., Wladis, D., Ramaekers, D., 1998. Risk and decision analysis of groundwater
protection alternatives on the European scale with emphasis on nitrate and
aluminium contamination from diffuse sources. Journal of Hazardous Materials
61, 329336.
Rosenbaum, R.K., Bachmann, T.M., Gold, L.S., Huijbregts, M.A.J., Jolliet, O., Juraske, R.,
Koehler, A., Larsen, H.F., MacLeod, M., Margni, M., McKone, T.E., Payet, J.,
Schuhmacher, M., van de Meent, D., Hauschild, M.Z., 2008. USEtox-the UNEPSETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human
toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 13, 532546.
ScanRail Consult, HOH Water Technology A/S, NIRAS Consulting Engineers and
Planners A/S, and Revisorsamvirket/Pannell Kerr Forster. 2000. Environmental/
Economic Evaluation and Optimising of Contaminated Sites Remediation. EU
LIFE Project no. 96ENV/DK/0016. Copenhagen, Denmark.
Schaerlaekens, J., Mallants, D., Simunek, J., van Genuchten, M.T., Feyen, J., 1999.
Numerical simulation of transport and sequential biodegradation of chlorinated
aliphatic hydrocarbons using CHAIN_2D. Hydrological Processes 13,
28472859.
Scholz, R.W., Schnabel, U., 2006. Decision making under uncertainty in case of soil
remediation. Journal of Environmental Management 80, 132147.
Steen, B., 1999. A Systematic Approach to Environmental Priority Strategies in
Product Development (EPS). Version 2000 Models and Data of the Default
Method. CPM Report 1999, vol. 5. Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Stern, N., 2006. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Accessed at:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/stern_review_nal_report.htm.
Stranddorf, H.K., Hoffmann, L., Schmidt, A., 2005. Pvirkningskategorier, Normalisering og Vgtning i LCA. Opdatering af Udvalgte UMIP97-Data. (Impact
Categories, Normalisation and Weighting in LCA. Updating of Selected EDIP97
Data). Miljnyt Nr. 77 2005. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Ministry
of the Environment (in Danish).
Toffoletto, L., Deschenes, L., Samson, R., 2005. LCA of ex-situ bioremediation of
diesel-contaminated soil. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 10,
406416.
Troldborg, M., Lemming, G., Binning, P.J., Tuxen, N., Bjerg, P.L., 2008. Risk assessment
and prioritisation of contaminated sites on the catchment scale. Journal of
Contaminant Hydrology 101, 1428.
US EPA, 1988. Health Effects Assessment for Tetrachloroethylene. EPA/600/8-89096. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Ofce, Ofce of Health and Environmental Assessment, Ofce of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH,
United States Environmental Protection Agency.
US EPA, 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. In: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). EPA/540/189/002, vol. I. Ofce of Emergency and
Remedial Response, United States Environmental Protection Agency.
US EPA, 1992. Estimating Potential for Occurence of DNAPL at Superfund Sites.
9355.407FS. United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Wenzel, H., Hauschild, M., Alting, L., 1997. Environmental Assessment of Products.
1: Methodology, Tools, and Case Studies in Product Development. ISBN 0 412
80800 5. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Hingham, MA. USA. Chapman & Hall,
United Kingdom, 1997.