TOOLS, METRICS AND INDICATORS “The risks for workers ... 2/Elisabetta_Bemporad_145.pdf ·...

The 3°International conference on Sustainable Remediation

Elisabetta Bemporad (INAIL Ricerca - Italy)

Simona Berardi (INAIL Ricerca - Italy)

Emma Incocciati (INAIL Contarp - Italy)

The 3° Sustainable Remediation Conference – Ferrara (Italy), September 17-19

TOOLS, METRICS AND INDICATORS “The risks for workers during remediation as

an element of sustainability”

OUTLINE


!   Introduction !  Risks for workers on contaminated sites !  Screening of available tools and methodology !  Comparison of tools and methodology

considering workers’ health and safety !  Some considerations about a case study !  Conclusions !  How INAIL could contribute

INTRODUCTION


!  Decision making for contaminated land management is based on the assessment of risks to human health and environmental receptors

!  Negative impacts include risk of injury at the remediation site and acute contamination risks during remediation, which affect workers

!  Workers’ health and safety are included among sustainability parameters to be integrated during the remediation process

INTRODUCTION (CATEGORIES AND METRICS)


Social

Economic Environment

Bearable Equitable

Viable

Sustainable

Community involvement and satisfaction

Human Health and Safety

Ethical and equity considerations Fit with planning and policy

strategies and initiatives

Impacts on neighbourhoods or regions

…… Risks to site workers Uncertainty, evidence

and verification

Flexibility

Direct costs and benefits

Undirect costs and benefits

Employment / human capital

…… Costs of techniques

(including direct costs of safety)

Safety costs (cost saving) should be included?

Life-span and “project risks”

RISK FOR WORKERS ON CONTAMINATED SITES


Remediation operators Other workers

OCCUPATIONAL RISKS

Health risks Safety risks

Injuries Occupational diseases

Chronic exposure acute exposure Sub- chronic exposure

INTERFERENCE OR ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS

RISKS related to remediation

activities

Generally included in all assessment

Not always included in sustainability assessment


!   Workers are stakeholders of the whole process, both if operating remediation or other works on the contaminated (or remediated) site

!   Risks for on site workers other than remediation operators are generally included in human health risk assessments prescribed by different regulatory regimes to define remediation goals

!   Depending on the remedial approach some of the inherent risks associated with any remediation activity are similar while some of them differ greatly

RISK FOR WORKERS ON CONTAMINATED SITES

AVAILABLE TOOLS AND METHODOLOGIES FOR SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT

(specific for remediation)


Software/Tool/Framework Version Author Free/Proprietary Environment Social Economic RISKS TO SITE WORKERS

Sustainable Remediation Tool (SRT)

2.1 - 2009 (now in revision)

U.S. Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment

and their partners

free (at the moment

unavailable)yes yes yes YES

SiteWise 3.0 - 2013United States (US) Navy, United States Army Corps of Engineers

(USACE), and Battellefree yes yes no YES

Sustainable Remediation and Green Chemistry & Engineering -

Technology Assessment Methodology

2009 Army Environmental Policy Institute (AEPI) only for Army use yes yes yes YES

Green Remediation Evaluation Matrix (GREM) 2009 California EPA, Department of

Toxic Substances Control free yes no no NO

Greener Cleanups: How to Maximize the Environmental Benefits of Site Remediation

2008 Illinois EPA free yes no no NO

"SEFA" (Spreadsheets for Environmental Footprint

Analysis)2012 U.S. EPA free yes no no NO

Tools Developed by Government Entities

AVAILABLE TOOLS AND METHODOLOGIES FOR SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT

(specific for remediation)


Software/Tool/Framework/ Document Version Author Free/Proprietary Environment Social Economic RISKS TO SITE

WORKERS

BalancE3™ (Environmental sustainability, Economic

sustainability and social Equity )2010 ARCADIS proprietary yes yes yes YES

SAF (Sustainable Assessment Framework) CH2MHILL proprietary yes yes yes YES

GoldSET-CN-SR 2011Golder Associatesin partnership withCanadian National

proprietary yes yes yes OPTIONAL

AECOM Holistic Tool AECOM proprietary yes yes no YES

Sustainable Remediation Evaluation Tool (SRET)

(implementation of GREM)2012

Haley & Aldrich, Inc for Pacific Gas and Electric

Companyproprietary yes yes yes YES

SimaPro (per LCA) 8.0.3 PRé Consultants (Global Partner Network - Italia: 2B S.r.l.) proprietary yes yes yes NO

Multi-Criteria Analysis MCA-Tool 2009 FRIST, Chalmers University proprietary yes yes yes YES

UK Sustainable Remediation Forum (SuRF-UK) framework document

[DEFRA, 2010]2010

CL:AIRE Technology and Research Group and SuRF-UK

Steering Groupyes yes yes YES

Regeneration of European Sites in Cities and Urban Environmet - Sustainability Assessment Tool

(RESCUE-SAT)

ultima versione 2006

Consorzio - Progetto Europeo 5° Programma Quadro (2005) -

Leader GermaniaYES

REC Risk reduction, Environmental merits and Cost 1998 Netherlands (Universities, Public

and Private Entities) free yes yes yes OPTIONAL

DESYRE DEcision Support sYstem for the REhabilitation of

contaminated megasites (DESYRE)2000-2006

Università di Venezia e Consorzio Venezia Ricerche - Sviluppato da

INSIEL SpAproprietary yes yes yes NO

Tools Developed by Remediation Industry Service Providers

RISKS TO SITE WORKERS VS. REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY


Technologies SRT SITEWISE SRGCE-‐TAM Balance3 AECOM HT DEFRAExcavation ü ü üSoil Vapor Extraction (SVE) ü ü üSoil washing üSoil flushing üPump & treat ü ü üEnhanced Bioremediation ü in-‐situ üThermal Treatment ü in-‐situ ü üChemical Oxidation in-‐situ in-‐situ üPermeable Reactive Barrier ü ü üLong -‐term Monitoring (LTM)/ Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) ü ü ü

Multi-‐phase extraction (MPE)

Jet grouting üCapping/Covers üAirsparging/Biosparging ü üSoil mixing in-‐situ üSoil stabilization and solidification ü üVitrification üEx-‐situ soil treatment ü*hereto tested only for this technology

it considers different phases and activity. The manual provides some of the

commonly used remedial

technologies on the different phases of the tool and also

certain activities that are

commonly part of a remedial

action. The activities can

be further broken down into certain

inputs that are part of the tool

RISKS TO SITE WORKERS VS. REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY (DEFRA, 2010)


Chemical exposure hazards Vehicle movements Excavation and drilling Noise

Chemical oxidation and reductionCon: Oxidants and/or

reductants may pose safety hazard.

Pro: Low due to being an in situ process.Con: Moderate. May require high density

treatment/monitoring borehole network to be drilled.Pro: Minimal (low)

Electro-‐remediation Pro: None Pro: Low due to being an in situ process.Con: Low – Moderate. Electrodes / probes will need to be installed into the ground. May require moderate

monitoring borehole network to be drilled.

Con: Dependent on power generation unit being required

on site.

Enhanced bioremediation (redox amendments) – Dependent on amendment

used

Con: Oxidants and/or reductants may pose safety

hazard.Pro: Low due to being an in situ process.

Con: Moderate -‐ Low. May require moderate treatment/monitoring borehole network to be drilled.

Pro: Minimal (low)

Flushing (with amendments)Con: Conditioning

amendments used for flushing.

Pro: Low due to being an in situ process.Con: Moderate -‐ Low. May require moderate

treatment/monitoring borehole network to be drilled.Con: Plant required

Monitored natural attenuation Pro: NonePro: Low -‐ None due to being an in situ

process.Pro: Low. May require moderate monitoring borehole

network to be drilled.Pro: None during operation.

Permeable reactive barriers (PRBs)Con: Reactive media may

pose safety hazard.

Con: Moderate. Excavation and significant engineering may be required resulting in

vehicle movements.

Con: Moderate / High. Excavation required for installing PRB. Likely to require moderate monitoring borehole

network to be drilled.

Pro: Once active, none/low.Con: During construction,

medium to high.

Phytoremediation Pro: None Pro: Low due to being an in situ process Pro: None Pro: None

SpargingCon: If methane or ozone is used as enhancements then they may pose safety hazard.

Pro: Low due to being an in situ process.Con: Moderate -‐ Low. May require moderate

treatment/monitoring borehole network to be drilled.

Con: Moderate, but relatively short-‐lived. Headworks and

treatment tanks.

Stabilisation/solidificationCon: Chemical reagents used may pose safety hazard.

Pro: Low due to being an in situ process.Con: Moderate – Low. May require a high density

network of injection points to be drilled.Pro: Moderate

Thermal Treatment (Steam Injection, Hot Air Injection, Conductive Heating, Resistive

Heating, Microwave Heating)Pro: None Pro: Low due to being an in situ process.

Con: Moderate. May require moderate treatment/monitoring borehole network to be drilled.

Con: Moderate

Venting (inc Bioventing, Bioslurping, Soil Vapour Extraction and Dual Vapour

Extraction) Pro: None Pro: Low due to being an in situ process.

Con: Moderate -‐ Low. May require moderate treatment/monitoring borehole network to be drilled.

Con: Moderate but relatively short-‐lived. Headworks and vapour treatment vessels.

Vitrification Pro: None Pro: UnlikelyCon: High due to excavation requirement of in situ process. Dependant on volume of excavation.

Con: Moderate

IN SITU remediation technologiesRISKS TO SITE WORKERS: Health and Safety

RISKS TO SITE WORKERS VS. REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY (DEFRA, 2010)


Chemical exposure hazards Vehicle movements Excavation and drilling Noise

Biological treatment (Biopiles, Windrows, Landfarming)

Pro: NoneCon: Moderate – High. Due to being an ex

situ process, many on-‐site vehicle movements are likely.

Con: High due to excavation requirement of ex situ process. Dependant on volume of excavation.

Pro: Minimal (low)

Chemical oxidation and reductionCon: Oxidants and/or

reductants may pose safety hazard.

Con: Moderate – High. Due to being an ex situ process, many on-‐site vehicle

movements are likely.

Con: High due to excavation requirement of ex situ process. Dependent on volume of excavation.

Pro: Minimal (low)

Soil washing

Con: Strong chemical acids or ligands are frequently used for chemically enhanced soilwashing and may pose safety

hazard.

Con: High. Due to being an ex situ process, whereby all material needs to be

transported to and from a treatment plant, many on-‐site vehicle movements will be

required.


Con: Significant. May required dedicated noise abatement.

Stabilisation / SolidificationCon: Chemical reagents used may pose safety hazard.

Con: Moderate – High. Due to being an ex situ process, many on-‐site vehicle

movements are likely.


Con: Moderate

Thermal treatment (Thermal Desorption / Incineration)

Pro: None

Con: High. Due to being an ex situ process, whereby all material needs to be

transported to and from an (on-‐site) treatment plant.


Con: Significant. May required dedicated noise abatement

Venting (inc Bioventing, Soil Vapour Extraction)

Pro: NoneCon: Moderate – High. Due to being an ex

situ process, many on-‐site vehicle movements are likely.


Con: Moderate.

Vitrification Pro: None Con: ModerateCon: High due to excavation requirement of ex situ

process. Dependent on volume of excavation.Con: Moderate

EX SITU remediation technologySafety

RISKS TO SITE WORKERS VS. REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY


Examples of a “Safety and Health Compliance Cost Matrix” [U.S. Department of Energy, 2001]

Lyfe Cycle Cost Model

Starting point

BEST PRACTICES TO MANAGE RISKS TO SITE WORKERS


Project Planning and Office-‐Based

Tasks

Remedial Investigation

Feasibility Study

Remedial Design and

Implementation

Operation and Maintenance/Closure

iii) Solicit and evaluate each potential contractor’s proposed health and safety plans, practices, and safety record before or during the contractor selection processiv) Consider each potential contractor and supplier’s social responsibility to its employees (wages, benefits, etc.) before or during the contractor and supplier selection process.

Examples of Sustainable Best Management Practices (to check) for Occupational Health and Safety in SRET

v) Provide suitable training for the local workforce.vi) Provide employee rest areas in shaded locations.

i) Address worker safety issues via a site-‐specific Health and Safety Plan.ii) Ensure adequate sanitary facilities for workers.

Ensure worker health and safety requirements are adhered to

Generic recommendations for different phases

RISKS TO SITE WORKERS METRICS


SRT SITEWISE SRGCE-TAM Balance3 SAF AECOM

HT SRET MCA RESCUE-SAT REC

for operations ü ü ü ü ü ü ü üfor transportation ü ü ü ü ü

ü üü ü ü

ü ü ü ü ü

ü ü

ü ü ü üindicators ü ü ücategories ü ü ü ü

ü ü optional

It considers only the

presence and the

requirements of a health and safety

plan

METRICS FOR WORKERS HEALTH AND SAFETY

Safety Risks to workers (eg. injury and/or fatality rates)

weighted (normalized score)

OUTPUT (COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES)

corrections (sensitivity analysis)

optional

Lost work time

Chemical exposure

Risk related to ergonomic issues, stress, noise, humidity, temperature, odor, vibration or ranking of workers' confort

Risks related to the lack of expertise or percentage of employees required to be trained

direct



[Site Wise Version 2 User Guide]

[E.Becvar, SRT – How it works, 2009] Examples of injury and/or fatality rates used in

tools

SRGCE-TAM:

Rates of injury / exposure resulting from the treatment technology, based on statistics from previous projects, normalized by projected hours of

operation



Examples of chemical exposure appraisal in tools

[A.Landstrom & A.S.Ostlund, (MCA), 2010]

If a soil remediation project does not result in a significant risk reduction for local residents or the ecosystem, it may be decided to carry out a supplementary assessment of different risks or of risks of exposure to other objects. REC considers remedial workers. As part of such a risk assessment, other risks could be assessed based on the same conceptual framework. To assess the exposure of remedial workers as a result of soil contamination, X is expressed as [E. Beinat, M.A. van Drunen (REC), 1997]:

RI = exposure / MAC value n = number of remedial workers

In general, 0.3 and 0.5 times the MAC values are used as action values to reduce exposure

ITALIAN METRICS ON WORKERS SAFETY


In Italy safety indicators are defined by the technical standard UNI 7249: 2007 “Statistics on occupational injuries” (the European Statistics on Accidents at Work feeding INAIL database, also define these indicators as a part of complex metrics): Ø  fatal / non fatal injury rate Ø  severity rate and severity ratio

nT = number of temporary accidents dTDi = days of temporary disability of the ith temporary accident nP = number of permanent accidents Ddj = disability degree of the jth permanent accident nM = number of fatal accidents

Italian data generally refer to employed persons

SOME CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT CASE STUDIES


[J.T.Cohen et al., 1997]

YPLL = Years of Potential Life Lost

In this case YPLL per accidental fatality substantially exceed the YPLL for each cancer fatality!

IS SUCH A CONCLUSION STILL VALID AT PRESENT ?

Data to be updated

Conclusions


!   To date various available tools and methodologies to assess the sustainability of remediation activities consider workers safety (about 70% of the analyzed ones)

!   Most of them take into account risk to site workers qualitatively or semi-quantitatively, referring to remediation technologies, activities and/or to sustainable best management practices to be adopted in different activities

!   When the tools/methodologies assess safety issues quantitatively, the metric is generally limited to the expected fatality and/or injury rates normalized by work hours and differentiated by type of activity (mainly process or transport)

Conclusions


!   The need of more specific but solid (official) data about injury/fatalities rates emerges, especially for EU context, particularly with reference to: Ø remedial activities Ø hours of work (in Italy official data now refers to employed

people) Ø sistematic combination of frequency and severity indicators (not

only fatality vs. injury or injuries with permanent disability) !   The need of a specific consideration of chemical exposure to

remedial workers (acute and sub-chronic exposure) could also be pointed out

!   Some safety and health issues could be also considered into the economic aspect paying attention to avoid duplication

How INAIL could contribute to remediation sustainability


General approach to cost estimation of the

effects of occupational diseases and accidents

basic health data

quantified indicators economic

consequences

health hospitalisation

disability fatalities

willingness to pay transfers and compensations

loss of resources loss of potential output data sources national

statistics notification data

surveys

monetarised costs

human costs other

externalities

sick leave damages

administration prevention extraction,

attribution to work

valuationand pricing

INAIL is tuning up a software called CO&SI (Costs and Security) which allows the entrepreneur to evaluate no-security costs on the basis of few data regarding his own company. A special algorithm exploiting company data and INAIL database information can calculate the cost of prevention and protection measures, of insurance premium and the costs related to the consequences of work-related accidents and ill health.


Ø Absence from work for illness Ø Substitution of injured or sick worker Ø Survey and investigation on accident at work Ø Loss of production Ø Legal sanctions at the expense of the

company Ø Legal costs Ø Insurance premium or reduction of the

discount Ø Plant stoppage Ø Training of new workers Ø Productivity loss due to new workers

employment Ø Corporate image loss Ø New machineries purchase Ø New investments on security

In perspective some of them (sectoral) could be integrated in tools

For their calculation the company may employ national average data collected by INAIL databases. This makes the evaluation less accurate but is useful for micro, small and medium companies (typical of the Italian production system), which may run into remarkable difficulties in this kind of evaluation

CO&SI ITEMS: OSHA (Occupational Safety & Health Administration) has shown the complexity of the costs of occupational accidents and diseases for the individual employee, for the company and for society as a whole. Some of the cost items are impossible or very difficult to quantify. However, this does not mean that they cannot be used as arguments in support of a more economical appraisal of health and safety measures.

How INAIL could contribute

THE END

Elisabetta Bemporad [email protected]

Simona Berardi [email protected]

Emma Incocciati e.incocciati @inail.it

THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION

ANY QUESTION OR CONSIDERATION?

AND….

TOOLS, METRICS AND INDICATORS “The risks for workers ... 2/Elisabetta_Bemporad_145.pdf ·...

Documents

Transcript of TOOLS, METRICS AND INDICATORS “The risks for workers ... 2/Elisabetta_Bemporad_145.pdf ·...