Sustainability and Remediation - Dealing with Contaminated Sites: From Theory Towards Practical Application - page 932

of road traffic or particular targets related to the carbon intensity of operations. These
are in effect the KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) for a particular project. The
selection of KPIs is likely to be strongly context specific and determined by nego-
tiation, affected by the project and its circumstances and the corporate, planning
and other drivers affecting the particular set of decision makers involved. While
major environmental policies mean that there will be some issues in common across
projects, such as climate change, others, such as Biodiversity impacts may be project
dependent.
Once the important sustainability issues, in the view of the stakeholders ,have
been agreed, their effect on decision making also can be considered. For example,
what is the optimum solution if the remediation costs of a certain technology are
10% higher but the CO 2 emissions are 20% lower than a feasible alternative?
A part of this discussion may include deciding what outcomes are compulsory
(for example achieving Risk Management) and what outcomes are expected, but
do not form part of the regulatory permit or contractual regime for the remediation
project. The range of solutions available and the scope of any improvement in sus-
tainability depend strongly on the stage of project planning. For example, at early
stages changes in general project approach may have strong sustainability benefits
from the standpoint of remediation. However, whether or not these changes take
place is dependent on a trade-off between remediation planning and other aspects
of project planning. It may be necessary to quantify different approaches using cost
benefit analysis. This analysis may be limited, on grounds of cost and complexity,
to a limited set of key sustainability drivers for the project. If many projects deci-
sions are already made and cannot be easily revisited, there is reduced flexibility
in achieving sustainable remediation. It needs to be recognized that some decisions
will be made in this context. For example, contractors requested to bid for a par-
ticular remediation project will not be able to alter the boundaries of that project in
their tender submission. However, these contractors could identify technologies that
have a lower impact on the environment, e.g. by a reduced need for transportation,
energy usage, etc.
An emerging debate is sustainability of remediation work in terms of its robust-
ness over time, as environmental conditions change, or to facilitate changing land
use requirements in the future (appropriate institutional controls). This idea of
robustness is not a re-emergence of the “multi-functionality” debate. It is generally
agreed now that it is most prudent to tailor remediation to actual future land use,
rather than any future land use (Vegter et al. 2002 ). Rather, robustness considers
realistic future scenarios in terms of land use and climate change, for example, and
take a view on whether it might be beneficial to consider them during project design
and remedy selection. The aim of this consideration is to design with flexibility and
at reasonable costs, if it will demonstrably reduce the likelihood of project inad-
equacy or failure in the medium term. Table 20.6 summarises some hypothetical
effects of climate change on contaminant mobility and hence Risk Management
needs. These effects might result from higher temperatures, more intensive rainfall
over short periods and longer dry periods (CLAIRE 2007 ).