Grantee Research Project Results
Final Report: New Methods in Environmental Remediation and Life Cycle Assessment
EPA Grant Number: R829423E01Title: New Methods in Environmental Remediation and Life Cycle Assessment
Investigators: Focht, Will , Regens, James L. , Nairn, Robert W. , Settle, Chad , Anex, Rob
Institution: Oklahoma State University , University of Tulsa , University of Oklahoma
Current Institution: Oklahoma State University , University of Oklahoma , University of Tulsa
EPA Project Officer: Chung, Serena
Project Period: July 15, 2002 through July 14, 2004
Project Amount: $220,001
RFA: EPSCoR (Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research) (2001) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: EPSCoR (The Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research)
Objective:
The Oklahoma Strategic Improvement Plan, in association with a Science and Engineering Environmental Research (SEER) project, seeks to improve the competitiveness of Oklahoma researchers to compete successfully for and conduct research in environmental management systems, site remediation, life-cycle assessment (LCA), and environmental monitoring. Four researchers from three research universities (Oklahoma State University, the University of Oklahoma, and the University of Tulsa) collaborated in an interdisciplinary development and evaluation of a new methodological approach and set of specific techniques for assessing the human health, economic, and social impacts of an innovative environmental remediation/pollution control technology. The technical evaluation of the technology was funded as a SEER project associated with this Strategic Improvement Plan (SIP).
The SIP portion of this project incorporated the test of an enhanced LCA protocol that adds human health risk assessment, dynamic economic assessment, and sociopolitical assessment to the traditional LCA protocol. The enhanced LCA (ELCA) protocol is a set of integrated assessment tools that improve decision-making about technology deployment. The test of ELCA was conducted at the Tar Creek Superfund site in northeastern Oklahoma. The technology considered for deployment is an enhanced passive treatment wetland system that removes heavy metals from mine discharges emanating from abandoned lead and zinc mines.
Summary/Accomplishments (Outputs/Outcomes):
The health risk assessment demonstrates that the enhanced passive wetland treatment system produces substantial reductions in systemic human health risks from cadmium and lead with natural attenuation at the Tar Creek Superfund site. The risk reduction benefit is most pronounced for children. To achieve acceptable levels of risk, however, the treatment would need to occur for at least 75 years given the very large area that must be treated (103 km2 extending into three states).
The economic assessment demonstrates the importance of identifying stakeholders’ definitions of benefits. Typically, economic valuations of wetlands include recreational benefits. Stakeholders at Tar Creek, however, do not value this benefit, which greatly influences the benefit-cost analysis that followed. The assessment also demonstrated that stakeholders’ unwillingness to pay need not be based on strategic behavior but instead can reflect stakeholders’ rational judgments that no tangible benefits will be realized.
The sociopolitical assessment demonstrates that stakeholders judge technologies in a larger context that includes companion and alternative technologies, government and social trust, decision-making participation history and preferences, conflicting goals, and organizational allegiances. At Tar Creek, stakeholder acceptance of the enhanced passive wetland treatment technology rests on the development of a comprehensive site remediation plan that goes well beyond wetlands and allows stakeholders a substantive role in the decision-making process.
Our enhancements to the traditional LCA protocol provide insights that improve the acceptability and justifiability of technology deployment. Deployment considering only resource consumption, use, and waste management fail to consider quantitative risk assessments, dynamic and stakeholder-informed benefit-cost analyses, and stakeholder concerns and preferences. Ignoring such assessments limits the usefulness of LCA as a decision tool.
Journal Articles on this Report : 2 Displayed | Download in RIS Format
Other project views: | All 10 publications | 2 publications in selected types | All 2 journal articles |
---|
Type | Citation | ||
---|---|---|---|
|
Anex RP, Focht W. Public participation in life cycle assessment and risk assessment: a shared need. Risk Analysis 2002;22(5):861-877. |
R829423E01 (Final) |
not available |
|
Focht W, Hull JG. Framing policy solutions in a conflicted policy environment: an application of Q methodology to a Superfund cleanup. Oklahoma Policy Studies Review 2004;5(1):30-36. |
R829423E01 (2003) R829423E01 (Final) |
not available |
Supplemental Keywords:
Superfund, site remediation, life-cycle assessment, LCA, wetlands treatment, heavy metals, heavy metals removal, engineered wetlands, Tar Creek, enhanced life-cycle assessment, Oklahoma, OK, mine discharge, passive wetlands, water treatment, lead mines, zinc mines, water contaminants, strategic improvement plan, SIP,, Health, Scientific Discipline, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, Waste, Ecology, Remediation, Health Risk Assessment, Risk Assessments, Risk Assessment, aquatic ecosystem, decision making process, const benefit analysis, human healthe risk assessment, wetland sediment, LCA inventory, decisions analysis, remediation technologies, metal extraction, human exposure, water quality, life cycle assessment, cost benefit analysis, water management options, stakeholders, water treatment, exposure assessment, metal remediation, stakeholder feedback, human health riskProgress and Final Reports:
Original AbstractThe perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.