Cost-Benefit Analysis for Remediation of Land Contamination R&D Technical Report P316 ek}Cost-Benefit Analysis for Remediation of Land Contamination R&D Technical Report P316 M. Post, Fea, A. Grosso and J. Steed Research Contractor: Risk & Policy Analysts Ltd In aszocaton with ‘WS Atkins Forte coplsof his report are valle from: Environmunt Agency B&D Diserdnation Cet, 0 ce ‘Re Frankland Rood Swindon, WHS SNS YE 65000 fax: 01793514562 emai: publications @wrepe.coskPublishing Organisation: Environment Agency Rio House Waterside Drive ates West ‘lmondsbury Bristol BS32 4UD Tel 01454 624400 Fax: 01458 624409 ISBN: 85705 2009 (© Environment Agency 1999 “Tis repo isthe result of wok oily funded by the Evironment Agency and the Seotish Envsonmental Protection Agency. All rights reserved, No gat ofthis document may be reproduced, stored in a rerieval system, of ‘eansmited, ia any form or by any mans, elecuoric, mechanical, photocopying. recording ot ‘there without the poe permission of the Environment Agency “The views expressed in this document are not necessarily those ofthe Environment Agency. Is Officers servant ot agetsacsept to lability whatsoever for any loss or damage arising from the interpretation or se ofthe information, o reliance upon views contained heen. Dissemination status Internal: Released to Regions Extemal: Publie Domain Statement of use ‘This report provides guidance or the trangparent and consstnt assessment of the costs and benefits {or emeiaton of land contamination. I aimed at all partes who havea interest in he remediation and future of a contmiaied se, including consultants, industrialists, landowners, ‘developer, eglatrs, si sigh, lea communities and NGOS. Research contractor ‘This document was produced under RAD Project P5-OLS by Risk & Policy Analyt Lmtd (ia association with WS Atkins Enviroment) Farthing Greea House 1 Beccles Read Loddon Norfolk NRL 6LT ‘Tel: 01508 528465 Fax: 01508 520758, Eavironment Agency Projet Leader ‘The Environment Agency's Projet Leader fr R&D Project P5015 was ‘Theresa Kearney - National Groundwater and Contaminated Land Cente, Soll RAD Technical Repor P316CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES: LIST OF BOXES GLOSSARY LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY KEY WORDS USE OF TECHNICAL GUIDANCE PART A: INTRODUCTION TO GUIDELINES AL. INTRODUCTION ALA Aims and Objectives ‘AL2 The UK Approach to Managing Contaminated Land ‘AL3 The Decision Context ‘ALA Whois this Guidance Aimed At? ALS. Background to the Guidance ‘ALG What isa Significant Impact? ‘ALT. Structure and Content Ad, THE ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK A241 Overview ‘A22_ Description of Steps ‘A23 Data, Time and Resources PART B: APPRAISAL METHODS BI, STEP 1: SCREENING METHODOLOGY BLL Overview B12. Data Requirements B13 Assessment Criteria BLA. The Next Step RAD Techni Page 5 1s 15 7Page 82, STEPH: QUALITATIVE APPRAISAL, 25 B21 Overview 25 B22 Data Requirements 2 B23. Qualitative Appraisal 2 B24 The Next Step 36 B3, STEP: CEAMCA 8 B31 Overview 48 B32 Data Requirements 8 B33 The Appraisal Framework 45 B34 Option Costs n B35 Compare and Rank Options n B36 The Next Step 30 BA, STEPIV: CBA a B41 Overview st B42 Data Requirements BI B43 The Appraisal Framework 8 BA4 Valuation of Market Price Effects 84 BAS Compare and Rank Options 88 BS, _ SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS AND SELECTION OF PREFERRED OPTIONS 95 BS.1_ Overview 95 BS2 Sensitivity Analysis forthe Qualitative Appraisal 96 B53 Sensitivity Analysis forthe CEAIMCA, 108 B54 Sensitivity Analysis forthe CBA us B55. Selection ofa Remedial Option ug ‘Return to Evaluation and Selection of Remedial Measures Model Procedure 116 B6, REFERENCES uy 6.1 References uy B62. Selected Bibliography 118 PART C: CASE STUDIES cL CASESTUDY1 13 C11 Background Details 13 C12 Screening Methodology 126 13 Qualitative Appraisal 106 CLA Sensitivity Analysis 28 CLS Selection of the Preferred Option 8 RAD Technical Report P316 aie2. CASE STUDY? ir C21 Background Details C22. Screening Methodology C23 Qualitative Appraisal C24 Combined Step IVTV Appraisal €25 Sensitivity Analysis. (C26 Selection ofthe Prefered Option 3. CASESTUDY3 159 C3 Background Details 139 C32. Screening Methodology 160 C33 Qualitative Appraisal, 162 C3 Step I Appraisal 1st (C35 Sensitivity Analysis 185 (C346 Selection of Prefered Option 185 PART D: APPRAISAL TABLES D1. STEPI: SCREENING METHODOLOGY 187 D2. STEPH: QUALITATIVE APPRAISAL 189 D3. STEPH: CEAMCA 195 D4. STEPIV: CBA 23 DS, SENSTIVITY ANALYSIS 2 APPENDIX I: VALUATION OF ENVIRUNMENTAL AND HUMAN HEAL EFFECTS LIST OF FIGURES Figure All: ‘The link between technical R&D reports andthe Mode! Procedures 5 Figure A2.L: Inter Relationship of the Steps 10 Figure BILL: Step: Screening Methodology 16 Figure B2.1: Step Hl: Qualitative Appraisal 26 Figure B.1: Step li: CEAMCA. “4 Figure B41: Step IV: CBA 2 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Checklist of Data Available 187 ‘Table 2; Matrix for Scoring Site Criteria 188 Table 3: Qualitative Appraisal 12 ‘Table 4: Appraisal Routing to Step IMT and Step IV 193 R&D Technical Report P3I6LIST OF TABLES (continued) Page Table S: Human Health and Safety 197 Table 6: Environment 200 Table 7: Land Use 202 Table 8: Third Party or Stakeholder Concem 204 ‘Table 9: Applying Weights to Sub-Categories 206 Table 10: Applying Weights to Impacts Occurring During and After Remediation 209 ‘Table 11: Option Performance Scores and Weights 2u1 Table 12: Compare and Rank Options 212 Table 13: Value of Impacts 213 Table 14: Present Value of £1 216 ‘Table 15: Equivalent Annual Value of £1 217 Table 16: Present Value of £1 per Annum 218 Table 17: Example Discounting 2109 Table 18: Ranked Order - Over-Predicted Impacts psy ‘Table 19: Ranked Order ~ Under Predicted Impacts 224 Table 20: Revised Costs and Probability of Achieving Objectives 226 Table 21: Revised Scores for CENMCA 28 Table 22: Applying Weighs to Sub-Categories 21 Table 23; Applying Weights to Impacts Occurring During and After Remediation 234 Table 26: Option Performance Scares and Weights 236 ‘Table 25: Revised Costs and Probability of Achieving Objectives 238 LIST OF BOXES Box A: Questions for Before Remediation 40 and 189) Box B: Questions for During Remediation 41 and 190 BoxC: Questions for After Remediation Zand 191 BoxD: Scoring Methodology 7and 195 Box E: Factors to Consider when Scoring Riss to Site Users 50 and 195 BoxF: Factors to Consider when Scoring Risks to Public 51 and 196 RoxG: Pars tn Consider when Scoring Surface Water Quality ‘4 and 198 Box H: Factors to Consider when Seoring Surface Water Quantity 57 and 198 Box I: actors to Consider when Scoring Groundwater Quality 58 and 199 Box 5 Factors to Consider when Scoring Groundwater Quantity 61 and 199 Box K: Factors to Consider when Scoring Air 62 and 199 Box L: Factors to Consider when Scoring Habitat and Ecology 64 and 199 Box M: Factors to Consider when Scoring Site Use 66 and 201, Box N: Factors to Consider when Scoring Surrounding Land Use 67 and 202 Box 0: Factors to Consider when Scoring Third Party or Stakeholder Confidence 69 and 203, BoxP: Factors to Consider when Scoring Third Party or Stakeholder Acceptability 70 and 203, Box Q: Assigning Weight to Sub-Categories 74 and 205, Box R: Applying Weighs to Impacts Occurring During and After Remediation “6 and 208 Box: Normalising the Impact Category Scores and 210 BoxT: Applying Weights to Categories 78 and 210 Box U: _Obiaining a Total Score for Each Remedial Option 78 and 210 Box: Caled ing the Cost Effectiveness of Each Remedial Option 79 and 211 R&D Technical Report P316LIST OF BOXES (continued) Page Box W: Box X: Box ¥: Box Z: Box AA: Box AB: Box AC: Box AD: Box AE: R&D Technical Report P316 ‘Standard Forme used in Discounting Procedures 24 ‘Over-Predicted Impacts 98 and 221 Under Predicted Impacts 100 and 223 ‘Costs and Probability of Achieving the Objectives 103 and 225 Changing the Scores 105 and 227 ‘Applying Weights to Sub-Categories 107 and 230 “Applying Weights to Impacts Occurring During and After Remediation 109 and 233 Applying Weights to Categories 110 and 235 (Costs and Probability of Achieving the Objectives 112 and 237GLOSSARY Standard Terms After remediation Before remediation Consumer surplus Contingent valuation method Cost-beneit analysis Discounting Dose-response technique During remediation Economic analysis Existence values Externalities Hedonic pricing method R&D Technical Report P3I6 Deseription ‘The situation following the end of the ‘during remediation’ ‘hase (ie. thote identified as remedial options). Monitoring tnd on-going. surveillance may be included in ‘after remediation’ “The situation before any of the remedial options are used ‘The difference berween the amount paid for a good or service and the maximum amount that an individual would be willing to pay [A social survey technique used to derive values for environmental change or human health impacts by festimating people's willingness-to-pay (or 10 accept ‘compensation fora specified effect ‘A form of economic analysis in which costs and benefits are ‘converted into money values for comparison Converts future costs and benefits into comparable units (present value):The discount rate is set by the Treasury at 6% for public sector projecspolicies Determines the economic value of changes in, say, pollu concentrations by estimating the market value of the resulting changes in output ‘This includes all activities that form part of the remedial ‘pli, inliading all the processes, equipment and transport required ‘Aimed at evaluating all ofthe effects ofa policy or projet and valuing them in national resource terms ‘Values which result fom an individual's altruistic desire to ensure that an environmental asset is preserved and continues, tw exist into the future (a non-use value) Goods which remain unpriced and thus are extemal to the market (ie. free goods such as those relating 10 the ‘envionment, with an example being pollution) ‘An implicit price for an environmental atribue is estimated from consideration ofthe real markets in which the attribute is effectively traded (eg. water quality improvements and propery values)Inveversibe effects Market price approach [Neo-clasicl economics Net present value Non-use value Option value Remedial option Remediation Resource cost/valves Sensitivity analysis, Social benefit Social cost ‘Total esonomic value RAD Technical Report P316 FFor example, the loss of unique natural feature, an ecosystem oF species and very long-term changes 10 the natural environment Ina perfectly competitive market, the market price of a good provides an appropriate estimate of its economic value. In ‘markets which are not perfectly competitive, economic value i calculated by removal of subsidies ‘or other price distortions ‘An economic theory which uses the general proach ‘methods and techniques of the original nineteenth century smarginalst economists ‘The present value (ie. in year 0) of the difference between the discounted stream of benefits and the discounted stream ‘of costs Values which are not related to director indirect use of the ‘environment (option, existence and bequest values) Value to a consumer of reining the option to consume a good “This i the options propose to remediate the sie, whether this consists of one technique (eg. dig and dump) o© a Combination of options (eg. bioremediation with dig and damp) ‘The procest used to meet the remedial objectives. This includes clean-up (eg. soil washing, bioremediation), risk ‘vnction (eg encaplatio). and natural attenuation Cost of marketed goods or services (adjusted to economic Prices) used as inputs to, or consumed as a consequence of Key assumptions and values are varied so as to determine their effect onthe choice of best option ‘The sum of the gains or benefits from an act y ‘The sum of money which is just enough when paid as compensation to estore al losses to ther lity level ‘The sum of use values (direct and indirect) plus non-use values (bequest and existence)‘Travel cost method Uncertsinyy Use value Willingness-0-pay LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Standard Terms Ba. MCA Noo RQO SPA Ssst woo R&D Technical Report P3I6 “The benefits arising from the rereational use of a site are estimated in terms of the costs incurred in travelling to the Stems from a lack of information, scientific knowledge or ‘ignorance and is characteristic of all predictive assessments ‘A value related to the actual direct or indirect use of the environment (eg. recreational values) “The valuation placed by an individual on a good or service in terms of money Description Cost-Benefit Analysis Cosc-ectiveness Analysis Contaminated Land Research Report Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Department of Environment Multi-Criteria Analysis [Non-Governmental Organisation River Quality Objective ‘Special Protection Area. A site of intemational importance, designated under the EC Wild Birds Directive Site of Special Scientific Interest ‘Water Quality ObjectiveEXECUTIVE SUMMARY “The handbook of model procedures for managing contaminated land (CLR 11) developed by the DETR and the Environment Agency incorporates good practice guidance, including the tse of risk assessment and management techniques, into a systematic process for identifying, making decisions about and taking appropriate action to deal with contamination in a way ‘tha i consistent with UK policy and legislative requirements. The model procedures are Dat of «hierarchy of documents tat increase in complexity and technical detail at each er. The three main technical activities covered by the primary model procedures are: Risk Assessment; Evaluation and Selection of Remedial Measures; and Implementation of Risk Management Actions ‘The objective of this study is to develop generic guidance for the transparent and consistent sssessment ofthe costs and benefits for remediation of land contamination. The guidance is presented a8 an R&D Technical Repor and supports the primary model procedure entitled Evaluation and Selection of Remedial Measures, and it provides a framework by which the costs and benefits of two of more remedial options for given site can be assessed, There ‘may also be value in applying the framework to sites where there is only one realistic remedial option fo help ensure that all significant impacts are identified and managed as appropriate. The guidance also includes case studies which illustrate the application of cost- benefit analyses to real contaminated sites. In order to provide Hlexbiity in terms ofthe nature of the appraisal required and stating assumptions, the framework has been designed s0 that the user can move to the most Appropriate Tevel of assessment for a particular land remediation problem, The level of fassesement builds in sophistication along a clear and logical pathway from Step Ito Step V by leading the assessor from identification of the impacts into determining their relative significance: 1+ Step I: Sereening Stag - 0 examine the characteristics ofthe contamination problem and associated Solutions to determine what might be appropriate for a particular site, and hence further assessment requirements: + Step TI: Qualitative Analysis - the simplest of the three appraisals, it involves the ‘observation of potential impacts without the need to estimate their significance: + Step Il: Combined CostBtfectiveness Analysis (CEA) and Multi-Criteria Ana (MCA) = this allows scores to be assigned to impacts according to their relative significance (defined by the user and related to the relative magnitude of impacts ‘occurring ona site specific basis), the remedial option with the leat significant impacts and the most significant benefits (Compared to costs) can then be identified, + Step IV: Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) this is used when an impact can be readily valed in monetary terms; it is mainly limited to market-based effects, but some guidance fs given on the valuation of other impacts should the assessor consider this to be appropriates and + Step V: Sensitivity Analysis - where the influence of uncertainty and the robusiness of the assumptions underlying the assessment are tested, RAD Technical Report P3I6 “ik‘There are also various poins throughout the assessment when, if itis realised that the preferred remedial option can be easily, clearly and defensiby identified in terms of cost and benefits, the assessment can stop. ‘The nature of the guidance is such that all impacts, scores and weights used within an assessment are explicitly recorded. Consistency is maintained because the scores are constrained within ranges, and impact categories (and their more detailed criteria) are ‘designed to be comprehensive “This report is aimed at all partes who have an interest in the remediation and future use of contaminated sit, including consultants, industrialists, landowners, developers, regulators, ‘te neighbours, local communities and NGOs, KEY WORDS Land contamination; costs; benefits; remediation; Model Procedures: costeffectivenes; muli-criteria analysis; cost-benefit analysis; options apprasil; sensitivity analysis. R&D Technical Report P3I6USE OF TECHNICAL GUIDANCE. “This technical document describes framework for comparing the relative cost and benefits ‘of to or more option fr the remediation of contaminated site. ‘The guidance has been ‘designed to work within the framework for evaluation and selection of different risk ‘management strategies that has been described in the Handbook of Model Procedures (DETR, 2000), however, can also be used as a stand-alone repor. “The transparent, systematic, nd objective consideration of a numberof diferent remedial ‘options fora contaminated ste sa ciically important step inthe successful management of land contamination. ‘The selection process involves the careful balance of «number of technical and management criteria by the decision-maker of which this guidance addresses ‘one aspect, the relative difference in costs and benefits. ‘This guidance is suitable for assessing the relative differences in the costs and benefits| associated with remedial techniques for contaminated soils and / or groundwaters. In fdition, the user may also wish to refer tothe complimentary Agency R&D Report P279 ‘where the costs and benefits associated with remediation of polluted groundwater are considered in more detail, ‘The Agency recognises that the application of costs and benefits inthe selection process has not previously ben formalised into technical guidance. In this respect the Agency considers thatthe methods provided, although practically tested during their preparation, would benefit from further evaluation by the wider practitioner community inthe UK. Therefore, the ‘Agency would welcome and encourage feedback ftom the users ofthis technical guidance, and i particular on: ‘+ The applicability and usefulness ofthe guidance in te selection process; ‘The interaction ofthe guidance with other relevant documentation forthe selection of remedial options (eg. costs and benefits of remediating contaminated groundtwaters), +The imerpetation of results and use ofthe sensitivity assessment; +The level of detail and sills required to complete qualitative cot benefit assessments; od +The level of detail and skills required to complete quantitative cost benefit assessments; ‘Any feedback on these or any other matters related to this guidance should be directed tothe National Groundwater and Contaminated Land Centre, Olton Court, 10 Warwick Road, ton, Solihull B92 THX. RSD Technical Report P316 oxiPART A: INTRODUCTION TO GUIDELINES. Al. INTRODUCTION ALA Aims and Objectives “The objective of this study isto develop generic guidance forthe transparent and consistent assessment of the costs and benefits for remediation of land contamination, The guidance ‘presented inthis repor is intended to provide a framework by which the costs and benefits of ‘ifferent remedial strategies for a given site can be assessed to assist selecting the most appropriate remedial strategy for that sit. This framework draws on existing methods such as () formal cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and Gi) multi-criteria analysis (MCA), and indicates how they can be applied. The guidance also includes ease studies which illustrate the actual application ofthe assessment framework to real contaminated sts. A12 The UK Approach to Managing Contaminated Sites, {A risk-based approach has been adopted to the management of contaminated land within the UE in accordance with UK policy as set out inthe DoE: ‘Framework for Contaminated Land’ ‘This reqites remedial setion to be taken where: the contamination poses unacceptable actual or potential risks 10 health or the + there are appropriate and cost-effective means available to do so, raking into account ‘actual or intended use ofthe site. “The assessment and management of land contamination sks involves three main components: + the source {i., the contamination); the receptor (ie. the entity that could be affected); the pathway (the route by which a receptor can come into contact with the contamination) A significant pollutant linkage is formed when there is a completed pathviay between a Contamination source and a receptor. Where a ste is considered to be contaminated (i Significant pollutant linkages exist), the following steps are undertaken to some extent in order to determine which (if any) remedial or management techniques should be used to ‘return the site to a state that s suitable for its potential (or atual) use: RAD Technical Report P316 1‘+ ste investigation and risk assessment: + determination of remedial and management options that will meet the remedial objectives; 1+ selection of the option considered tobe the most appropriate. ‘This choice may be based ‘upon technical considerations, risk management requirements, costeffectiveness, site conditions, loal environmental impact, and social and economic factors. Appropriate remedial or management options can relate fo any one, or more than one, ofthe three components of a pollutant Knkage and can include both technical options, ie. the implementation of engineering measures, as well as non-iechnical options ‘such as instittional controls on land-use pateras. Any ofthese possible options may be part of the ‘chosen remedial solution ether employed in isolation or in combination with other measures “The choice of remedial options for land contamination is curently based principally onthe capability ofa particular remedial option to meet specified remedial objectives. ‘The onus is Usually placed’ on the site oviner/developer to agree the remedial objectives with the regulators before any remedial activities are commenced. Explicit cost information wil ‘usually remain confidential to the ownerideveloper although the influence of remedial costs fon overall development profits may be discussed with the regulators in general terms. Remediation costs may also form an essential clement in decision making and be wsed to justify a partcalar development solution, for example, a high retum from a particular fom of. development (eg. high density residential) may be required to generate sufficient funds to ‘make remediation ‘affordable™ Consequently, many of the decisions that are taken currently, in respect t0 what may constitute @ “cost-effective” solution, have the potential to be inconsistent and tack the transparency needed to ensure that the most appropriate measures are being, taken, Developing « methodology that can be used by all ofthe interested parties should not only bring about transparency and improve consistency, but should also improve confidence betvcen the parties by giving explicit reasons as to why a particular decision has been taken, “The aim of this guidance is to enable users to compare the elative merits of altemative remedial options. Iis focused on those cases where there are two or more alternatives which Imay be appropriate for a given site, There may also be value, however, in applying the framework to those sites where there is only one realistic remedial option, as it may help ‘ensure that all significant impacts ae identified and managed as appropriate Itis important to define what is included here under the heading of ‘remedial option’. The term is used to cover methods involving + actual remediation ofthe site, which may use a single technology (e.g soil washing alone) ‘oF those which involve a combination of techniques (e.g, bioremediation with excavation and off site disposal, + risk and/or ste management options such as the use ofbariers and natural attenuation; RAD Technical Report P316 2+4 'do-nothing’ option, where this involves walking away from the sit, or a “do minimum 1 present” option which may include some monitoring now (ith the potential for futher ‘ction inthe future), A parallel study on the costs and benefits associated with remediation of contaminated [roundwaters (R&D Report Nes. P278 and P279, Environment Agency 1999a and 1999 Fespectively) provides @ more detailed consideration of the issues associated with the remediation of contaminated groundwater. Guidance presented in this current report is ‘suitable in those eitcumstances where groundwater pollution is of secondary importance to Soil contamination, of where groundwater is not considered to have a resource value However, n those circumstances where groundwater pollution isa significant issue, or where ‘major oF minor aquifers ae of concer, then reference to the complimentary groundwater reports i recommended, COviputs fom the Model Procedures for Risk Assessment and Evaluation and Selection of Remedial Measures, therefore, should provide much ofthe information that is required forthe assessment of costs and benefits. In some instances further information may be required ‘wing tothe inclusion of addtional environmental and social considerations and in order to reduce or indicate the level of uncertainty “The most efficient use of the guidance will be made when the remedial objectives are clearly stated and understood. In eases where itis acceptable to have some flexibility in respect of remedial objectives and where the cost implications of 100% compliance could be extreme, it is also important fr the cost-benefit assessment to understand how much flexibility is likely to be acceptable, This guidance can be used to help determine which remedial option will be the most cost cifetive. Depending on the complexity of the issues which have to be included, cost effectiveness is considered either in terms ofthe option which meets a single objective atthe Towest cost or the option which provides the greatest level of net benefits (across a range of impact erteria) per nit of expenditure. wide range of erteria is used in the later case, including human health and safety, physical and natural environment, land use considerations, tnd third party or stakeholder perceptions. As the assessment moves into more detailed analysis, i allows the relative weighting of impact criteria, where some are considered more important than others, This enables site specific conditions to be built into the analysis, ‘whilst maintaining a common astessment framework. The remedial options can then be ranked in order, wth the preferred option being the highest ranking. It also means that the fpprasal becomes more subjective, making it important that the reasoning behind all decisions is fully documented. Documenting all of the reasons behind decisions taken will ensure thatthe final decision is transparent, well-reasoned and auditable, Consultation with Imerested parties may be incladed within the assessment process to ensure thatthe opinions of stakeholders are incorporated into this decision For some land contamination isues, there may also be merit in applying more formal cost- benefit analysis techniques to provide forthe direct comparison of costs and benefits inthe same unit of measure ~ that of money. Guidance is given on how a monetary cost-benefit analysis canbe developed for assessing different remediation options, although is likely that ‘any valuation exercise will remain partial in that only a small sub-set of potential impacts are ‘valued (with the remainder assessed through the use of scoring and weighting techniques) R&D Technical Report P316 3Such pari analytes can be used in determining whether or not implementation of paniculat option Would be justified, and also which remedial option isthe ‘best’ in economic Finally, the guidance also recommends the use of sensitivity analyses onthe output data. This tests the ranking of the remedial options by systematically changing the data used in the assessment. The outcome of the sensitivity analysis provides an understanding of the robustness ofthe cost-benefit assessment ‘The framework involves more than just completing tables. Tt essentially guides the user Uhrough a logical thought process designed to reduce the environmental impacts of land Contamination and the costs of it remediation. The supporting documentation for this framework will play an essential role in explaining the reasons why a specific impact might aise and why its important. Consultation with interested parties can also be included to ‘ensure that any differences in opinion are taken into account when determining which impacts are considered significant, by preventing the development of scores in isolation and, potentially, allowing a degree of consensus tobe reached! A14 Whois this Guidance Aimed At? ‘The euidance is aimed at al partes who have an interest in the remediation and future use of ‘contaminated site, including consultants, industrialists, landowners, developers, regulators, ‘te neighbours, local communities and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). It is strongly recommended that this guidance should only be used by assessors who are sufficiently competent in land remediation and thus have the necessary specialist skills and professional judgement to make technically aware decisions throughout the whole appraisal process. The assessor should also have a good understanding of the Risk Assessment and Evaluation and Selection of Remedial Measures Model Procedures. This may mean that ‘more than one person's input will be required (especially as the assessment moves towards 3 Step IV ype of appraisal), ALS Background to the Guidance ‘This report supports the Handbook of Model Procedures for the Management of Contaminated Land, in particular, the Procedure for Evaluation and Selection of Remedial Measures (DETR/Environment Agency, in preparation). To maintain consistency the guidance and framework set out in the remainder of tis document build upon te information Available from the Risk Assessment and Evaluation and Selection of Remedial Measures Model Procedures. It follows a similar structure and uses, wherever feasible, the same terminology. The Model Procedures set out @ consistent approach to the management of| contaminated land, which can be used as good practice wherever land contamination is, of ‘may be, an important issue. Prior to commencing an assessment of costs and benefits using this guidance, an intial seening of remedial methods should have been carried out as detailed in the Procedure for 7 rer detail onundoraking coosaion rosie he emit of ti eport. Useful references alae Crk J ra ind) Pring theses in Local Envioameat Agency Pls Though Conszsas ‘aig with Stakeholder Groups esting the ethodoogy with he New Foret LEAP, Projet Ried R&D Technical Report P316 4the Evaluation and Selection of Remedial Measures. The intial sereening will have identified a shorist of options that are appropriate for the site conditions and the level of contamination. Figure 1 shows the relationship between this guidance and the Model Procedures. ‘The Risk Assessment Model Procedure should also have been completed prior to any assessment of costs and benefits. This ensures that significant pollutant linkages have been identified and the sctions to be taken defined. Information from the Risk Assessment is required to provide an indication of where impacts from land contamination are likely to ‘occu. This information also provides the baseline forthe assessment of costs and benefit. Figure A1.1 The link between technical R&D reports and the Model Procedures overview a the ‘Mode roel or Managing Contaminated and Sonn aed ‘inrodaction and Overview ——_—_—— > imay ee Tossa Moa [Romiwee |! Si Sicunct tema! |p] toicensacn ‘Procedures ‘st “Measures: >) cof Risk seeing ak + 4 irae te Trewmen afi] [Assen feo on CStomenaletens | [ Savtnefomelaion a Test Coat Repos ‘remediation of land contamination |When both Model Procedures have been completed, it is necessary to compare the remedial ‘options proposed by the Evaluation and Selection of Remedial Measures Model Procedure ‘with the potential impacts (both positive and negative) that they may cause during the remedial process and after remediation. AL.6 What is a Significant Impact? “The appraisal process set out below requires judgement to be made as to when an impact may be considered “significant, In the context of this guidance, the use of the word significant i not linked to or consistent with any regulatory definitions which currently exist, in relation to land contamination. Instead, the definition of “significant” as used here is ‘determined by wo factors + the relative scoring methods used in the appraisal steps that allow the significance of impacts to vary over diferent sites andlor R&D Technical Repor P316 sthe subjective view of the assessor as to when an impact should be considered to be significant and when it should not in order to highlight differences between the remedial options These two factor, however, do not take the views of other interested partes into account Hence, there isthe potential for those with different viewpoints to hold a different opinion as to what is ‘significant from that adopted by an assessor. Altematively,difering views of 3 range of interested parties can be fully explored during the sensitivity analysis. Ensuring that all of the decisions taken during the assessment are fully documented will also provide an ‘audit trail that ean be used by any interested party to assess any differences that Could have ‘occured had the starting definition of "signifi i ben diferent, ALT Strueture and Content ‘The guidance is divided into four pats: ant A consists of Sections Al and A2 which introduce the study, the reasons behing it ‘and give brief overview ofboth the nature and structure of the report Pan B, which contains the appraisal framework, and the instructions that need 0 be followed to complete a cost-benefit assessment of remedial options fora contaminated site. Par B is made up of a series of steps (Steps Ito V), each of which presens a dierent assessment method: “< Section BI covers the sereening methodology (Step ) and the conclusions that can be drawn fom it, Section B2 describes the qualitative assessment (Step I) and also discusses which ‘other steps if an, the assessor should proceed to; < the costeffectiveness analysis and multi-criteria approaches are combined in Section BS to give the meihodology of Sep I, << Section B4 detils how the qualitative appraisal can be supplemented with s partial ‘cost-benefit analysis (CBA) Step IV); “

esmK [7 YESBUT, MAYBE: NO. wile Objctves tomer” | YES: YES BUT mavae, |v | MA NOBUT ene) ‘Se we is fixed wth Option I, bat ould vary i Option 2 i sed (houses could te dermis and the Feedined land we furs devslopnet (a wk ed therefore sored as VARIABLE Fur approaches ave pope (ielaing fouce removal pubiay medication and recepor modistion) tia fete even hough ee proaches ae ed i oly to options the TWO PLUS box ie onsicedo beth mt apropte: Shore ae tw rel optone, rer option at is pola) strongly peered over th th, Tiss seoredinte 22 box bcs approaches sored in the ihn clus Time rs becse itis imperative Ut remediation I udetake and competed as soon spose doe {otic homaneathpoblens nde sues on eden who have ba to nave ot fhe homes ‘The reset vals ots fhe woop te Ym ad £3.26m, there scored 82500; (pte I shoud met the remedial objects, bat hte i sme uncertain so thsi scored as YES BUTAMAYBE; Option 2 docs meet the remedla bjecies sty carey sod but wil requ » mich Ioager ine pei a 50 BLA Site use Site use considers the potenil implication for future users of the site once the remediation ‘work has been completed and, hence, the long term suitability and cost-ffectiveness of the remediation scheme. The potential risks asSocited with any residual contamination are considered to be greater in circumstances where the future use of the site is less certain. For Fined site usca, which have boon esteliched before undertaking any remediation, it is generally less likely thatthe remediation scheme would result in any restrictions on the use of the site being imposed. This i because the specific requitements for development will have been incorported into the remedial objectives. ‘You can now indicate for site use whether: «site use is fixed (either by pre-existing development or a predetermined end-use). Tis is the FIXED box in the mateix; or «+ site use is variable (end-use has not yet been determined or agreed). This is the ‘VARIABLE box in the matix; oF + site use is fixed but there are some complications (due to contamination issues) that may result ina change of site use inthe short-or long-term (eg. residential area that have ‘become contaminated, for example through migration of petol following an accidental spill (Case Study TWo)). This isthe FIXED BUT box in the matrix. Site use indicates whether there any restrictions on the types of remedial options that can be ‘used when pre-existing or proposed development forms an important constraint. It also R&D Technical Report P316 19indicates the potential for conflict. Hence, a site with pre-existing housing may have a much higher potential for conflict than an isolated industrial site because the issues are important (0 4 wider range of people, B13.2 Approaches [An approach is defined here as a risk management approach (ie. the breaking of significant pollutant linkages by source removal or pathway interception). ‘The use of risk management Combined with site management is an extension of the approach used in the Model Procedures. Iti used here to give an idea ofthe range of approaches that can be used to meet the objectives, in a way that is separate from the technology itself (a this is considered in B13), This is important as it allows clear consideration of source removal or pathway inwercepion without the complication of the techniques that may be involved within them. Fence, i allows the differentiation of those sites where one approach only is acceptable (.s source removal) agtnst those where more than one approach may be acceplable. Four diferent approaches are specified here for consideration, in addition to the option of do- nothing 4+ source removal (¢, clean-up, removal of contaminants); breaking the pathways or pollutant linkages (e.g. construction of barriers ‘modification ofthe recepor (eg. changing land use): ‘monitoring o surveillance (where no remediation is done at present, but this isnot rled ‘ut as a possible future option, and which may include ‘natural attenuation’ ‘Table 2 canbe used to indicate whether: + only one approach is proposed. This isthe ONE box i the matrix: ‘more than one approach is possible, but one is highly preferred over the others (eg this may occur where one approach is prefered by the landownerdeveloper and another has been included to allow a comparison to be made). This is also the ONE box; + there are two possible approaches which require consideration. This isthe TWO box in the mati +more than two approaches are likely tobe examined. ‘This isthe TWO PLUS box in the [As discussed above, the different approaches are included 10 allow risk management ‘considerations to be incorporated into the appraisal framework. More complex sites, or those ‘where conflicts may potentially arise, are more likely to have more than one remedial spproach whilst a simple, small site may have just one propased approach. ‘The aim of dividing techniques into wo sub-riteia (approaches and options) is to Aitferentate between + remodial options involving different overall approaches (e.g source reduction versus breaking the pollutant linkages); + remedial options involving the same approach but different technical options (eg. source ‘eduction using bioremediation or excavation and disposal off-site); + remedial options involving a combination of approaches and techni 3 options. R&D Technical Report P316 2011.3.3 Technical options Section B1.3.2 considers the conceptual risk management approach, or range of approaches being taken “whereas technical options looks a the technology itself (soil washing, bioremediation, encapsulation, ec). For a given ste, a number of potential technical options within one approach, or different approaches, may be proposed. For ther sites only one approach may be proposed, yet there is a large number of echnical options (e.g. source removal may be the only acceptable approach but this could be achieved by a range of Techniques including bioremediation, excavation and disposal elsewhere, soil vapour extraction, ete). Altematively, thre different approaches may be proposed but enly one technical option in each (eg. monitoring and surveillance, ‘do minimum’, or use ofa bare). ‘This section, therefore, relates the number of technical options to the nuiber of approaches ‘To complete part of the mattx, you need to consider the following question. What is the maximum number of technical options realistically proposed for the site across all approaches? + one only this is marked inthe <2 box: {wo - of which one is prefered over the other (the prefered option may be the one most likely to achieve the objectives, but is compared to other options in order to assess its performance in terms of benefits). Again ths falls into the 2 box; + (Wo: both of which are valid. This is the 22 box; ‘more than 2 is marked inthe 22 box. “Thete are two 22 boxes in Table 2, The comect box will be the closest one to your response for ‘Approaches’. Hence, if you have two approaches and 22 technical options, tick the ‘middle column, If you have more than two approaches, ick the righthand column. Where ‘yu have only one approach, but two or more technical options, tick the middle column, “The use of connected boxes ensures that there is Consistency between these two interrelated issues, and it also places more emphasis on the relatively more important number of ‘approaches. DLA Scale Scale is broken down into two components, either of which can form hard constraints incorporated into the remedial objetves, or canbe used as soft constraints, Seale, itself is ‘ota constraint onthe choice of remedial options, but it does influence the likely complexity fof a projet and so the need for a more detailed analysis of costs and benefits. The wo components of sale are: Scosts, ‘Size is not considered as a separate component of scale since it is implicitly included within both costs and time. Its not, therefore, considered a8 separate factor in any part of the assessment 1o reduce the potential for double counting. RAD Technical Report P316 a‘Time Time constraints are significant when deciding which option is prefered, 3s they may result inthe elimination of many techniques, or restrict the ability of a particular option to meet the objectives. In addition, more complex projects will generally take more time. As discussed, tbove, time may have lready been taken into account in the Evaluation and Selection of [Remedial Measures Model Procedure when its used as hard constraint “The main considerations are, therefore, whether time is a hard constraint and whether it can be relaxed or not, Hence, the actual amount of time may not be important, but instead the restriction it places on proposed remedial techniques is the determining factor. AS a result, fime is divided into two main categories, with a third category used when there is uncertainty, ‘or where the length of time can be extended (ie. ahard constraint that can be relaxed time is critical (the site must be remediated by a certain date, timescale, say les than tree months); + time may be critical (eg, the length of time available should be sufficient, but some ‘options may be slighily constrained, pethaps less than 12 months); «+ time is not crtical (here is no limit on the amount of time for remediation, and may extend for more than 12 month). tha relatively short therefore, be included inthis ‘or not can be included in the “These categories are also given in Table 2 and the ‘answer’ ca table. Any details used in determining whether time is crit comments box. Costs [As noted above, costs of remedial works will depend! upon future site use, the remedial tbjectves defined, the approach taken, and techniques tO be used. It is included in the fssesament because as costs inrease, the potential significance of many ofthe impacts that ‘oocur before, during and aftr remediation may also increas. Costs are broken down into the following ranges, which reflect the costs associated with differing site complesities, size, potential for confit, etc. They are based on actual ‘experience in remediating land contamination, and the costs involved with implementing the remediation work + low costs (<£100K); {moderate costs (>£100K to £5004); high costs £5008). Cost is somewhat dificult factor to include as it incorporates so much of all of the other criteria, It is also vitally important in the overall appraisal, particularly so in Stes Il and TV, where itis used to help determine the prefered option. It is also necessary to have an lnderstanding of what cos includes, and how the costs ae distibuted throughout the life of the remedial scheme, This will be explained in more detail in the guidance, but it is Important to bear this in mind when comparing options whose costs may include diferent clements (eg capital versus ongoing operating cost). RAD Technical Repor P316 2There may be cases where one option’s costs fll into one range and another's fll into a second. Where this occurs, ticking the eost box equal to the most expensive remedial option ensures that the appraisal step indicated will be as detailed asi likely to be required. BLAS Does the remedial option meet the objectives? ‘The final question to be considered in Table 2 is whether or not an option will meet the remedial objectives, The obvious answers to this question are yes, no and maybe, and these ae the categories used in the screening methodology. Meeting the objectives may be a prerequisite for using a remedial option, but in some cases an option may come close to meeting remedial objectives yet be significantly less costly than other options which would fully mect the objectives. It may be inappropriate to disregard such an option at this stage, and a more detiled analysis may be required to examine the balance between costs and the ‘impacts of aot fully meeting the objectives. ‘There may, however, be cases when an option ‘which does not meet the objectives must be rejected, for example, where human health issues ‘are important or where the remedial objectives are an inflexible, hard constraint. In the majority of case, this will hve been considered inthe Risk Assessment and Evaluation and Selection of Remedial Measures Model Procedures. [As the use of remedial options which do not fully meet remedial objectives will allow the trade-offs between the benefits of meeting the objectives to be compared against the cost savings of jst failing to do so, ths rterion i scored a follows: ‘YES ~all remedial objectives are met; YES BUT - all remedial objectives are met, but there are other considerations (cost, uncertainty, time, ee); + MAYBE ~ uncertainty is high (possibly for untried remedial options, or established remedial options being used under different conditions); + NO BUT ~ remedial objectives are not met, but there are other considerations (Costs, ‘uncertainty, time, ee, but the risks of not meeting the objectives are such that they are not _rounds for rejecting the remedial option(s); + NO- remedial objectives are not met, but thee are reasons for including the remedial ‘option inthe assessment (innovation, public relations, et, and the risks of not meeting the ‘objectives are not unacceptable), B14 The Next Step Figure BI. shows that all assessments proceed to Step I, following the above sereening ‘exercise, However, thee is an important conclusion that can be drawn from the screening ‘exercise according fo the location ofthe ticks. I'he answers do not ll fal into one column of the matrix, you can decide which column isthe most appropriate in two ways: by considering which column contains the majority of ticks; or 1 byeerring on the safe side and moving towards the right-hand sie ofthe matrix. ‘Those sites where the tcks fall towards the left-hand column will generally requte the Teast, teeweced athe cusone of sues emedation scheme. One ofthe aftr remaiation’ args ‘eae tat thei expt fo bea sigan lve! of pe iaeest fr Remedial Option {on ‘Suleson of te remediate, iy fm he eset of he st. For Remedial Opson 23 N? newer Tas bean iene the fede ret e roc 0 there sald bea suttntl reduced level of pbc imeres. “Table Quatatve Appa: Cae Std Two Category Before semediton remediatlon ‘Air remediaton Remedial Opin: 712 aman Heath and Safety Signin risks ose wes? Significant isk to pobi?™ Sinisa amber of Su expose Snir naw of pS expose Tp on quality of suace wae? Trpacs on gaan of sae Inga on quahiy of ounce? Trpacts on aan of sound? ‘rounder for indy, Scare or drinking ter? ‘Chena physea ropes oT sailikely oe changed” Inpts onal ies as and anima ambers ingates™ Designed ies impaied? Tand Use ‘Shed vale ancl? Stung land wale reduced? Seroading nd wie esa? Th Party or Stakeholer Concer Sinan evel of pblic ret? Lick of lb informsin? ost Tim | Ea whee ere ae no Sian ipa bare ‘emotion suaton malian Hpi BESSA Wo ASS te afer RAD Technical Report P316 Py2.35 Option costs Remedial costs ‘The final set of information which needs tobe entered into Table 3 concerns the costs of exh ofthe options under examination. As defined here opion costs includes the following items + the purchase of any capital equipment: + operating and maintenance costs (including the costs of energy, any chemicals or other materials required as par of operations), + labour costs; 1 the costs of any offsite disposal requirements, including transport and treatment or Aisposal costs; + any ongoing sampling or monitoring costs during or following remediation: {any additional management costs incorporated through the desire to minimise risks; {professional fees associated with the use of an engineering, environmental or other Consultancy and with any legal or planning related advice; + insurance costs (particularly where these may vary across options). Consequential losses ‘The trm ‘consequential losses’ soften used to describe any additional costs which may arse 18a result of land contamination or as part of land remediation which are not specifi to the choice of a particular remediation option. Compensation paid to those alfeted by contamination (as a result of the need 10 cease a particular activity, the loss of propery, inconvenience, te) isthe main form of consequential loss which remains to be considered (as losses associated with potential impacts on property or land values is covered above, lunder the land use category), ‘Where the need to pay compensation is likely fo vary across options (e.g. where risks of ture damage to a resource continue after remediation, 3s in a case where the remediation ‘option involves site monitoring only), then the level of such payments will need to be ‘considered in addition tothe other diet option costs. Calculating total option costs In determining the total value of these costs for each option, itis important that the ‘aleulations are undertaken to ensure that the options ate compared on a consistent basis. As the timing f the above cost is ikely to vary between remediation options, with te costs of some options all oceursing within the first year and for others occurring over several years, the steam of costs needs to be converted to a common basis. This is achieved through the process of iscounting, which effectively place lss weight on costs (and benefits) occuring in the future, Discounting is based onthe principle that people prefer a £1 today aver a £1 tomorrow, andi is common practice in financial and economic apprasal.2 2 Fora tanta casio oh plo of scouning se HM Tresry(1997 and Pearce ett (0935) R&D Technical Report P3I6 35[By discounting the stream of future cots, the present value of the total option costs (PV,) ean be calculated. ‘The formula used to do this isa follows py, =Sox1 Bay Where: C =the sum of costs in period t the discount rate {=the time horizon forthe analysis stating in year 0 ‘n= the total numberof yeas over which the time horizon extends tis the present value of option costs which need t be entered into the last row of Table 3 for cach of the options, ‘Tables 13, 14 and 15 (Part D) provide pre-calelated discount factors ‘which can be used to calculate the present value of costs as an alternative to using the above formula, An example of how the resent value of costs canbe caleulated using these discount {actors s given overleaf where option costs are aso discussed in detail, Because discounting places less weight on costs occuring in the fature, the choice of the liscount rate can affect the tol costs, ad potentially the ranking of options (this is discussed inmore detail in Step Il and explored further in Step V). The social or public sector discount rate used by government bodies, such as the Environment Agency, is curently 6% for projects similar to land remediation. Commercial organisations, however, may use very different rates (eg, 3%, 8% or 10%). B24 The Next Step “The questions in the detailed analysis are designed to highlight any impacts arising under the different remedial options (denoted by Y (yes) answers). The process of completing the tables and providing supporting information is designed to help identify the remedial options ‘with lower impacts and to indicate whether or not one option is prefered over another. The ecision on whether to proceed with the sensitivity analysis and selection of the preferred ‘option ar ehis sage, or wo continue with more detailed spprisal ofthe significance of the impacts, shouldbe based on a comparison of these tables. Fone option is clearly preferable (i.e. it has ‘no’ answers in all situations where other options have "yes" answers and the costs are less than or the same asthe other options, then there is ro need for a Step Il andlor Step IV appraisal. However, in most cases this situation will not occur, for example, when: + there are trade-offs between the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ answers foreach option (e.g. one option has yes" answers forthe health and safety of site users, but "no" answers fr public health and safety: another has “no” answers forthe health and safety of site users, but "yes? answers for public health and safety. Therefore, without considering the magnitude of these impacts itis impossible to determine which option should be the preferred one); oF R&D Technical Repor P316 36“The Preset Value of Cons of Each Remedial Option 1 Determine which of he os factor ghen in Section BD are included i al remedial options Any ‘astonal factors ot ined in Secon 2.33 can aio be Mcluded bu the) will need 10 Be cemented 2 eterine th timescale over whic thre cots wld acre Cala the presen salu of al of hse cons ing tables 13 4 15 (Part D) Ecample api casts: yer Only (£25000, ‘perting and lence oss: yeas O and | ony (1S 000 pr yer: "Bhourcoss: years 09 30 (25 OOD yar 0: £7 500 fom yeas 1130) tse anspor ete yeu only (E70 000) Inonting costs jer 2129: (E000 pe yen} ote: ear O a only (2000 pr ya ‘surance cosh: years D103 (3000 pr ya). Allcoss net be pat imo tems of year O (preset) sng # cou vlue of 8 over a nescal of| Soeur (ear O 10 yar 1 capac ey yer 0, therfore, tl £250 000; 2 Sprang ad inane cost year 0-15 00 and year {only (E15 000 x 09434 = £16 200); wa ‘FCS 00 E4200 29 2005, Tabar est: year £2500, yar (£7500 x 0.9434 = £710) fom years 2 ro 29 (7800 «(13.907 1334) = £8 20) tol oC 00» 7100+ £88200» £120 300, 4. ste ranspon et year ony - £7000; 5. ontoring cost jer 2129 (E500 (15 907 - 1.8534) = £58 800): 6 rote fees: ents £200 and yeu (£2000 x 09434 = £1900); of £3900; 5 naurance est: years 040 293000 x14 5807 = £3 800 Over a 120.0 + £70 00 + £58 E00 + £3900 £43 800 = £576 000 ner Sep nor Nat Reg For Cane Study Two th sno clay preferable option resins from the Step It appa (sce above ‘ceamples)- Many of the answers given forthe fw opts are similar and witout consent De ‘magne of the impact ts nt posible wo deters which opin shouldbe peter. For Cae Sty One tere tm ober pion with whish compar impacts, The screening methodology ko indicated at Sp I pra woul be ule. Therefore the no weed comin oa Sep Ho Sep IV appraisal inthis R&D Technical Report PBI 374+ the option that has ‘no’ answers in all situations where other options have ‘yes’ answers also has higher costs. Here, itis not known whether the extra costs of reducing the ‘pacts is justified (e.g the option with more ‘no’ answers costs £1.5 million while the ‘option with more ‘yes? ansWvers costs £0.5 million) I the remedial options for your site show either (or both) of the above situation, it may be more appropriate to move to a costeffectiveness analysis, a cost-benefit analysis, or 3 ‘combination ofthe two. In order to determine which is the best path for your site, you will reed to complete Table (a blank Table 4is given in Part D. First, tick the impacts that occur on your site (if this impact only occurs before, only dering. cor only after remediation, you will sll need to tick this box; this is because of the different ‘ways thatthe CEA and the CBA work out the potential benefits of remediation). Some of the ‘pact eategories have been sub-divided (due othe constraints of valuation) but they are still consistent withthe types of questions used in the Step I appraisal. These are equivalent 10 ‘one or more questions from Boxes A to Cas follows + environment (water resources) relates to water quantity issues, both surface and ‘groundwater; environment (water quality includes surface and ground water quality environment (soil) cavers the physical properties of sil, ‘environment (ir quality) relates to local air quali Cchvironment {habitat and ecology) incorporates both populations of plans and animals tnd designated conservation sites: Tan use (land values) includes bot site value and surrounding land valu: {and use (land use) relates to restrictions or impacts on both the site and surrounding land, Human health and safety and third party of stakeholder concern have not been sub-ivided and itis necessary, therefore, to consider all of the questions contained under these headings, fs given in Boxes A 10 Now consider how your ticks match up with the valuation recommended ot scoring recommended colurmts. Fall of your impacts coincide with valuation recommended the Step IV (CBA) path is the most appropriate. If all of your impacts coincide with scoring ‘recommended, the CEA path (Step IH) wil provide the more robust results. Where you have Some impacts which are ether valuation recommended or scoring recommended, you cin proceed to Step IV firs and then supplement this analysis withthe application of Step If to ‘he non-valued impact In some cases, the differences between your options may be too small to measure using valuation. If such differences were considered to be significant during the qualitative 'pprasal, the Step Il approach (CEA) willbe the preferred method a it can accentuate these differences. ‘An example Table 4 from Case Study Two shows thatthe majority of impacts match up with ‘scoring recommended’ and will be most appropriately assessed using a Step Ill approach Impacts on land values, however, match up with ‘valuation recommended and so can be RAD Technical Report P316 8valued following the Step IV approach for this category. Therefore the next step for Case Study Two isa combination ofthe relevant parts of both Steps II and IV. strative Example of Apprael Routing to Step It and Step IV “Table 4 Appraisal Rowing o Step land Sample for Ge Sad Teo Yataion | scoring recommended | amg c pra) Toman ba act > a 7 sate enviroment > 7 Environment ai Z seater ua terns ae sal Environ 7 7 soi ict and se) sical : 4 habe ad esl 4 Tad Use 7 land vale a 7 v 4 “ Convento | — Coston Sept). sabi (Step ‘5 aunioer ae whe ut afe sot spe Tan contamination and vahton & Greve aoe R&D Technical Report P3I6 2»Box Ar Questions for Before Rem Human Health and Safety Are there likely to be significant risks to site users (temporary andlor permanent)? {Are there likely to be significant vsks tothe public? Are significant numbers of site users (temporary and/or permanent) likely to be exposed tothe risks? + Are significant munbers ofthe public itly to be exposed 1 these risks? Environment + Are there likely 10 be significant impacts on the quality of surface waters (rivers, ‘sreams, lakes, ponds, etc)? + Are there likely to be significant impacts on the available quantity of surface water? {Are there likely tobe significant impacts on the quality of groundwater? {Are there likely tobe significant impacts on the available quantity of groundwater? Ls the quality or quantity of local surface water likely to be important for industry, agriculture, or drinking water supplies? + Ts the quality or quantity of local groundwater likely 1 be important for industry, ‘agriculture, or drinking water supplies? + ‘Are the chemical or physical properties of the soil likely 10 be changed (e.g. through contamination)? 4 ‘Are any impacts on local air quality (including odour) likely 10 be caused by the + Are significant populations of plans or animals likely 10 be impacted by the + Are any designated conservation sites (eg. SSSIs, nature reserves, SPAS, etc) likely 10 ‘be impacted by the contamination? Land Use 1s the land value likely tobe significantly reduced because the site is contaminated? Is here likely to be any significant impact on surrounding land values? Is the rype of land use likly tobe significant restricted until remediation is complete? ‘Are there likely toe any similar impacts on surrounding land uses? Third Party or Stakeholder Concern Isthere likely tobe a ot of interest inthe ste? Is there a lack of readily available information about the site? R&D Technical Report P316 40Box Br Questions for During Remediation Human Health and Safety + Ave there likely tobe significant risks to site users (both those involved in remediation ‘and thase continuing 10 work onsite)? 4 Are there likely to be significant vsks tothe public (eg, from increased traffic levels, or changes in contamination)? Ave significant numbers of ste users likely to be exposed to these risks? ‘Are significant numbers of the public likey 10 be exposed to these risks? Environment + Are there likely t0 be significant impacts on the quality of surface waters (rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, et} (e.g from movement of contaminants into surface waters ‘during remediation)? + Are there likely to be significant impacts on the quantity of surface waters (eg. are streans diverted during remediation)? + Arethere likely 10 be significant impacts on the quality of groundwater? 1 Ave there likely 10 be significant impacts onthe available quantity of groundbater (eg is groundwater pumped to increase the effecivenessof remediation)? + Ts the quality or quantity of surface water likely 10 be important for industry, agriculture, or drinking water supplies (will hey be impacted by he above changes)? 4+ Ts the quality or quantity of groundwater likely tobe important for industry, agriculture, or drinking water supplies? + Are the chemical or physical properties ofthe sol likely to change significantly through remediation (e-. soil washing)? ‘Are any significant impacts on local air quality likely to be caused during remediation (ecg. venting of volatile contaminants)? + Are significant populations of plants or animals likely to be impacted by the remediation? + Are wildlife corridors likely to be lost (e2. through disturbance of a hedgerow or other Tinear habitat features)? + Ave there any designated conservation sites (e.g. SSSIs, nature reserves, SPAS, et.) likely to be significantly impacted during remediation? Land Ue Is there Hkely 10 be any sini rerition om caren land we daring the «Are tee hkty to be any significant inpats on seroundng ld ase caring renedianon? Third Party o Stakeholder Concern Is theretikely 10 be ator of interest inthe remedial works? 1 Is tere a lack of readily available information about the remedial works? RAD Technical Report P3I6 41Box C: Questions for After Remediation Hamman Health and Safety 1+ Are there likey to be any significant risk to ste users from the remediated site? 4 “Ave there likely to be any significant risks tothe pubic from the remediated site? Are significant numbers of site users likely to be exposed to these risks? ‘Are significant numbers ofthe public likely to be exposed to these risks? Environment + Are there likely 10 be significant impacts associated with the remediated site on the ‘quality of surface waters (rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, et) (e. from movement of Fesidual contaminants into surface waters)? + Are there likely to be significant impacts assoclated with the remediated site on the ‘quantity of surface waters (e.g are streams diverted during remediation not restored 19 their original courses)? + Are there likely to be significant impacts associated with the remediated site on the ‘quality of groundwater? + Ave thee likely 10 be significant impacts associated with the remediated site on the ‘ailable quantity of groundwater? + Te the quality or quantity of surface water likely 10 be important for industry, ‘agriculture, or drinking water supplies (wll they be impacted bythe above changes)? + Tsthe quality or quantity of groundwater likely tobe important for industry, agriculture, or drinking water supplies? ‘Are the chemical or physical properties of the soil likely 10 have been changed Significandly through remediation (eg. soil washing)? + Are any significant impacts on local air quality likely to be caused by the remediared + Are significant populations of plants or animals likely 0 be impacted bythe remediated “Are any designated conservation sites (e.g. SSSIs, nature reserves, SPAS, ee) tkely t0 be significant impacted by the remediated site? Land Use ‘+ Is the land value ttely tbe increased significantly (from average land values of non ‘contaminated sites) once the site has been remediated? + Isthere likely to be any significant impact on surrounding land values? + Is there likely tobe any significant restriction on future land uses once the site has been remediared? Ae there ikely tobe any similar significant impacts on surrounding land uses? Third Party or Stakeholder Concern + Ivasignficant level of interest in the ste likely to continue after remediation? + Ave the imerested parties likely 10 dispute that the site has been remediate tothe best possible state? R&D Technical Report P3I6 2B3. STEP II: CEA/MCA B31 Overview From the work carried out in Step Il, the impacts which are likely to arise before, during. snd after remediation will have been identified foreach ofthe options under consideration, However, the Step Il assessment provides no indication of how significant those impacts are likely to be, nor how the significance varies between remedial options. AS a result, Step IL ‘wll not provide suficent information to asist in the decision making process for many Fund remediation projects. This wil include, in paicular larger sites or sites where there is the potential for conflicts to arise, ‘Step II builds upon the Step IL appraisal, with the sim of providing further information on: + the relative performance ofthe alternative options across the various impsct categories ofconcer Figure B3.1 identifies the tasks involved in Step II, and their overall postion in the framework B32 Data Requirements ‘The types of data required to complete this step are the same as in Step TI, however, more detail 8 now required. In particular, data are needed on the magnitude of elfects across the diferent impact categories for the before, during and after remediation scenarios for each option. ‘The categories are the same as in Step I ‘human health and safety; {envionment (including both the physical and natural environment); land use: ‘third part or stakeholder concern; ‘option cost ‘Consequential losses and legal concems are considered under Option Costs in Section B34. “The resuls from the Step Il assessment will have indicated which ofthese categories needs to be considered inthis Step (those given a “Y" or “Y?” answer). All other categories can be ignored. However, it may be useful t indicate in the checklist (Table 1) that Step IL idemitied these categories as ‘not significant RD Technical Report P3I6 8—— arm Figure BBA. Step Il: CEA/MCA, RAD Technical Report P316 Tar ny =a mae nome oe a Jos Tpactson anton os era eae ‘eae Tae pao a a ae Ey cee ie L + q T‘The Risk Assessment and Evaluation and Selection of Remedial Measures Model Procedures will have identified the hard constraints that must be met for an option to achieve the remedial objectives, The type of costeffectiveness analysis presented here can Also be used to reassess the options if some ofthese hard constraints could be relaxed. This may be important, for example, where considerable cost savings can be achieved by inreasing the time allowed for remediation, B33. The Appraisal Framework B3A.1 Overview “The Step Il appraisal considers three scenarios: + before remediation (i. the condition that led tothe need for remediation); 1 during remediation (the impacts caused directly by the remedial option(s); 1 after remediation (c-, doe to any residual sks) InStep Ill, however, i is not possible to include the Before remediation scenario because the scores are assigned according to the relative impacts of each remedial option. ‘There is no difference between the options forthe before remediation condition, therefore, itis not relevant to assess this scenario, |As noted in Table 4 at the end of Step Hl, impacts on surface waters and groundwater “quality and quantity) and on land values can be assessed ether using the scoring method set ‘ut hee, of through the use of monetary valuation techniques (as described in Step 1V and the supporting information given in Appendix D. In general, itis recommended that ‘anges in land values a least are estimated in money terms to allow direct comparison with femediation costs. Impacts on surface waters and groundwater may also be valued where fny change in quality or quantity affects its abstraction (whether for drinking. water, imation, industrial supply, et) ‘The factors which are considered when scoring these environment-related impacts are iscussed below. "Note that Hf impacts uu wate resources and land values are inoluded Within this Step ofthe appraisal then they should not also be included through a Step IV ‘ppraisal as this would result in double counting, “The assignment of score through the method set out below relies on subjective judgements as tothe relative difference of significant impacts between remedial options. Therefore, it is essential that you have a high degree of technical awareness and professional judgement. Teisalso essential thatthe reasons being each score given to each remedial option for all of the impact eategories are documented. This is done to ensure transparency and to provide an audit tril which can be easily followed and understood by another interested party. Providing good reasons for each score also reduces the potential for conflicts with Stakeholders whose views may differ from your own, These views can be accounted for in the sensitivity analysis, but iis important that you ae aware thatthe scores that you assign fre based upon your own subjective viewpoint and do not represent a consensus of the ‘iewpoins ofall interested parties, Further details on how to include the views of others are sive in Section BS (Step V). R&D Technical Report P316 45Scoring Method “The first stag ofthis appraisal involves assigning scores across all ofthe impact categories based on the relative size of the impacts associated with each of the altemtive remedial ‘options for bath the during and after remediation scenarios. ‘The aim i to give each remedial option score which reflects the relative impact it has on cach of the categories (human health and safety, environment, land use and thd party or Stakeholder concern). Thus, the actual magnitude of the impacts which occur is of less {importance than whether they are three times as great under one option than under another ‘Within this conten, there ate two different approaches which could be adopted towards impact scoring: + comparing remedial options directly in terms of proportional effect: for example, one ‘option may give rise to twice the level of volatile organic emissions than a second option, with emissions under a thd option being zero. In such a case, the first option ‘Would be assigned a score of -100, the second a score of -50 and the third a score of + developing a scale which reflects the relative significance of different levels of effec. ‘An example of such a scale might be scoring no emissions zero, some emissions -25 and lots of emissions -100. Whichever approach i adopted, it shouldbe applied consistently across the different impact categories, In general, the fist approach is prefered over the second because it ensures that the magnituse of difference in effects is respected by the scoring system. However, ‘development of such a system aeross all impact categories requires more data than the second approach. The use of a relative scoring system also needs definition of signifieant, since itis Aiferences inthe significance of impacts that wll determine the scores. AS noted eal, significant impact is one which marks a noticeable difference between the remedial options. ‘The maznitude ofa signifieant impact will vary between sites due to differences between the remedial options, site specific conditions and the level of contamination. Hence, ‘deciding which impacts ste significant isa subjective decision, and must be documented in the sume way as for all otber decisions taken (yes or no answers in Step I, or scores assigned here), ‘There are a number of additions factors that must e considered when scoring the impacts fccuring under each remedial option. Potentially the most important of these is ‘management of impacts. Where an impact cccurs, for example, inhalation by workers of VOCS vented into the atmosphere, this could be mitigated by ensuing that all workers wear suitable respiratory protective equipment. Hence, the score should relate to the managed. impact. However, where impact management requires considerable extra cost, it may be necessary 0 include a non-managed option as an extra altemative (providing this is feasible, i.e not restricted through health and safety requirements, for example). The Construction, Design and Management Regulations (CDM) and Health and Safety requirements ms provide a good source of data when atsigning scores tothe diring remediation ps, 1k must also be remembered thatthe cores given during the appraisal (and in particular the final number that relates to the performance of each remedial option) ae for guidance RAD Technical Repon P3I6 46purposes only. They do not give a definite answer as to which isthe “best” option, but will Indiate which option appears to be prefered when taking all ofthe relevant information Box D describes the methodology that i used to assign a score to an impact eategory the factions to be taken when completing a Step Il appraisal and are highlighted in the remainder of this section by the use of boxes). These can be used with only minimal reference t the text once the asessor is familiar withthe methodology and the reasoning behind the appraisal framework, If you are not familiar with the approach, itis strongly recommended that you use the explanations and illustrative examples given in the text to [Buide you when assigning scores. All of the reasons behind the decisions that you take should be dacumented to ensure that transparency is maintained at all times. Box D: Scoring Methodology During Remediation + scores ran from -100 to 0; where -100 is given t0 the remedial option with the worst Jmpacts and Oto an option with no impact. After Remediation + scores ran from 0 to +100; where +100 is given tothe option withthe greatest Benefit ‘and Oto an option with no benef. Using the scoring sele given in Box D allows percentage differences (or probabilities) tbe ‘easly included, It is important to note that a score of -100 does not mean the impacts are Targe (although they may be). A remedial option that impacts toa much higher degree than nother option would score -100, with the second option (with muck lower impact) scoring, ‘ay, -20. In this ease, impacts under Option 1 would be five times as significant as those Under Option 2. Two remedial options with only sight differences in impacts would score, say, 100 and 95. {In order to provide an indication of how to score the remedial options, and to clarity some of the points discussed above, an illustaive example is given for each category. These ‘examples are summaries of the decisions taken when assessing the fuller case studies which fare presented in Part C. Ensuring Transparency Scoring impacts will involve a degree of judgement and may mask the decision process unless there is an intermediate step displaying the reasoning behind the scores assigned to ‘each remedial option. Hence, the text relating to each impact category iss the type of factors that may determine an option’s score. It will be necessary t0 indicate (e) whether there is any impact and (b) the significance of the impact through its score. This would {raw on supplementary information relating ta description of impacts in qualitative and ‘quantitative terms, and any robust monetary valuations that could be readily derived, Tables for recording scores are given in Part D (Tables 5 to 8). Also included are cells for ciering comments which can be used to describe how a score was reached, and the factors ‘considered in reaching it. Sufficient information is needed fori tobe possible to go back to R&D Technical Report P316 a‘an impact category and repeat the exercise such that similar scores are derived. This should fceur, even where there is considerable subjectivity, since the reasons given should be sufficiently detailed to always lead an assessor tothe same conclusion. Note, this does not ‘Question the thinking behind the reasons, as this will be considered further in Section BS. Uncertainty leis important to ideniy areas of uncertainty, and their relative significance, in order tht they can be taken into consideration in the final assessment of options. "A. sensitivity analysis will be used to explore the uncertainty surtounding all of the criteria and the influence that it may have on the decision as to which option is prefered (Section BS), ‘The column marked ‘uncertainty’ in Tables 5 wo 8 (Part D) can be used to display known uncertainties. Unknown levels of uncertainty can also be accounted for in the sensitivity snalyss, where changes can be made to scores {0 tet the robustness of the result upon ‘which the choice of prefered remedial option is based. These tables give space for five ‘options tobe compared, but the actual namber being considered may obviously Vary. ‘Step II can also be used where there is considerable uncertainty inthe predicted impacts, or ‘where differences inthe magnitude of impacts beeween remedial options are small and thus ‘monetary valuation may mask the differences between the remedial options. Using Step IT {in thse cases should make it easier to choose between options and to select a preferred ‘remedial option. 'B3.32 Human health and safety Hluman heath and safety is divided into site users (including permanent users such a8 those working or lving on sil, and temporary users which may include those using the site asa shortcut) and the public, asin Step Il. Site users ae, therefore, defined as those who are ‘on-site during andor after remediation and they include casual users ofthe site. During ‘remediation, therefore, this will include those workers who are actively involved in remediation and any other site users (those employed in factories or living on-site, for ‘Ceample). These am enneidered tn he permanent users, Temporary users includes those ‘who Visit the site occasionally, for example, dog walkers. After remediation, permanent site users will be those employediving on-site. These may or may not be the same as during remediation, If development occurs, for example, construction workers may be “temporary site users" where they would enly be present on site fora short amount of time (cg the time it takes lo complete their contracts), any ‘new’ employees once construction hs finished may be considered “permanent site users. Future residents would also, therefor, be included at “permanent ste users. Temporary site users may, inthis ease also include people erasing the site or using the site onan irregular basis “The public, therefore, are those living near fo the site but who do not come onto the ste “Anyone using the sit, for any reason, is considered a user and is included under site users tis possible, therefore, for any one member of the public to bea temporary site user Before remediation (for example, where they take a short-cut across the site), the public daring remediation (as secess is controlled) and a temporary user again after remediation (when ‘ocess is restored), This can be compared tothe Procedure for Rsk Assessment which uses 5h may mt be sedition to be made Hetween temporary snd permane! wes al sy [econ to document ch wars ae cosce enor al which pemanen why. RAD Technical Report P3I6 48“humans on or in proximity t the site. Hence, humans on the site count a site users; hhumans in proximity to the site count a the public. Table 5 (Part D) provides the proforma for recording al cores related to human health and safety. During remediation, impacts will result fom the remedial process itself and will be due to the way the remedial option teats the contaminants (e.g. excavation, soil washing, bioremediation), any evaporation (or escape) of contaminants, or the potential for exposure ‘owing to movement of offsite disposal, te. Any change in traffic levels during ‘remediation is also important. This may be more significant forthe public, whose exposure to the contaminants themselves will, in most cases, be low in comparison 10 those experienced by site users and remedial workers, in particular (it is important to remember tha itis acidental exposure risks that are being considered and not contaminant source sinificance). For the public increased exposure due fo changes in traffic movement and volume, dust and odours causing « change in living conditions or inconvenience may be associated with an increase in tes. After remediation, the impacts of changes in traffic levels, dust, odours and inconvenience ‘may be reduced (if not eliminated) Tt is important to consider and note, where possible, the relative size of during and after remediation impacts, as this will be used when assigning ‘weights. The impacts may stem from any significant residual levels of contaminants Generally, the health and safety issues should be resolved by any remediation option which has reached the stage of cost-benefit assesment. Residual impacts are more likely to relate {othe other thee categories of environment, land use and third party or stakeholder concer. For example, even aller completion of remediation there may be some residual soil or ‘groundwater contamination which does not merit ative remediation, Similay, if the land ‘is remediated tobe suitable for a relatively low sensitivity use, such as industry, there could sill be some restrictions on other forms of land use and possibly stil some reduction in land values, “The results of the risk assessment should give details on the exposure risk from the Contaminants present on-site and the way that each remedial option deals. with the ‘contamination, These influence the numbers exposed when, for example, contaminants Solatilise inte the surrounding air Thie may inceeate the numbers. who may be exposed, Contaminants that remain in the ground (being more stable) should, in most cases, affect, fewer site wers and are unlikely to aflect the public. Similarly, remedial options that require venting contaminants into the atmosphere increase the numbers exposed and could, Potenilly, lead to exposure of the public compared to other techniques which do not fnvolve venting, {tis unlikely that you wil be able (or wish) to specify whether an immediate risk is worse ‘than a chronic risk. Its preferable, therefore to compare remedial options according tothe same risks where possible, Ifthe remedial options result in a mixture of immediate and ionic risks (without the same risks accurring aeross all emedial options), it may be possible to compare them using the values placed on them in the tables given in Appendix TF These provide valuations of the willignessto-pay to avoid cerain types of risk for use 1 lick of quanti aehmets eet hte risks cannot be compared. Mach mae work i ‘ede for Comparisons be undeaken Append I can be wed o goal a ndetion ft Compass an cannot be wad fo ates he relive “importance” ny ies ry 2 tothe RAD Technical Report P316 ”in cost-benefit analysis. The oder of magnitude difference between such valuations may be ‘sell n establishing relative importance. ‘Alteratively, the remedial option may fail to meets its objectives and addtional measures then requited to reduce the level of contaminants to an acceptable level. Its not possible, however. to use the Step I methodology to assess failure. The scoring assumes that an ‘option is successful in achieving its objectives. It may, therefore, be necessary to consider the potential for failure (a8 a probability, where possible) by using a formula set out in 'B5.24 as part ofthe sensitivity analysis, Failure of management techniques to contol risks can also be assessed in the sensitivity analysis. Risks to Site Users Risks on-site can occur at any time (although only during and after remediation impacts need to be considered in Step II). The types of risk will vary acconding to the remedial ‘options proposed and iti these differences that are being assessed here. Factors that need {o be considered when scoring the remedial options according fo risks to site users include those given in Box E. Tox Factors to Consider when Scoring Risks to Site Users 4+ the significance ofthe risks; the numbers of ste users exposed. ‘The significance ofthe risk wil depend upon + immediate risks (resulting froma once-off exposure exceeding safety levels} 2 chronic (those resulting from exposure over a prolonged period or long-term effects resulting from limited exposure); + degree of risk management; 1 types oftaks that result in exposure (normal or abnormal) + ype of contaminant (included in the risk assessment): the way dhe remedial epion treats the contamination (included in dhe risk assessment). ‘The number of ste users exposed will depend upon: |< the numbers of ste users within the vicinity; 1 the ype of contaminant (eg. volatile oF more stable - included in the risk assessment) {the way the remedial option treats the contamination (inluded inthe risk assessment). The scores for during and after remediation should take the duration of exposure into “The potential for managing risks is likely to be important when considering risks to site users, especially workers. For example, management strategies may include the use of protective clothing and equipment to minimise exposure, or best practice type approaches to Iminimise the risks (or a combination of the two). Where there are considerable costs sociated with the management of risks and where these are not currently included in the ‘overall costs, it may be necessary to include management as separate option. There will be eases, however, when the implementation of such management stratepies is compulsory (Gueh as when they would be required under health and safety st work regulation). Again, [RAD Technical Report P316 50‘the Constetion, Design and Management Regulations (CDM) and Health and Safety requirements can be used to provide a basi fr assigning sores ‘There may be some remedial options which involve asking certain workers to undertake high risk operations. Its important to note, therefore, whether iis the normal tasks that are being considered, or whether the (faer but potentially more significant) higher risk ‘operations have also been taken into account when assigning a score tothe remedial option, Determining the numbers of site users may be a straightforward calculation when, for example, the only people on-site ae those involved in remediation. Complications occur ‘when employees working for other firms are also on-site, or where casual use of the site (eg. for dog walking) can take place. These users can be considered to be temporary users, although itis important to give Tull details ofthe types of people who can use the sit either ‘during or after remediation) in order (0 obtain a beter estimate of the number of people ‘who Would be potentially exposed to on-site contamination, An illustrative example showing how these factors were taken into aecount in Case Study ‘Three is given overeat. Risks to Public [Assessment of risks to the public follows a similar format to that for site users because the hazards are the same; itis the exposure level that may differ, and hence the risks. For ‘example if there is no exposure (eg, there i secure fencing preventing public access to the site) then the risks posed by contaminants on-site is negligible, ‘The factors that need 10 be taken into account when considering the differences inthe risks between remedial options for the public ate given in Box F. Box Fr Faciors to Consider when Scoring Risks to Public the significance of the risks + the numbers of people exposed ‘The significance ofthe risk wil depend upon: Immediate risks; chronic risks; degree of risk management any changes in traffic movements; levels of dust; cdours: The munbers of people exposed wil depend upon: + distances from which trafic is rowed: + the spread of dust and odours; + gavhupour movement; {the extent to which inconvenience i encountered. RAD Technical Report P3I6 stastratve Example for Rist Site Uses (aken om Case Sty Three) “able 5: Human Health and Salty IMPACT Sore Uncertain Cela Option zy Daring [After | During [ater Tasso sie wers | 1 Option Fe Sa Exevaon and ea oo | GrotndwaterTresient Option 3 So Ecataton and Dispos on} ee | va [ow $: Option 4 So Tete only ‘Seors fr daring remediation + Option 1 (Soil Excavation apd Groundwater Teeanen): dung remediation there ae fpitive ‘isons of oli commana and eau retin fem excavation, thes aso he [ost af some aoa ak ce expour from voll emiason acc wih groundwater + Option 2 (Soil Testes o site a Groundwater Texmert sll weatment i sca with peter exponre thn sol excision duet the emanions which may ate om he Vstment roves. Hens ths oping is sven the lowest score fr worker risk The mbes exposed ‘Sonaminton eal ls tan fr of se disposal + Option 3 (Sil Excmaion and Donal onl) st ulely that tee would be siifeant ‘isa! kom router rennet, Option 3 has these pt a: Option 1. There sy Sig intense nthe numer exon de fae dsl bat th il Be need the fet ‘orks nsded sie al sls be eae, 4+ Option 4 (Sot Treen ony): pact are the same a Option 2a ts unlikely tat here wou be ‘cot doo yk act with grander etent e Option 2. This Opin may have the fewest nmber of remadl wrk exponed bt the frence between option sigh (di ‘osieed benign). In hic cae Opis 2 and have sie eve of impel han Options and 3."Terefoe. Onton 2 ‘oy score “10 or dung omen. Given ne ifeence Between ik, Opto I ade ‘fovedat-80 fo uring remediation Gniting 20% lowe a. Score for after remediation + Oca 1: excavation semoves the comaminans, whit trsment of grounfwstr reduces ‘Snumintion leaving some tidal Tas opon, there, tas he grenest tees apd Sores io, + Option 2: sot westmentrefices contamination sgsficanly, but there willbe some esa ‘Shtuninaion remaining wii he wei sal Grosser tstmen rede conaninatn, bel Sun thre ae some resi This open performs well, bts cwsidred to have 3% fvet efits dae oper sul eels song 135, + Opin 3 si esution eaves the si contamination ba proundnateris uted. Theis the potent fr upward migration of cntuminan (imo mae eld win the soil thee. whit Feet el god they ae ess han fr Options Ian 2- Opn 3 signe 2 score of #80 + Opin & sil wetmen oa rede si contamination, which when combined wth he esta level in the sl and pounder conaminaon mean ta hin pion has fer beets ta Optom 3. Option thee scores #0. R&D Technical Report P316 2As for risks to site users, the relative importance ofan immediate risk versus a chronic risk may be impossible to resolve, Therefore, wherever possible, the same risks should be used ‘fo compare options ‘Management techniques to reduce the exposure ofthe public may be restricted to preventing site access (eg. through a fence built around the site) and, hence, not be 10 expensive Aliematively, they may involve measures requiring a large additional cost, for example, use of a cover system across a Whole site to prevent fugitive dust of gaseous emissions, Where large costs are involved, it may be necessary to examine the remedial option with ‘management techniques as an additional option to that of the remedial option without ‘management techniques (in order toastess whether the additional expense is justified), All the factors taken into account when assigning scores for risks t0 public need to be documented in the same way a8 for risks to ste users. It is panticuasly important to ‘document differences between remedial options, in order to give another assessor a sufficient level of information 80 that they would be directed towards giving the same {An illustrative example is provided below based on Case Study Three, which shows how these factors have been taken into account in a real situation. Istraive Example for Risso Public (akon trom Cas Stay Three) Tai aa aa cot nn en Toa eet es pans 3: Option 3 100 | +95" 0 5 ‘Sw mtn + Options 1nd tee opto scr the same fring remaaton’. Tey wiles te worst Impet doe othe ge mamber Inge ark eqaed to uke material of site or poral. These pons core 100 + Options? and: th inoue of afi soit with Options an is considered 0 be the ‘nt signs rik the pac. There te dference ne levels is ed to sign 2 cre {© Options 3 and 4 Apposimatly, one sevens ofthe aut of wae is equred fo Options 2 nd Thee options teetie Soe“ 1S Scores for ater remediation + Options 1 and 2 (where groundnater & teed) both sake +100, a6 they offer the most ‘omprckensi eed sluts + Ons 3 and 4 sure 495 doe tothe redution i benefit anand with mot weaiag the ‘Poundwatr which arsed ote St. The ungated groundwater as he pte o mip of ey lthough he aso ts ar light. R&D Technical Report P316 31833.3 Environment Impacts on the environment are divided int the following sub-categories: + surface waters also divided into water quality and quantity) {groundwater (also divided into water quality and quantity); 1 habitat and ecology. “There are, therefore, six different types of impact which have to be scored, although there ‘may not be impacts of ll types for every remedial option. ‘Table 6 is used for recording scores fo these sub-categories (with a blank table provided in Part D, ‘Surface Water Quality Scores will need to be assigned to both surface water quality and surface water quantity (or surface water resources), Surface water inclades all fiver, steams, canals, ponds, lakes, “rsinage channels, ete. which do (or which could) contain water. This does not include {pressions which temporaniy fil with water afer heavy rainfall, which are not generally considered as surface water bodies, ‘Water quality relates tothe chemical nature of the water. This includes cofour, odour, pl, temperature, chemicals dissolved in the water and pollutants such as hydrocarbons which ‘may also be present as phase separated materia Box G lists the factors that need to be taken into consideration when assigning a score to surface water quality. [Box G: Factors to Consider when Scoring Surface Water Quality Quality issues include both short and long-term impacts and each score will need to Consider the following potential impacts. Factors affecting the scores fr during and after remediation vil be similar Degradation of surface water quality: Warer Quality Objecive (WOO) failure (or otherwise ‘occurrence of pollution incidents (with and without WQO failure) ‘severity of pollution incidents. fsh Kl, loss of ertain species) longer-term effets (e.g. changes in overall aguatic species mix). ] | | | Improvements in surface water quality: + achievement of WOO (previously failed): + fewer pollution incidents; 1 “change in species mix (eg. new, more sensitive species) When remediation may lead to ether the loss (temporary or permanent) or creation (permanent) ofa water supply source as a result ofa change in quality this also needs 1 be taken into account, See Step IV for an indication of how significant such changes can be RAD Technical Report P316 s‘When scoring surface water quality, you will need to note whether the impact is negative (causing degradation) or postive (causing a benefit), In many cases, impacts ovcurting during remediation willbe too shor-cerm t result insignificant benefits (Some long-term Projects lasting thee years or more may see some benefit, however). ‘Immediate’ benefits may occur ifthe surface water itself is remediated, but this should be considered as an after remediation bene. ‘There is the potential for significant impacts, however, during remediation since contaminants may’be released into a stream seriously altering the chemical properties of the ‘Water 50 that it fails to meet Water Quality Objectives (WQOs) or results in fish kills (or “other impacts on will). After remediation, the impacts should, generally, be beneficial since the potential for ‘contaminants to be leached into surface water should be reduced or the surface water itself ray have been remediate The above impacts need tobe placed into an order that reflects their overall significance so thatthe score given will more closely reflect the most serious impacts. For example, contamination causing a WQO failure is considered the most significant, as any such failures will result in non-compliance. However, short-lived, one-off pollution incidents may seriously impact freshwater quality, yet not cause an overall WQO failure. Given this, ‘Scoring will need to account for variations from worst case and best case outcomes where these ae worst case: WOO failure in surface water, or serious pollution incidents causing significant losses of populations; 1+ best ease: no WQO failure, any polltion incidents are minor, with litle or no impact on existing populations, ‘Where the potential impact are manageable, it willbe necessary to alter the scores to reflect this. As before, if management techniques add considerably o the cost, it may be useful © include an extra option witht managrment ‘Thi wil allow the costeffectiveness ofthe ‘management techniques to be considered and also highlight the potential increase in impacts wwithout them, This process can be done during this step, rather than in the sensitivity nals a8 it requires the assignment of scores to an addtional option, “The use of surface waters will determine the quality that must be maintained in order to prevent impacts occuring. Impacts onthe quality of water will, therefore, be most serious for drinking water supplies. Imgation water may be similarly affected, although the area to ‘which the water is applied should be considered here. Industrial uses, such as food processing, could also be severely impacted should quality be reduced. Benefits accruing afler remediation also need to consider the significance of the factors which could affect the score. These three factors (from Box G) are more difficult to measure, However, no WQO failures where there were previously failures may be & significant positive impact. Similarly, a reduction in the number of expected failures would be a benefit to surface water quality, As forall after remediation impacts, the predictions for surface water quality improvements may be somewhat crude, reducing the potential for scoring this sub-category witha high degree of certainty. The level of uncertainty can also bbe noted in Table 6 so that it can be explored further inthe sensitivity analysis. R&D Technical Report P36 35“The ordering of impacts by significance can be altered according tothe site characteristics, generally depending upon the results ofthe Risk Assessment which considers ‘surface and ‘groundwater on or in proximity to the sit’. An illustrative example of the scoring for surface water quality is given below. istrative Example for Surface Water Quality “able € Environment rac citeia oes Meee Daring [After | During | After ‘Saroce waeraaliy [Trp A Se 2 Opin “s0[ +80 [10 | 20 oman ‘Opn has oly ama dere of wien: whe Option Bi more uncertain depending wpon he performance oh ood bd Scores for daring remediation Leachate frm a sll le domes lanl site closed inthe ne 19605 i eusng polation vo 3 Trbutry of t major river which supports ood quay Coase fishery and which also has othe Spicer sei wc, + Option A inones he sllestion of leachate tagh he esto of ew draimge system and ‘pumped dog ote cl sage testment wrk estimated cot £450,000. Ths wil vse {Nery high level of weamen and bese ey gh quay saluion Hence ze soe gen, + Option Binoives oa weatment waa the site wing ace bed stm aa substal Tomer oat ‘E1100 However defo the inermiem astre of te leachate ows his option ay Hat Provide an adegu lve of weunet nal onions Hence 0 score en Scores for after remediation: 1+ Optin A sil soe the poem for sinieanesmpuctsw 2 minimum, Hence Sere the bcm posible sco of #100 + Option B may lve sme red ees, bu these ae likely 9 be low However the aocrtiaty ssid with Option Bis ig, hence assigned sow of $80 with an nce 0220. Surface Water Quantity ‘Quantity (or water resource) issues are more straightforward, and will only be significant B c G 4. Determine whether the second best option now becomes the prefered option. 5. Repeat with other options as appropriate (this will onty need 10 be completed where the refered option changes). Enter the results nto Table 20 Sensitivity analysis of costs can also examine either uncertainty in estimates or changes in iscount rates fo reflect, for example, commercial interests. If a different discount rate ‘changes the order in which the options ar ranked you will need to determine which rate isthe ‘most applicable for your site. This will depend largely upon the driving forces behind ‘remediation, and the Bodies that are responsible fr financing it 'BS.25 Conclusions to draw from the sensitivity analysis You will now have completed a range of sensitivity analyses, where these at least consider the level of uncertainty involved in the prediction of impacts and the viewpoints of other interested paris. Additional analyses should also be beneficial as they will allow a fuller understanding of the impaets that ae eontolling the choice of prefered option R&D Technical Report P316 103rave Example Yor Cons and Prob of Achieving the Ober Assume tht Option 1 costs £15 milion and tha ean (Probability = 10) ht hi opin will met ‘oma esd! costar gets) Now ase tht he next bet opin ater ete pacts ‘Sut only in, br ta there sme cern at ote abut of Opton 2 to met te maxima feo contaminant agts Assuming you ae wing to ace some level of esa isk hen (pton a ema peed ver option he flowing eam mat bold Boe Bk 6 6 Where; tbe costs of Option 1 and Cth eos of Opn 2. Fr this example, Pi 0a; 1.5 milion the factor ne wih cleat and Ci 1 illon Therefore, wo Forth stove example, this ncts hat Pst elon 0.67 fr Option 110 be rte ‘You should also have documented all of the analyses performed in Step V in order thatthe decisions that you have made can be reassessed if necessary (for example, should site conditions change, the views of stakeholders change or if @ remedial option fails to completely achieve its objectives). ‘Once this is complet, you should select the preferred remedial option that can be used on the site to deal withthe land contamination issve, The method for doing ths is desceibed in Section BS, Selection of a Remedial Option, B53. Sensi Analysis for the CEA/MCA BS. Introduction For the Step Il appraisal method, the sensitivity analysis may want to consider five potential changes + impact scores (using levels of uncertainty), 1 weights within categories (i.e. between sub-categories); weights between impacts occurring during remediation, and those occurring after remediation; + Weights between categories (Le, relative importance of human health and safety, environment, ee) + cost In most cases, these types of sensitivity analysis shouldbe done independently of each other. ‘There may be situations where the site details require two (or more) to be combined in order that specific site conditions ean be taken into account. For example, during remediation impacts may be twice as large as those occuring ater remediation, and some of the sub- categories may difer in their importance according to the Viewpoint taken. This is discussed in more detail in Section BS.3.7. RAD Technical Report P3IG 108‘The ute ofthese types of sensitivity analysis, therefore, is more than just a way of testing the result. Ii also possible 1 examine other stakeholders views as to the choie of preferred option, ‘You will need the results and deals used to apply scores and those used with the total scores and weights to complete the sensitivity analyses forthe Step II appraisal (Tables to 12). Tt is recommended that ta minimum, changes to scores (t take uncertainty into account) and changes to weights (to include the views of other stakeholders) are undertaken. All changes land their results should be fully documented, 'BS.3.2 Changes to seores ‘Scores ean be changed to reflect the amount of uncertainty that you entered into Tables 5 to 8. ‘To simplify the analysis, you may only want to consider changes to the category scores (and not the individual impact scores). The method for doing this is given in Box AA, with an iastraive example also provided below. This reduces the amount of resources, in particular time that should be needed to complete the sensitivity analysis. Box AA? Changing the Seores Changing the Scores using Total Category Scores Determine the range of uncertainty foreach category from Tables $ to 8). You may want to consider both a negative and postive range (where negative means the impacts could be ‘worse) for example, by assuming that the changes could be V25% (or equal tothe greatest luncertainy that you have noted). This process will need 1 be repeated for both the during ‘and after remediation scenarios. You can now recalculate the scores in 1w0 ways: 4+ by assuming all impacts are underestimated relative to the remedial option with the worst impact add the uncertainty tothe score to give the revised score: by assuming all impacts are overestimated relative to the remedial option with the ‘worst impact ~ take the uncertainty from the score to give the revised score inthis case. Table 21 should be used to note the revised scores. If you are using this part of the sensitivity analysis in isolation from the other part, you will need to assign weights inthe Same manner asin the original assessment. IFyou are combining sensitivity analyses, you only need to apply weights once to each combination. Tables 9 10 12 are used to record [Examining the impact of uncersinty should indicate whether itis possible to change the ranking of remedial options using scores only. Where iis not, the preferred option identified from Step II remains the prefered option. Where the order changes, its necessary to give udditional thought to the implications ofthis change. This i an important part ofthe analysis and is discussed futher in Section BS. RAD Technical Report P316 10sIusteative Example for Chan the Scares “Tahied Revaed oresfor CRAIMCA | IMPACT Boone] Uaertainy tea oe Daring | After | During | ter TOTAL SCORES FROM STEP TH oman tettandanae oR zoo | 00 | 0 [a0 fmanteathantaicy* [paris Remediaton | a0 _| 3s | 220 | 225 Theabove scores have beer apptie ring he Sip 1 appraial elspa om human hea and fey hae Ben ased Hs exanplealeategores should be ‘nui when appl hs metodo [REVISED SCORES (assuming al impacts wnderevinaie ‘Rll Reneaion woo [20 [20 aman hathandsaey RS “100 [20 [93s Toma ‘Theabove core arse tha all impacts have been wernt and nceaingy har bem included to mate te impacts more inion (ce scorn le to =100 daring remediation and = 100 ger ‘omodaton Noe tthe core cont eed he avium (te Score ued to normal aesor) totale ar gen in Bae 3 ony on mae heath and afity Ave Bam ase nh expel categories shuld be consider who pphing ths metodo [REVISED SCORES (asuning al impacts verestinatel) Fill Reediation 7 TT Maman teat antsatty ari Remediation | 40 [+70 | 20 | 25 ll Reasision 0 | os_ [os Eeveonment 2 Paral Remstiaton [is [0 | 0 ‘The above sores assume that uicrly means the sores are es impacting than was originally hinnd Ther oct on eign sveriy of tapas ering a ly inact on oan alt and fey hee eon wed i this example, ll aegis shoul be BS.3.3 Changes to weights ‘There may be occasions where one impact (eg. on surface waters) is much more important ‘than another impact within the sume category (eg. at). The methodology given in Step I takes these differences in relative importance into account by applying weights at the sub category level. Ie is important that any changes in importance due to uncertainty in the weighs applied in Step Il or to take the views of others into account) are explored before a preferred option is ‘chosen. Box AB describes the method that should be followed when assigning weights to sub-categories, An illustrative example fom Case Study Two i also provided below. RAD Technical Report P3I6 106ox AB: Appiying Revised Weights to Sub-Categories ‘This proces follows that used in Step I (Section B3.6 2) where weights are applied 1 the ‘main categories used in the assessment (Table 22 is used to record changes to the sub- category weights and scores). Determine which ofthe sub-categories isthe most important. Assign a weight of 100 to this sub-category. ‘Assign @ weight tothe second mast important sub-category that is proportional tothe relative importance ofthe impacts (hence, ifthe impacts are half as important this sub- ‘category would be given a weight of $0, for sub-categories where there are no impact, no weigh needs 10 be applied). 4. Repeat fora subcategories where necessary (e.g. environment will need weights to be ‘applied toa six sub-categories. Maltply the total score for each sub-category by its weight and enter the results into Table 22. 6. Ifyou are using this part ofthe sensitivity analysis in isolation or in combination with ‘score changes only, you will need 10 assign weighs tothe during and after remediation Phases and o categories before assessing any changes tothe rank order of the remedial ‘options. Tables 10 to 12 can be used for this purpose. Ifyou are combining these new sub-category weights with other changes, there it no need 10 apply the other weights at this stage. ‘Some ofthe total impact category scores wil have changed asa result of applying weights to sub-categories, These changes should beter reflect the specific site conditions (Where some ‘pacts are known to be greater than others) and should, therefore, be given preference over the ranked order from the Step Ill analysis. Where this is the case, any changes in the preferred option should be noted. This should be bome in mind when selecting the remedial ‘option tobe used in Section BSS. [B54 Application of weights between during and after remediation ‘Weights may have been applied to the impacts occurring during and after remediation in ‘Step Il to reflect the difference in their relative size and/or to negate the influence of very negative scores obtained during remediation being cancelled out by very positive scores ‘oblained after remediation. Whete they have been assigned, it may be useful to vary the ‘weights given previously. Where sub-category weights only were applied in Step I, the use of during and after weighs can be assigned forthe fist ime. Box AC presents the main steps involved in assigning these weighs, with an illustrative example from Case Study Two given below. [RAD Technical Repon P316 107stra Example of Applying Reisd Welghs to Sub-Categories "Tae 2 Appling Revd Weighs wo Sub-Cteporie PACT Reed Teva ‘citeria Option fecgnt_|_Seore_| "Score Daring remediation ‘aman eat and safe [7 Paral ened 100 [30 Steuer os 2: Fallremetiaton “30 [ 35 Pa 1 Paria medion 1 100_| 100 2: Full enetiation “10 | 10 TOTAL 1: Pana enediion 130 2: Falleenedation 3s Tr Perce woo 50 ae 72: Falleemediaion ss 20 [v0 Pane 1, Parl ened “20 | 20 2 Fal reneaion 100] 4100" Tora Tr Pailin 70 2 Falremedaion| a0 Coma ‘Foran bealih and say the orginal aseoment assumed te sere wer considered 0 be ice {ssgncant asthe pubic ence ste azrs are pve t weighting of 10 ith pbc heath and ‘af wei as. Th weights have bon aera hat he publi are vice ar iporton 0 Se ior (ih could rfl ews of edt Uving ner he nis impais on haan balihand fey ave Bee lh exampl, ol categorie shoul be _omsdned when applying his methodol R&D Technical Report P316 108Box AG: Applying Weights to Impacts Occurring During and Affer Remediation This process follows that used in Step II (Section B3.6.2) where weights are applied 10 the four categories used in the assessment (Table 23 should be used to record all changes to scores and weights), 1. Determine whether during or after remediation impacts are the most important 2 Assign a weighting of 100 10 the most important factor. 5. Assign a weighting tothe second factor tha is proportional to the relative size ofthe Jmpacte (hence, ifthe impacts are half as significant this factor would be given a weight of 50) ‘Multiply the total score for during remediation by its weight ‘Multiply the total score for after remediation by its welht ‘Recalculate the impact category scores (Box U). Ifyou are using this part ofthe sensitivity analysis in isolation, or this is the final part of a combination of analyses, you will need 10 apply category weights before assessing ‘any changes in rank order ofthe remedial options. Tables 11 and I2 can be used for this purpose. Otherwise, you can finish your sensitivity analysis before applying these weight strate Example of Applying Weights to Impacts Occurring Daring and Aer Remediation "Fae 2 Appin Wega wo Impacts Occuring Daring and Aer Remediation Option [Option | Options [Options ‘DURING REMEDIATION Honan Tat So Ser apd om Sep > s [_T Wee eed) 70 Revi re i= | AFTER REMEDIATION Haan Pel S® Ser apd (om Se) wT Wee eed as Revd cre a ee Tipo scaring daring remediation have been weighed a8 for human heal and fy ding ‘omen nd fr afer remediation i the Sip IV asessmont Tse have been changed 30 thar paces acuning ier omsdaion are cosdeed 8D ae significant an impacts daring remediation agi, hs may reflect th ews of eet living nef the sth onion human ath and fey have een used hs eample, al categorie shoul be conidrel when ppg this mead 'BS..5 Changes tothe weights between categories In order to aggregate the normalised met impact scores across categories (calculated in Step UN, you will have defined relative weights which indicate how important you believe impacts falling under one category are compared to those coming under another category. AS R&D Technical Report P316 109suggested in Step II, you may want to consider altemative sets of weights to reflect other inleret group's viewpoints. Any pattem of weighting can be used in the sensitivity analysis. You can consider realistic changes (eg. consider the viewpoint of the public, or theoretical changes (eg. assume that land use is the only category of importance). It is probably \worthvhile to consider a numberof different weights in order to fully assess the changes in ranking and the choice of prefered option. ‘The method for changing the weight assigned to each of the four categories is desribed in Box AD, with an illustrated example also provide. ox AD: Applying Weights to Categories ‘This process follows tha used in Step I (Section B3.6.2) where weights are applied tothe four categories used in the assessment (Table 24 18 used 10 record changes 10 these ‘weights: 1. Rank the diferent impact categories inorder of importance. Assign a weighting of 100 points tothe highest ranking impact category: 3. Consider the second highest ranked impact category and determine how important it is relative tthe highest ranked category, where this is less than 100 points (unless two categories were both ranked of equal and highest importance). For example, Human Health & Safety may be assigned a weight of 100, with impacts on the Environment considered to be 80% as important (where, for example, there isa large population living clase to the ste, but there I litle surface or groundwater to be impacted) and thas assigned a weight f 80 (=100 x 0.80). 4 Now consider the third highest ranking category and determine how important itis relative tothe second highest ranked impact category. For example, Land Use may be Considered to be 80% ar important as Environment (where, for example, there is no planned development), and thus be assigned a weight of 0.64 (= 0.80 x0.80) 5. This procedure would be repeated forthe fourth highest ranking category to determine how it should be ranked relative tothe third and thus the weight which should be assigned to it overall. Table 12 can be used 10 asess any differences in ranked order that may occu following the changes made during the sensitivity analysis. Note al of your changes by using Table 24 (Par D). You may want to repeat this exercise a umber of times depending on the number of options you have, the sensitivity of the contamination problem, ete. Once the revised total scores have been calculated, you should ‘reassess the cost-effectiveness of each ofthe options. Table I2can be usd for his purpose BS.3.6 Changes to costs ‘Where there is uncertainty as tothe final cost of any remedial option, sensitivity a also be used to determine how much the costs of the highest ranking option would have to R&D Technical Report P316 110‘change forthe next ranking option to be preferred. This type of analysis ean be based on either the original weighted impact scores or the revised scores only tustratve Example of Changing the Weights Table 24: Option Performance Scores and Weigh — Vewpolnt One "Third Party ‘Human Health | oe tama tet | environment | Land Ue | sender ‘OPTIONT egitim > a ra Revised wigs 7 00 7m Revised SCORE 20 m “8 ‘OPTION? ‘Realise pass sors om 7 > = Spill es Revised wigs 7 0% 7 Revised SCORE H 02 ss Revd TOTAL a Fhaman heath and softy and hid pary oF staehoder concern have all bon ranked as 1.0 indating hat they are of equal importance to laa eden The wep for onion har been ep the wane oi theolnal appraial Tan te has boo sued wing Sep i ad therefore tended here ‘The second type of sensitivity analysis which you should carry out concerns the discount rate ise in ealenating the present vale of costs. AS indicated in Section B3, the implications of ‘adopting socal rate (66 as currenily set by Treasury) versus a more commercial rate should be examined. Commercial rates such a 39 or 10% could be used. [Box AE displays the steps that should be followed when changing the cost, and the impact thatthe revised costs may have on the costefectiveness of each remedial option, This ‘method is similar otha used i the Step II sensitivity analysis ‘Where the change in costs causes the onder in which the remedial options are ranked to also ‘change, it will be necessary to determine whether the revised costs are a more appropriate ‘estimate. Section BS.S (Selection of a Remedial Option) discusses these issues in more ‘depth, in order thatthe “bes” remedial option is chosen, given the decisions made by the jastessr in both the main appraisal and the sensitivity analysis. ‘Anilluseative example, taken from Case Study Two, is given below. RAD Technical Report P316 umBox AF: Costs and Probability of Achieving the Objectives Costs: 11. Obtain an estimate ofthe uncertainty involved for option costs if you do not have data ‘on tis use a differen discount factor to obtain lower and higher Coss, see below) 2. Given the predicted level of uncertainty, caleulate an upper and lower bound for the costs ive a range in which the ‘true’ costs may fll 4. Combine the lower and upper bounds with the probability of achieving the objectives to ‘asess whether the preferred option may change choosing the preferred option, below). (Changing the Discount Factor: 1. Following the illustrative example given in Section B3-4.2, recaleulate the option costs tsing a lower discount factor (e.g, 3%) anda higher factor (e 8. 10%) 2. Repeat foreach remedial option and compare end ranking. dentifyng the Preferred Option Given Different Probabilities of Success 1. Obtain the probability of achieving the objectives foreach remedial option. 2. Assume that the prefered option from Step II (the option ranked as number one) now hhas costs equal fo the upper bound and thatthe second best option has costs equal the lower Bound, 44. Input these into the formula given below (where Cy are the cost ofthe preferred option, ‘and Py isthe probability that this option will meet the objectives; Cis the costs of the ‘second best option and, sits probability of meting the objectives Bo> B c G 44. Determine whether the second best option now Becomes the preferred option. 5. Repeat with other options as appropriate (ths will only need 10 be completed where the referred option changes). Enter the results into Table 25. R&D Technical Report P3I6 2Musee Example of Change Cnt and Probab, Tate 5 Revie Cots and rab of Aieving Objeines- Cae Say Two Dawn Rate or Revbed Cos a se orlowerbouna | O* ersten | 105 or upper bound TRalensioa [23m 0860 abs ae Sam 260 5260 Proton ofmcces_ | Loweimwe [Bettina hina 1: Fl renein 236 027 oe 2 Paral reed 08 in 1 roti Testo Felton Foie 1: Fallen 05 031 031 2: Pal enon 05 031 031 Rank Hank tow) Rank id ak 1: Fallen 1 L 1 2: Pal remain 2 2 2 Cone the cots have bee altered by naming diferent sn hose vale: hence fo the upper Bound ‘Opin 1 har boon susumed to only gan IP, an forthe lover Bound har been ane that ‘oon 2 gins 10% of the land value ts fers om he 20% ws for Option 1 Step TV and ‘here Opin wasted o aera no benef ugh increased and vole) ese change hare Ion wed ater ha changes tthe dco actor Thc probabil of tcc for Option 1 i coed using the formal sen Bat AC, where the probably of Option 21s osu 10 he 03 forthe lower bound and 10 for the mil and upper ‘owas Ths sows hw wcerin Option! neds to bem dre tha Option 2 comes he peered pon Is armed here that Option | asa tal probably of a leat OS a coserstve ‘Simi Terfre, shoud te probaly eaedted above he blow ths, then Option Tw be he refered option. Ivall aves given abe, Pe, thersfore, Option |x proferred. Nite hese figures have been rounded to 00 stgnieant fre, hence tere may Be some 'BS.37 Combinations of changes to weights and/or scores “There may be occasions when a site would benefit from combining a numberof the above types of sensitivity analysis, for example, where there are differences in the relative ‘magnitude of impacts during and afler remediation and between the sub-categories. This can be done by following the onder in which the above five analyses are set out. Hence, if you ‘wish to include weights between sub-categories and for impacts occuring during and after remediation, you should begin by assigning weighis to the sub-categories before using ‘weights for impacts occurring during and after remediation. This should ensure that Iistakes are not made when combining the results (Since the sub-category scores are caleulated before the total scores for during and after remediation) and that double-counting (or inthis ease, double weighting where, for example, during remediation weights may be ‘used twice before calculation ofthe total score) is avoided. RAD Technical Report P316 13Combined approaches must be accompanied by sufficient documentation thatthe effect of ‘combining the weights andor scores can be clearly seen when the preferred remedial option isidemitied, BS.4 Sensitivity Analysis for the CBA. As forthe other appraisal steps, sensitivity analysis on the CBA results should examine changes in Key assumptions underlying both cost and benefit estimates. This will be Particularly true i valuation using the techniques set out in Appendix I has been undertaken, In such cases, it may be important to place greater focus on the uncertainties associated with the monetary benefit estimates derived through the use of benefit transfer based techniques. ‘The types of assumptions on which you may wish to undertake sensitivity analysis are as follows: + key uncertuinties noted in the risk assessment providing the basis for predicted impacts and changes in nsks following remediation; 1+ the market value (or willingness-to-pay) estimate assumed foreach type of impact where the assessment includes using Appendix I, the population over which impacts are agaregated, where this may be the change in the number of eases of a particular illness, the number of people impacted by the loss of a recreational fishery, oF the number of people assumed 10 hold a willingness-o-pay to protect the conservation value of a particular river, + the discount rate used to convert future streams of costs and ber into present value + the timing of impacts where there is uncertainty as to when they might arse With regard tothe Appendix I techniques and the development of altemative assumptions on willingness-o-pay values and populations, the FWR Manual provides some guidance on this, for those effects related to changes in water quality (with this also be relevant to changes in resource availability). Similar approsches can be adopted for any sensitivity analysis on hhuman health and safety impacts and the environmental impacts associated with increased HGV trafic. Sensitivity analysis on the above types of assumptions can be undertaken easily using a spreadsheet, allowing recalculation ofeach option's net present value (NPV) and benefiteost ratio (BCR). Where the BCRs of two or more options which involve different scales of femediaton are altered through the sensitivity analysis, then i may also be necessary to recalculate the incremental benefiteost ratio (BCR) to determine whether or not the {sification of increasing the seale of works has changed. This should help indicate how “important the various assumptions are to the relative performance ofthe diferent remediation ‘options. RAD Techni 14BS.5 Selection of a Remedial Option I the sensitivity analysis does not change the order ofthe remedial options, then the remedial ‘option that is ranked in ftst place is clearly the prefered option. In many cases, however, ‘there will have been some change in rank order, and it is necessary to determine how significant these changes are Where the preferred option has changed as result of the sensitivity analysis, it becomes necessary 10 apply subjective judgements as to which of the analyses are most important {given te site conditions, views of others, uncertainty, et.) and which are less important (eg, those used to test the robustness but which went outside ofthe limits of uncertainty. In some cases, it may not he possible to easly distinguish between to (or more) options which could be taken athe preferred remedial option. The option whichis ranked the highest in the most appropriate analyses would then be selected as the “best’ option when considering the costs and benefits ofa range of remedial options. ‘Uncertainty is included and quantified in the CEAVMCA and CBA sensitivity analyses. Ifthe sensitivity results indicate that two oF more options may be equally prefered given the range ‘of uncertainty, then the prefered remedial option that you Select may be subject to some debate, There ae thee choices: + chooge the preferred remedial option but explicitly state that ths is subject to unceninty (ith figures wherever posible; “review the remedial options proposed, possibly creating a compromise option or {collet more data to constrain the level of uncertainty “The first approach will require detailed reasons a8 to why a particular option was chosen in preference to the other options). The second and third approaches may require a re- sssesement to be undertaken, For cases where it is not possible to distinguish between two (or more) remedial options by taking omly the most appropriate analyses. it may be necessary to undertake a diferent ‘approach to allow the option to be ranked. Consider how many sensitivity analyses you ran, For the qualitative appraisal this could be as many as 21 (without considering cost changes), and forthe CEA/MCA and CBA could be any number. Now consider how many times each ‘remedial option is ranked in ist place, and divide this by the total number of sensitivity runs, te ive the percentage of first plaes*. You now have thre choices: + select the remedial option which seores the most first places; ‘select the remedil option that performs best over the most likely scenarios; or ‘select the remedial option that performed best in the situation considered to be most Similar to the actual site conditions. ‘You should also consider whether this choice fits in wit the ‘answer fom the appraisal. IF itdoes not, you may need to indicate why no, and possibly re-run the appraisal to check that “This method should oly be wed whe lather posites have been exated Se tris on = Testun! approach lh nay ot esl the ben option or these lw being chen Tis ty be pri ra where he estas has bon we ote i of he assessme RAD Technical Report P316 usyour inital responses in Step II} are reliable The approach taken shouldbe noted 10 make it ‘lear why one option was ranked above another. B56 Return to Evaluation and Selection of Remedial Measures Model Procedure Following completion of the sensitivity analysis, you may decide that some of the hard constraints considered in the Evaluation and Selection of Remedial Measures Model Procedure are inappropriately limiting the range of remedial options being considered at this stage. Where this isthe case, you may wish to revisit the Handbook of Model Procedures and the tiered screening exercise to determine whether any ofthe hard constraints can be relaxed, ‘opening the way for identification of new options which may provide for a beste balance between costs and benefits RAD Technical Report P316 16B6, REFERENCES B6.A References Cartce (1989) Review of Sanitary Landfill Impacts on Property Values, in US EPA (1996) ‘Open Solid Waste Landfills, Stigma and Industrally Zoned Land, US EPA Newsleter, I, No. 12, December 1996, DETR/Environment Agency (in preparation) Model Procedutes for the Management of Contaminated Land, CER 11 Environment Agency (1998) Policy and Practice for the Protection of Groundwater (2nd Edition), Bristol: Environment Agency. Environment Agency (1999a) Costs and Benefits Associated with Remediation of Contaminated Groundwater: A Review of Issues, R&BD Technical Report P278, prepared by ‘Komex Clarke Bond Ltd & EFTEC Lid Environment Agency (1999b) Costs and Benefits Associated with the Remediation of Contaminated Groundwater: Framework for Assessment, R&D Technical Report P279 (Graft), prepared by Komex Clarke Bond Lid & EFTEC Lid. FWR (1996) Assessing the Benefits of Surface Water Quality Improvements Manual, Foundation for Water Research, FR/CL 0005, December 1996, Mariow. Guntermann, KL. (1995) Sanitary Landfils, Stigma and Industrial Land Values, Journal of Real Estate Research, 10, No. 5, 831-542. HM Treasury (1997) Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Goverment, London: HMSO. McClelland, Schulze and Hurd (1990) The Elfects of Risk Beliefs on Property Values: A Case Study'of a Hazardous Waste Site, in US EPA (1996) Open Solid Waste Landfills, ‘Stigma end Indutrilly Zoned Land, US EPA Newletter, Il, No, 12, Decomber 1996 Pearce DW eral (1989) Blueprint fr a Green Economy, London: Earthscan Publications Richards, T.0. (1997) A Changing Landscape: The Valuation of Contaminated Land and Propery, College of Estate Management, University of Reading, April 1997 Richards, T.0. (1997) Is it Womb the Risk? The Impact of Environmental Risk on Propety Investment Valuation, College of Estate Management, University of Reading, March 1997. ICS (1995) Appraisal end Valuation Manual, London: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, London, RICS (1995a) Land Contamination Guidance for Chartered Surveyors, London: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors RAD Technical Report P316 uy‘Thayer, Albers and Rahmatian (1992) The Benefits of Reducing Expsoure to Waste Disposal Sites: A Hedonic Housing Value Approach, in US EPA (1996) Open Solid Waste Landfills, Stigma and Indastially Zoned Land, US EPA Newsletter, I, No. 12, December 1996, ‘Washington DC. US EPA (1996) Open Solid Waste Landfills, Stigma and Industrially Zoned Land, US EPA Newsleter, I, No. 12, December 1996, Washington DC: USEPA, B6.2 Selected Bibliography Alen, M. (1994) The Use of GIS in the Environmental Assessment of the WW2 Mustard Gas Factory at Ergathan in the Former East Germany, anicle downloaded from the CcontaminatedLAND Internet site htp:/www contaminatedL AND co.ulleasestulerg: Finyshtr, ‘Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) (1996) ANZECC Guidelines and Criteria for Determining the Need for and Level of EIA in ‘Australia, prepared by the ANZECC Working Group on National Environmental Impact ‘Assessment, article downloaded from the Environment Australia Intemet site (up? www environment gov aulportolielepefianedeialanzece_eriteria huml), approved for release 22 June 1996, Barbier, EB., Markandya, A. and Pearce, D.W. (1990) Environmental Sustainability and (Cost-Benefit Analysis, Environment and Planning, 22, 1259-1266 Bockstael, NE., Hanemann, W.M and Kling, C.L. (1987) Estimating the Value of Water (Quality Improvements ina Recreational Demand Framework, Water Resources Research, 23, 'No, 5, 951-960, May 1987. BRGM (1997) Classeur des Sites Potentillement) Pollués: Guide utlisstion, Version 1, .R39003, June 1997, Orléans: Ministie de I'Amenagement, du Territoire et de Eavironament CME (1998) Development and Application of Soil Quality Guidelines within the CCME Framework for Contaminated Site Assessment and Remediation, prepared for the Canadian Council of Ministers forthe Environment, 9 February 1998, Winnipeg: CCME, ‘CCME (1998s) Framework for the Application of Sovio-Beonomie Analyses in Setting Environmental Standards, Economic Integration Task Group, 7 September 1998, Winnipeg COME. ‘Church D (1990) Contributions and Limitations of Cost-Benefit Studies, excerpt from Use of Benefi-Cost Analysis, US EPA, August 1987, ‘CIRIA (1997) Remedial Treatment for Contaminated Land; Policy and Legislation; SP112, Construction Industry Research and Information Association, London: CIRIA. Commission of the European Communities (1994) Inventory ofthe State of the Art for Cost- Benefit and Multi-Criteria Methods for Projects in Inland Watervays, Concerted Action 1.1, Final Repor, Phase I, DOC. EURET/415/94, September 1994 RAD Technical Report P3I6 usECOTEC (1995) An Integrated Framework for Pollution Clean-Up: Costs, Risks and Benefits of Biotechnology Applications for the Environment, final repor tothe Department ofthe Environment, EEPICIS9SMijt, October 1995, [EFTEC (1996) Investigating the Application of Economic Valuation Techniques to Estimate the Environmental Costs and Benefits of the Yorkshire Water Supply Options, unpublished ‘report prepared for Yorkshire Water, December. Environment Australia (1997) National Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment of ‘Contaminated Sites, Draft Part A ~ Framework Description, aticle downloaded from the Environment Australia Internet site (ipy/www.erin.gov/portfoliofepg/contam him), Kingston: Commonwealth of Australi. ERI. (1984) Decision Analysis: An Approach to Rational Environmental Policymaking, A Background Paper, February 1984, EERL.(1991) Pollution Abatement Cost Evalustion, final report prepared for the Department ofthe Environment, November 1991 Everly, M, (1995) The Price of Cost-Benefit, Health and Safety t Work, September 1995, 13.5. Fischoff, B,, Watson, SR. and Hope, C, (1984) Defining Risk, Policy Sciences, 17, 123-1 9, Government of Western Australia (1998) Contaminated Sites, amticle downloaded from the Department of Environmental Protection Interet site (itp://wvmw environ, wa. pov au/pubs! exes_2him), Green, C. (1996) Current Issues in the Assessment of Social Costs, paper presented at Major Projects Assocation Seminar on Social Costs and Benefits, Templeton College, Oxford, 17- 18 June 1996, Gregson, S, and Hope, A (1994) Ranking, Categorisation and Prioiisation Systems for Potentially Contaminated Land, AERC. Hyman, ELL (1981) The Valuation of Extramarket Benefits and Costs in Environmental Impact Assessment, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 2, No.3, 227-264. TCRCL (1987) Guidance on the Assessment and Redevelopment of Contaminated Land Interdeparimental Commitee on the Redevelopment of Contaminated Land (ICRCL) ‘Guidance Note 59/83, Sesond Eltion, July 1987 Ikerd, 1, (1997) Towards an Economics of Sustainability, article downloaded from the University of Missouri Internet site (htp/lww.ssu.missour edufaculty/ikerd/paperslecon sus hum), May 1997. Janssen, R._ (1992) Multiobjective Decision Support for Environmental Management, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht. R&D Technical Report P316 19Kadvany, J. (1995) From Comparative Risk to Decision Analysis: Renking Solutions 10 ‘Multiple-Valve Environmental Problems, aticle downloaded from the FPLC Interet site (bsp ww fplecedusk/vol6ifllfkadvany ht), Keyes, A.M. and Palmer, R.N. (1993) Development Of a Decision Support System for Priontsation of Multimedia Dischargers, Environmental Management, 17, No 5, 601-612. Land Use Planning (nd) Final Report on Resource Management Planning in West Kitikmeot, Appendix 1: Developing a Clean-Up Priority List, anicle downloaded from the NPC Invemet site (hap/inpe nunavutcafeng/u_plans/westkivappl-him), Lowry, AJ. and Gavin, SL. (nd) Construction and Contaminated Land, article downloaded from” the Royal’ Institute of Chartered Surveyors Internet site Cupufwww hwaacuklbdgWWWieobral. Lizied, C., Palmer, S., Chariton, M. and Finay, L. (1996) Valuation Methodology and Environmental Legislation: A. Study of the UK Commercial Property Industry, RICS esearch Paper Series, 2, No.3, March 1996, “Manitoba Environment (1998) Guideline for Environmental Site Investigations in Manitoba, “Manitoba Environment Guideline 98.01 Markandya, A., Pearce, DLW. and Tomer, R.K. (1989) The Use of Benefits Estimates in Environmental Decision Making, Case Study onthe United Kingdom, paper presented 0 the Group of Economic Experts Environment Committee, OECD, ENV/ECOVS9-21, 19 September 1989, Martin, L, Privet,K. and Bardos,P. (1997) The Use of Cost Benefit Analysis in Selecting ‘Remedial Options for Contaminated Land: A Scoping Study of Curent UK Research and Practice, draft final repor forthe Environment Agency, Contract Reference 7502, Topic No. SA(96)2, Environment Agency Report Number P106, May 1997 Minisere de la Communaut® Flamande (1998) Pollution du Sol Générée apres V'enaée en Vigeur du Présent Décret, Chapitre Il, article downloaded from the Geolab Interet site (tuip:v wv geo -belfactvite/page3c htm). Moore, J.L, (1995) Cost-Benefit Analysis Isues in its Use and Regulation, Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service, Environment and Natural Resources Policy Decision, 28 June 1995 “Munda, G., Nijkamp, P. and Rievald, . (1994) Mulicrteia Evaluation in Environmental Management: How and Why?, In Paruccini M (ed.) Applying Multiple Criteria Aid for Decision to Environmental Management, pp 1-22, Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht ‘Munda, G., Nijkamp, P- and Rietald,P.(1995) Monetary and Non-Monetary Evaluation “Methods in Sustainable Development Planning, Economie Appliquée, XLVIII, No. 2, 143- 160. RSD Technical Report P3I6 120NATOICCMS (1998) Evaluation of Demonstrated and Emerging Technologies for the ‘Treatment of Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I), Annual Report, NATOICCMS Pilot Study, No. 228, Vienna, Austria, 23-27 February 1998, Maryland: Environmental Management Support Ine. [NEPC (1998) Towards a National Environment Protection Measure forthe Assessment of Contaminated Sites, Discussion Paper, developed by a Project Team of government officials, downloaded from the NEPC Internet site (hp:/www.nepe.gov-aufeontanves.disepap.htm)), ‘Adelaide: NEPC. [NOBIS (1998) The REC Decision Support Sytem for Comparing Soil Remediation Options, Phase 2: A Methodology Based on Risk Reduction, Environmental Merit and Costs, NOBIS 95-1-03, March 1998, Gouda: CURINOBIS, [NRA (1994) Contaminated Land and the Water Environment, report of the National Rivers Authority, Water Quality Series No. 15, March 1994, London, HMSO. NSW Treasury (1997) Guidelines for Economic Appraisal, stile downloaded from the NSW Treasury Intemet site (hepiiww.treasury.nsw. gov ulresearchitpp97_2). (Nyquist, LE. and Beard, LP (nd): Clean Enough for Industry? An Airbome Geophysical Case Study, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, anicle downloaded from the contaminatedLAND Inermet site —(htpyiwww.contaminatedLAND.co.uh/case-stu/geo- phys him), Office Wallon des Dé&chets (1998) Les Sites Contaminés, La Situation en Région Wallonne, anicle downloaded from the Wallon" Government Intemet site (cup:/imew.wvallonie beldgrelowdlossiers/depotithtm). ‘Oliean-Dumbrava, C. (1993) Multi-Criteria Analysis for Satisfying Client Needs, article ‘downloaded from hupu/www.hw.acuk/bdgWWWepobrafltean_a him, Paavo Ristola Tid (1997) The Use of Decision-Aid Methods in the Assessment of Risk Reduction Measures in the Control of Chemicals, Nordie Couneil of Ministers, TemaNord 19971622, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (1993) Contaminated Land, POST, London, October 1993, London: POST. osford Duvivier Envitonment (1990) Environmental Evaluation of Works in the Somerset District with Particular Reference to the Bric Scheme, Report for the National Rivers ‘Authority (Wessex Region), May 1990, Qureshi, ME., Greenfield, PI, Kingham, F.and Krol, A.A. (nd) Use of Multi-Criteria ‘Analysis in Decision Support for Ecologically Sustainable Development, Department of ‘Chemical Engineering, Unversity of Queensland Resourees for the Future (1996) Cost-Benefit Analysis and Regulatory Reform, report prepared by Kopp, R., Krupnick, A. and Toman, M. for the Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management, June 1996. RAD Technical Report P316 reyRosser, and Kind, P, (1978) A Scale of Valuations of States of nesses: Is There a Social ‘Consensus, International Journal of Epidemiology, 7, No. 4, 347-357. RPA (1998) Comprehensive Project Evaluation, Final Report prepared for the Roya Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Environment Agency, July 1998 Russell, LB. etal (1996) The Role of Cost-Effetiveness Analysis in Health and Medicine, JAMA, 276, No. M, 1172-1177, 9 October 1996, Siskos,., Lombard, J. and Oudiz, A. (1986) The Use of Multicrteria Outranking Methods in ‘the Comparison of Contol Options Against a Chemical Pollutant, Joural of the Operational Research Society, 37, No.4, 357.371 ‘Taylor, MG. and McLean, RAN. (1992) Overview of Clean-Up Methods for Contaminated Land, paper presented at the CIWEM conference on Redevelopment of ‘Contaminated Land, 2 October 1990, CIWEM, August 1992, LUNEP (1992) Appraisal Methodology for Sustainable Development Projets, Environmental Series, Paper No. 2, United Nations Environment Programme, paper presented at the ‘Workshop on Environmental Economic and Natural Resource Management in Developing CCounives, World Bank, Washington, 22-24 January 1992 UNEP (1994) Consultative Expert Group Meeting on Valuation of Environmental and [Natural Resources, Environmental Economics Series, Paper No. 1, Repor ofthe Meeting, Nairobi, 8-10 August 1994, US Department of Energy (1996) Documenting Cost and Performance for Environmental Remediation Projects, Office of Environmental Management, DOEEM-0302, article downloaded from the US Deparment of the Environment Internet Site (tps em doe govidetine/eostper html). US Deparment of Transportation (1994) An Appraisal of Candidate Project Evaluation Measures, Appendix, article downloaded from the US Department of Transportation Intemet site hipaa. dot gov/ltaibraryfpoliy/drafUCRA-APDX/HTM), FTA Policy Paper, September 1994, US EPA (1987) EPA’s Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis: 1981-1986, Washington DC: USEPA. US EPA (1995) A Framework for Measuring the Economic Benefits of Ground Water, Office of Water (4602), Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (2127), EPA 220-B-95-003, October 1995, Washington DC: USEPA. US EPA (1997) Technology Altematives for the Remediation of Soils Contaminated with As, C4, Cr, Hg, and Po, Washington DC: USEPA, US EPA (1997) Rules of Thumb for Superfund Remedy Selection, Washington DC: USEPA. Weinstcin, M.C. and Manning, WG. Jr. (1997) Theoretical Issues in Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Journal of Health Economics, 121, 121-128. R&D Technical Report P3I6 reyPART C: CASE STUDIES Cl. CASE STUDY 1 CLA Background Details This one hectare site was historically part of a former gasworks and was mainly used for storage of coke, pipes and valves. Although gas production never occured on this part ofthe site, a site investigation revealed thatthe ground level within ste had been raised with contaminated gasworks wastes. ‘The risk assessment showed that the only potentially significant impacts fom the contamination was to workers (permanent site users) before remediation. The types of ‘contaminants present could also have affected air quality although this was dependent upon a wide range of Factors and, hence, was associated with considerable uncertainty “The site was to be redeveloped for industrial use, Due to a combination of local ground conditions, ype of contaminants, operational constants (@g. proximity to gas holders), size tnd time constraints only one Feasible remedial option was identified. The commercial view ‘of the developer of the site in respect tothe acceptability of residual contamination was also an important consideration in selection ofthe remedial option, In this instance, the developer ‘was particularly concemed about the potential for blight and reduction in land value if ccontimination remained on the site, For this reason, retention of somelall of the ‘contamination and the use of barter o protect the development was rejected, ‘The objectives of the developer and the site specific conditions meant that only one option ‘was proposed. This was agreed with the regulators. The cost of remediation was estimated at £390,000, This includes the use of capital equipment, operating and maintenance costs, labour costs, the costs of offsite disposal and of new soil to replace that removed, monitoring ‘and stmpling before remediation, professional fees of consultancies, engine's, etc. and {Insurance costs, The cast i in prsent value terms since the time avaiahle was 3r0 4 months (Ge there was no significant additional cost alter this period which needs tobe discounted) R&D Technical Report P3I6 123C12 Screening Methodology “Tae 1s Chest of Data Avail Tor Case Say One Data Require ‘Availabe? [ Uncertainty [ Deals nado ae Proper nda ote a y Clenp Bane proaches Popol (eso Nasal Anooaton = Montorng suvelnce oo ‘ier pease) ‘Rema Option scanaon and of ste daposal: impor of leant ‘ rete = heer rections on aa TORS Trait [7 maa a aa TE on mtonesnan ‘Foson op goto Costs (ad wt i inch) v ‘costs and professional fees SEAT we Smear |v Tet be eee TiO seass so Te ope Do yout be essa desk oa De you ave the ren of i eves gon? Do youve the eu of be sk ssessmea? R&D Technical Report P3I6 4‘Table: Mars for Seong Ste Criteria or Cave Sady One ‘Cela Ranks Description [7 | _Decription |v | Deserption [v7 GureneaniRameSeete | _FxeD | ¥ | FXEDBUT "VARIABLE ‘Arras one |v | two TWOPLUS eda Options weal ne > Take Te CaneAL wayne |} —xor SIGNIFICANT? SIGNIFICANT. Tae Cons aaa sox |v | 20K Witte Objecvestemat | ves;vesput| 7 | MAYBE: ST ee BUT: NO Conan ‘Sit ate ie, and de to be redeveloped or inure “atone approach is propel (ource removal) rough scaetion ond poste (therfore, tere ‘ho ane remedial opton) Ths Boause of the smal ice of the se which makes aie owe other Time ay be sgnfcon sven tha nda deolpmant planned ‘Dhoom are ented t £390.00 The abjecver ore to reduce Bight and the potential for reluction of lad values, Removing the oamination wil achiev ts, and excovaion and pose efsie wil remove almost all of the With four ticks inthe lefthand column, the screening methodology indicates that this case study should follow the qualitative appraisal ony. RAD Technical Report P36 125C13 Qualitative Appraisal (C131 Completion of Table 3 “Table 3: Qualitative Appeals Cave Sly 7 ‘category Be ion __| During emeaiation | After remediation ‘non 7 7 Haman Hea nd Safe 2, Signi iso pbc? ca ¥ N T Sigiicnt somber: of Se wer | ye . geass? S x tO Sinitcan sonia of pable | ys ee? N N Environment 5 pst on quali of aoe wae we § 5 6 Taps ogy of sie w w 7. Impacts on gully of ounce? ® © Impacts on quit of groundwater N N Use of surface war o groundwater for indus, agiclue. or deming| NY " N 10. Chemical or peal Oper oF] T sie tobe cig? 1 acs els gig? ve wr © Pa od sam mB] Ne Fi fl 13. Desired weasel? we 5 © “Land Use 14 Ste nd walrus? ¥ 6 15, Sounding nd valve eed? we N x 16 Se nd ws etd? ¥ N XN 17. Sounding ad we eee? we N x Third Party o”Sakcolder Concert 1 Sign vel publican?” » N N 19 Lack of alent? x N W one om) umber ada eal Tasos for ach ar va daca Sere there no impact before roman flo! tha there nel) 1 Be any signin impact ster renetotion R&D Technical Report P3I6 126(1.3.2 Before Remediation Tose conor wih oom a 2 sie seeae no public ses. S| Workers ony visit te oss Aste sect no pli sess sf S| Nose water ny fs [asters 7. Ses nr agua =m pom e faster? 5 [No racer se TO Shaw ss costed yee wa | Possible minor dst aw in cern ester con 7 Site ran eso eolgially sense ses ney Ts [arf 1 | Does conan ee willbe aioe deepal Sst ad josie gh ees oo a= Tg [ Noel npact utd es copmation eid to wit se Duo To [Press of contain i onsite eevee TT Afr 16 Te | er ow pro aie etl invention das vale 1.3.3 During Remediation “Te wil aa sw enediion wore Garng te remain pase However tise would become in scodane with COSHI, CDM reguzenedts ac te reltively lage sale excwation and ote movement of cote sls, he 2 ssl be posse nat the publ Again tee wold becom S the ata ik sould fel 5&5 | onty lave smal mbes obo te were and the ple are elt be inled SB [As for 5 ave (Beto Remedi iL eal for dt and our cisions The nuance of id pace wil fe dependent on tel at sh as eater conan ence eV ser TEETE[ As for 12.13 sbove (Before Remeision wa] Di renedtoo, he se vale wold be ralaced unis sage Ua ie Wok ad Boo Secessillycompled, TS es mos ney ht urna values woud be ool daving renin. ‘using redo, the ste we wl cll be reviled. However, ts wil nat came 16.2617, | sgnitcam impact given te nate the Ste Thee are uel be estos on he se of TEED | Afr 18 19 ave (toe Rein R&D Technical Report P316 m7C1344 After Remediation ‘a copie of ie rrediation works re wil be mo Signicat DealTaker 9 [As for 5.9 above Heer Resin To, [New sil ported to ste cher ai peal operas ay ve Caged Bat wi Be Siuble fore ended we 7 ‘On cpltin of enedaion ee wi Be ma ir gai a T2ETE[ Avfor 17 13 above (Bore Remediation 7, | OR-ompletion of reed, here shoul bo edoan aan aus or eos oo and he forse the ste osuroundng a. ifn puble rest expe lowing complain a enediaan wor Talsalsaion datas wil be aval ‘The seeening methodology indicated that qualitative appraisal would be sufficient for case study one, The next step is, therefore, to undertake a sensitivity analysis following Section B52 from Step V CLA Sensi Analysis, {As there is only one option given for case study on, it isnot possible to perform a sensitivity ‘analysis following Step V, since this concentrates on potential changes inthe preferred ‘option CLS Selection of the Preferred Option ‘There were no significant impacts associated with this option and remediation could, therefore, proceed without the need for consideration of additional, alternative options Remediation involved excavation of the top 1 m (the full depth of the contaminated made ground), screening to remove the ‘clean’ rubble fraction and disposal of the residual to icensed landfill,” Clean engineering fill was then imported to achieve the required development ground levels. R&D Technical Report P3I6 128C2. CASE STUDY 2 C21 Background Details ‘An accidental spill from a petol station occured during routine maintenance work on an underground pipeline. Thiny thousand ites of petrol were released during the incident, most of which was recovered shorly afterwards, The petrol spread onto adjoining domestic residences over an area approximately 40 metres by 20 meres around the point of release, Most of the petrol migrated into garden areas immediately adjacent to the spill. The contaminated Soil was prompdly femoved from within the garden areas of the residential Droperties and disposed at licensed landfills. ‘A few days later the occupants of houses further down gradient from the spill area ‘complained of hydrocarbon odours within their properties. It was subsequently determined hat the petrol had migrated preferentially along buried services which ran beneath a row of 20houses. The site was located in a non-aquifer area and there were no local surface waters. ‘Consequently, the significant rks were all associated with potential harm to human health, Prior to the incident, each house had an estimated sale value of £120,000. Due to the ‘hydrocarbon odour found in some ofthe houses, and o allow remedial work to be undertaken "within the properties, the occupants had tobe relocated for a period of several months. Several remedial options were identified in order to achieve the agreed remediation erteria: + where accessible in garden areas contaminated soil was excavated and disposed 10 licensed landfills; +a cutoff wench was installed between the housing and the location of the spil to promote aerobic bio-degradaion and limit futher migration; 4+ dual phase soil vapour and water extraction systems were operated both within and extemal tothe houses acid cation teament of he ison fom the sl vapour extraction stom wa appli ‘These options together made up Option I (fll remediation). The present value costs of the remediation works associated with Option | are £1.36 million, with costs being incured over ‘more than one yea. An adkltional option s also considered here to assess whether the ‘bes remedial option was chosen. Option 2s to change land use and includes purchase ofall houses situated on areas of land contamination: relocation of residents; ‘demolition of houses to ensue tha partial mediation can be undertaken; redevelopment of the land following the completion of remediation with the land use probably being retcted asa result of paral remediation. R&D Technical Report P36 29Paria remeaition in this option includes the removal ofall of the contaminated soil and replacing it with clean material. This would be done after the houses are demolished. There ‘would stl be some residual contamination at deeper levels below ground which would not be rated but instead would be allowed to degrade naturally. The subsequent land restriction could include restriction on futher development of the site for a cenain number of years andlor the type of buildings which can be built on the sit ‘The present value costs of Option 2 (partial remediation) are £3.26 million, with costs ‘occuring over a numberof years ‘The costs associated with both Options 1 and 2 are given in present value terms because the process of remediation took place over a period exceeding one year. This means that costs incurted in subsequent years are discounted back to the first year (as described in Section 18235), The present value costs for both options include all of the capital, operating maintenance, teatment, anspor, disposal, labour and monitoring costs and professional fees RAD Technical Report P3I6 130C22 Screening Methodology “Table 1 Cheshii of Data Avallabl for Cae Std Two ‘Data Requred ‘Availabe? [ Uncertainty Dent Propose endef se Baad oF vate leap source romoel Approaches Proposed (es ¢ asta} Morton reins oly ‘ier pest wate) ‘Rene! Opn Fr Combination of Remedial Tecinloles ‘excavation and diosa of ste ‘trench to prevent fre migration: ‘url Bioremediation {oi sapour ond water carat proposed (Gee where aaisbie of ‘pe Remedial Option 2 (Change lan se and partial remaition demol howss, come and ee and Remedial Opin Remedial Opmae Remedial Opiae Tine wale ena) racer (Costa wha his inl) ELS and 5 les al capi, ‘porting and maintenance cots reaement ‘om rapt eons posal cst about ‘monitoring and prjessonl es and are Siacounted Sis of ie are onan 2 some. pce) 20h agai gb ie Remedial Opin Does he emeiaopion met erckjectnet (er emadal Opion rybevencens) ened! Option. Renedal Oion Renedal pion ier Do youre he sul of ie esky Do you hive he re of hee Do you hive he resus of he isk seen? R&D Technical Report P3I6 131“Table Mati for Scoring Ste Cetera for Cave Sy Two ee = Teas [7 [pete [| tenon [7 Con Fe Sic ie FRED RED BUT wana [ 7 Aare oa Two Tworus | 7 See Tne cxmcat | + | seven |__| siomeaxr I ioe SESE SER LZ Witbeobeetnestemer | ves: vES BUT Niwas, |v | MAXDE.NO td : Coma Se ae is xed with Option 1, bt could vary f Option 2 is wed (houses coud be demolished sa the ‘emt land ae fo frher development (a et unkown therefore sored as VARIABLE: Four epprowhes sve pope Gluing soucererovl puhway mdcao and reeepor modieaion) ‘iin the fo sponser though tee approssher are sedi oly 0 options te TWO PLUS box ‘oad ob he nt appropete: Ther re tuo remedloptons, see psa 5 at his pin) strongly prefered oer the other, Tiss ‘ora inte 2 bo este approaches scored he gh olan Times ical Decne imperative that enoditon i underaken and completed as soon as possible due tothe aman Rest rik od he stesso eins who have ado move ou of ei homes (ont the opis a £136 and £5.26 malo, rere sored a5 500K Cpton 1 should mest he rome ojeter, tthe some saceray so ths scored as YES BUTIMAYBE: Opin 2 doe rot the remedial ojeciner a hy curery stand but wil que 8 mack “The majority of ticks are located in the right-hand column, thus indicating that a Step It andlor Step IV approach should be requied for this site. Given the potential for conflict ‘when comparing the views of the assessor with those of the affected resides, this 18 @ sensible conclusion. RAD Technical Report P3I6 132C23. Qualitative Appraisal €23.1 Completion of Table 3 “Table 3 Qualaive Apprakal Case Sindy? a eto gory Bet sion | During remedlation | After remediation Remedial Option: | 1 2 7 2 aman Hea nd Safety Significant sks ate wn © ¥ ¥ Significant isk pu? ¥ ¥ wD NN 5 Signean’ putes of sie ere 5 nN N + Sign name oF RT y Y N nN x 5 tnpacs on guy oferace wer? [Ne © N pac itty fae I nN nN 7. mpc on quali ot goondvanr™ [Ne © N mgt on qui of gowewuer? [Ne N N 9: Use of rice water or groundwater fer indy, apical, oink “ x x 10. Chania ar ia proper y soi ely 1 be changed” Ingato csi quay? ¥ yy | os | nga? a a Bi 15. Desig ses pact © © oy and Use i. Sie nd vo rose? ¥ é ny vf 15, Surounding and vale edie Ne N Np | ¥ 16. Sie a se resist? ¥ ¥ N x ¥ 17, Sorounding and we ee? Ta 6 N ‘Thr Party or Sukeholer Concer 1, igi leve of pubic meet? [__Y ¥ ¥ ¥ > 19, Lak of arable inforaton? we N N out Fim | 26m wher ars no ptf Tomson, lions tre rail Be any iin pact er ronediaton RAD Technical Repon P316 13(2.32 Before Remediation Tors entiation, eee a on i i us tothe presence of el Boneh resident proper, hr fe gaze Sse pS Inds inane the public i sumed to clade eet fe connate proper. Asoc “Th occupa oT 30 deal OPTS ae PISA ap WHI ake awa nber "Tre ro wi wa oun SOE eV Te ewe aT a of ese questions Da th fal pillage Smaps] proprio of ie so i ve angel ‘Due the hily vols mate of be contamina, te i clea otal for emission “he ste wan and ee ne oo SBT OS, Before emdaton he vals of he feted proper wi undoabicly be SOS “Thea on lanl alae ely 0 elms tte Known proper. However. be NT newer hen ives thre ie one otal for Bight io reds adjacent groper as ‘rr wo renedton, some of he owes are inabaabe aso here cle a se “Tat ae wlicly 1 be sigs eins he aoa and wa, bat ws nor Ieatiton cul ci dao Bg ‘As re ave clade he osipt of th Ted proprio wine detaiion oT PaRIE ere ley publi imee A dtd ings hae hoor aniesin a rea a sae oon (€233 Option 1 - During Remediation Temata fie ae asthe psoial ocxps Hi wera conan nse eV" Aero this oes. However, nrc enone sold be cond in cordance With (COSt and CDM regents Siilisrly ding remediation, thre old aa bs aa tobe plc ome waconvolSd a> contaminants Aga sch ees should be convald s mnimsng he aks, ‘The rensson works involved only a small amber of ste srs his quston ar WRT "The eccpans of 20 Pose wre Some bea igi mer he pos wa Sold Twa ‘A a Ti ata proces vale veg ae Sania ama 4 ‘resent ts there was some sky ae low quay pact Hence Y ase nas vent is question. TEES] Asoc 2 & 1 above (tore Rene ie ‘We hive sured hth it nd valoe wold remain tse onl We ein Fa bse comple arg he edo pase iv wa expe oe any narration oa 1s. | srnsing and val However, he could bese igh due othe omy 08 ‘inminteds, Hese he 7 ans Ta Daring reno. he st and se would wy Fees 1 Duty reedaton. we would no expec uroundig nd uss Beesui ‘Awe have nloed the esis wt te detnton opal hee wl lei fe Signin neret rng the resin se Afr 19 shove (Before Remediation R&D Technical Report P316 Be234 Option 1- After Remediation long fal remtanon thee Had fe no Sk Sha ews Oe PIE DTT resident th anoner all of ase gusts SoA or 5:9 above (fore Remedi To [Forte rent be suse ma ave canal anges Grove) OT Tr ‘lt he al ements on a gu TIE TS Astor 2 & 15 stove Before Remediation. “This question as Bes arse Y? a wis he es Doon Tonened cosy ae sul he poten for sul gh Stato reduce and values ‘We doo expect th valu of varouoding properties oe edocs However, ere ome 1s. calc eps light of Pein ex tnclow tos rma contaminate ste. Hence @ I apse hasbeen gen. FJ We mol nt expec treo be ay Aeon ne nd we ace and we ob 16.817. | competion af stesso remediation Te) Ati pbic inst esd we would expe coun aero i eon was somplte To —[ fusion eso C235 Option 2 - Partial Remediation and Relocation - During Remediation “The answer qoeions Taree se a al eediaon option wih i eon tt, | oration. Ths opto snes tal fhe caput have bea located thee shoulé bein ignicankeo prope ter tn eigen og eis, esses. te) EB [Aster above (Before Remedi To [Wa sony prt rari popoel emisibs Tair ae come Be wave ly Ta fe tulle option Hens aN answer as ben gn, EI | Astor 12 1 above (Sloe Remain) 1-1, [Anse for ful resin opin uring TE emo 236 Option 2- Partial Remediation and Relocation - After Remediation “se warm palit tak before ements imo gic ak af enetiaon 3 ‘As sie conasaaton wl em here rs pote fare ik to te pubc. However, Bs itelyto below bene the Nae | Asses fr al endian pion ate pose exons oe wa ane BTC 384 | ltl to noe iin number a eter ce To [Asfor 5 aove (los Renesiin) TO TL[ Avon pata emedution vole wih option 7 answer ave Dom en 2-15 Astor 2 15 sbve (lor Remediation ra ‘sony prt renedation vod Yar as Ben eR ‘as tothe protule lowskof oe Dig o diacent propria a VPanne as Bese sony patrons ooo Yaar fas Ben en Reacts on adjacent due cased ob ver nich "AN anower as ee vena tion voles manent lesan of seer 0 Te long em iret xpd. [is for fl edison open (Ae Reman, ‘The screening methodology indicated that a Step Il and/or Step IV approach would be required, therefore it is necessary to complete Table 4. R&D Technical Report P316 135C23: Completion of Table 4 “Table 4 Appratsal Routing Step I and Step 1V Valet vaca | Papas Weed rom xcommendea_| Seong ualative appeal safety c ‘ ¢ Enviroaneat . 7 Environment Z ser qui a (irene ae sat) TEmvironmere 7 sai ocho nan we) sara : gz a aba esl f lad as Z a 7 v Third par oF 7 7 Coaenenamivas | — Con aene ep) analysis Sep aanioar ae walnNe ba we tot ySSRe W Toad contamina vhalon & Wea a ‘The majority of impacts identified in the qualitative appraisal will, from Table 4, be ‘quantified using the scoring methodology. Only land use values falls into the ‘valuation fecommended’ column. ‘The Step IV approach will be used for land values, as there is sufficient data available to enable an estimate 10 be made as to the recovery of house values following remediation. Overall, therefore, Case Study To will follow a combination of the relevant pars of both Steps Il and TV. (C24 Combined Step LL/LY Appraisal (2.4.1 Human health and safety Tae 5) Homan Health and Safety Sore Terai @ cetera aos Daring | After | Darig [ Aner Tso me wa TR Rematinion 100 | 100 | 20 | 10 Paral Remediation “30 [_+20 | 0 | Taw paaie Tl Remediation 300x209 [20 [10 Paral Remediation 10 [ 100 | 10 [5 TOTAL T “300 | +20 [ 0 | 20 2 =o 10 [90 [35 R&D Technical Report P316 136‘Option 1— reasoning behind seores ‘Saategoe Dang er Tasers Risso st aso “This opin a ily favelve the igs i ik ters SSeacore of 10D hae teen sven ‘On complain afte remediation ek ‘rs wl ech lower than forte prt remediation option sa ‘Soro 100 as ber "The lal uncertain ore (ring) neste evel of Confdence ta fll Fenelon woul be hievable A lower cert sere has been ‘tere shouldbe ahisher level ofcofiene at igi! ewe expat nl wot cou This pon ww Invane the ibe onal ik tbe bison score of 100 ‘abe aoe opto inves the relostion of ‘Mote resins, tis ‘pun s considered © ‘epee Ge higher ak Tete public soa score of “aD teen gen However toh options fe conidered 0 epee Tow i tbe ple sr camplion Grenier evel of raoaaly fave bon acid oth pn frothing td Sher areaente al ‘tain on he ste raher than tereocted a ropese or the then pon RAD Technical Report P316 at‘Option 2 reasoning behind seores Saeco [Dame “ae acer Rats io ste en] Arlee conmmiaaion | As move comma] Completion of paral eingremoved oe tested | wilremain onthe ste, | remediation scheme x ‘han ote fl theptentl iat ose | omidered have es remediation option he | lets after competion | unerainy associated witht aktosite wars during | the remediation than he al scheme nce theromeditionstapess | concerto be pester | lower uceainy sore has (Suaered wo beh hat) than for fl ten piven forthe "ring ttbefullemedaton | remediation shame, | singe Ax igncant rel ‘shone nce tescoreot20, | contnninton expected higher uncertain scores a piven fr ater Raksiopanie [Artisan aumes —] Onsonplevon oft] Th evel of wert athe reside il al opton tere willbe no | daring couse of be Teveloetad porto the public access tothe ste | remediation work was Fmeation wrsthe | tothe rik low ‘omidered Be reer an fktothe pbleis | compared tothe fat | completion ofthe wake onsiered ote mich | remediation opin, and | This asm dt tb Jsutl0s) than forthe | temaximam core of | pte for anerpected fullremetiaton option. | TOD given ‘rons oncire the alee ‘tairemisson etmek C242 Environment “Tae 6 Environment PACT Crea Sars wa ay Sars wa gy Grane aa i Tall Remadinion Tabata SRT T z TOTALS T z R&D Technical Report P3I6 138Option 1 ~ reasoning behind seores Sbsigary [Daring “ae acer x ‘Asa peer amouof —[ On coupon fie —_[inpacc, Gem te ect Cntsinted materials | readin, ths opson is | emision contol ehnaogy Cetberemoved mis | eyo havea bevel | ring te rendition work ‘pvonitiscomdered to |lorgieem mpacton air | te ata emission tr of| vee gente potent | quits the maximum | this option ay be mo gree Inpectand sofas esa | posible score of +100" | thn forthe partial rentieloestecre | Bs been gen, ‘eneiaton option. Hence, baisbe igh ocr score as tegen ‘Option 2~ reasoning behind scores Sahcatsgoq [Daring ‘er Tacos Ar Re ieeconanimatonis | On conplevon tiie] The user aoe ‘Deetemovedor tenet | remediation works | Wi ‘Conn sage nahi oon te Fenda comamiston | conieed tobe alo at etl fora emisos | willenain wih be | forte ful remsdaconapon Eringthecouseo te | pte forcominued | as substan ss fenediatoe were | emsons aie Hence, | cmminatons tte ‘Smilered tte less thn | slower scores ben” | fmoved. For he ‘afer feetetullremediation | given than for de fl” | Saget uncertain i quem, Comesueety.a | femediaton opdan | comidered oe gretr doe Nprscoe hs been foie een of ered! C23 Third party or stakeholder concern ‘Table Ted Party or Stakeholder Concer IMPACT Sore Dacerainy cera on oo ‘During [After | Daring [ ater “Paral emo io | 0 | 0 | 20 Th pry wake Temata wo bo 3 hele ull ened o [| © Para renainion jo 0 [20 [20 Tors Tull enediion 30 | 200 [20 [10 2 Pata cemenion “200 [+0 [0 [0 R&D Technical Report P316 9‘Option 1~ reasoning behind scores ‘ovement however sll ‘se certain moun of Sisrpion: Option tis premascre of 10 ‘considered I) wte Iiphand mach peter tha othe pact Fenetion scheme Hence, the ihe core of 100s be ud ‘Sibzatagonr | Dun ‘ie Taser ‘Thi pry or] The roan wars] The regen wil form | A lw ancora actr war sister” | feevedtote competent | eden whee ‘Send forthe ate" sage Confdence | wrepusors matmaining | return ter owes, | dot th high profi of be {high pole Hence + | Confisece inthe ‘epee and god feoreof 20's given | replat good Reve, | information supply to the sore of #100 resident shy biher rca ator was ‘send forthe ring {key wo te tact should any pce te Thapar or | Rendeas aa facade | Sakeiaer asspaiiiy A low ensayo war ssoteier” [rove pormanemly from | of he completes Serb forthe "se sage esepalty | feirhomes. Temporary | remediation projects so | assuming sucess fc the roe A ply hier ence {acer wa ascribed forte “aaig sage pening he scent cutone of he Option 2~ reasoning behind scores ‘otecomiderbh lowest emanen fom onsieably lower to esi ‘Sabsategony | Daring ‘er Tacerain “Tid prty or] Th save 100 was Aeore of 920 was given | rer the range of exer siskender” | gienaesatchoer” | aatateotlerconfisnce| feos wich can uence Catierce | Eooiencecanresonbly | (sukcholdes wenow | sakeholder coence.» resp be resident ving nneaty_ | highoncersinty ctr has Sonar oweeaeihe | sees) stow ay may boo ered Teter cane expect ote setae Tienoses be remesitorr have done Temes comidenc im Sle to prevent Uhevemedatsis tow). | conamiation aching Regus a havea’ | throws, Lower Toner piven the | profil of eal dving revedremedialebjsines | femedaton may also huang infers | reduce conden ener mst Thapar or] Ascusof-100 was given | Thescowots10 war | Genie nage of earn sttetoaer” | sralaialderconidenee | given assakcblder | tacts whieh ean inenee cegabliy | Canremonaty eee | Eonfdenoecanresoably | stakeholder confine, igh uncer otras teen srted R&D Technical Report P316(C244 Valuation of land use benefits "Fae Valo of pacts pact Vatwe®) | Oneott | Annu [12ST impact Marke aed ets and Vales Changs inst wes 0.00 z Yard ‘Gangs in vale of oe eee Water Sep Sree Desking water quay Toda water uty Lows of spp Tel water aig Ince wesment cot ‘Non Market Based Environmental and Maman Health Bet Water Supply Sources “Apical spp I I I Commercial Fisheries ‘Alertve apy sure Opecng ons Reso Loss ofthe fie ‘Human Heo and Enviroment neal and Fy Stewer Tanai and a Publ ‘Angin Infra recreation Enramen Enron None eoseraton) Cone Prove incien houses valued at £12000; then reveled allow compersation 10 be eae ~ re {lac £900 (a ln of £24000 or 29% per house which or 20 houses esta oso £482,000) Ths isan estimated valu ating ste specie formaion and exceeds hare ude values tenn Step TV. Chang nwa fading rages is rumed tbe sigan R&D Technical Report P316 ua(C245 Compare and rank options “The first step isto apply weights to the sub-categories, taking each category in tum, “Tae 9 Appling Wah oSub- Categorie ae ‘Criteria ‘Option ‘Score Weign | Reet Perea SS eames a a ss a —— aera a ee a a a ae ae ae es ae io er fs as a os er ‘Site Use ‘2 Partial Remediation 5 ee = a — wees poe! ae a 2 eas = R&D Technical Report P3I6 142“Table Appling Weighs o Sub-Categories eid IMPACT wee ontee| sore [wou [RE “fr matton Tieman alt and ste? [1 Ranedinoa “00 [so ‘Ste wers eau Saati 320 | 20 Tate Fal Remedi “a0 | +10 2 Partial Remediation es +100 $50, TOTAL | Fall Remediation 10 Pra Resin “0 ia Fall Renedaion Suh e quly eral aay Fall Renedaion 2a Remo eae ay Fall Rendon aaa gy Fall Remediation 2a Remon ar T Full Rendon " 00 [0 2 ai Remain vas | as Tar aa ay Pall Remediation 2 ai Remon Tora Fall Remon 7 2a Remeioe 35 Tone Ful Remedaion Sarasa Ue Ful Remedi TORT Tl Renata Tin party orakaler [Ful Renin ioe ito Gedy 2 Paral Remediation to o_| 120 recy TF Reman “a0 | 00 2 Partial Remediation to +10 40) Tora Tl Renato 200 Pr Renee 0 FForluman heath and sf, impacts onsite aters are axe to be trice ax significant a hoe 1 he ‘There ar no ubcoegriet with gna inpacts ker an ar for enrnment therefore air weighted {1 .0(is he ame ant weighting the suber ith emir) The ab ctegrice forthe par o leolder concen ar of equal Importance, therefore they are otk R&D Technical Report P31 3‘The next step isto consider the relative significance of the impacts occuring duting and after remediation, Here, impacts occurring after remediation are considered the most significant and are weighted 1.0. Impacts occuring during remediation are considered to be 80% as significant and so are given a weight of 0.8 (1.0 x 80%). Table 10 Appling Weights to Impacts Occurring During and Aer Remediation ‘option t_[Option2 [Onion [Options ‘DURING REWEDINTION: Honan Meath S65 Seo pled om Sep a I Weipa eve) as Revi cre mL AFTER REMEDIATION Haman Realh& Say Sa ppd om Sep [70 Weg eve) a Revd cre a0 [ 7 Sr ppd ro Sep) =e [ Weg evi) i Revd se 0 @. AFTER REMEDIATION. Baio Ss appl om Sp 00 [as] I Wei et) 9 Tereed oe 0 DURING REMEDIATION tnd Ue Sr apd om Sp I I I Wag evs) Reve se Score r Sept I I I Wei erie) Revie or ‘DURING REMEDIATION Third Party or Sakchader Concern Seas ed om Sep a Wah eve os "AFTER REMEDIATION: Third Party or Salcholer Concer Sse applied om Step) 2030 Weight eve) Common Impacts ccurting daring remediation have ben Weighted as 0.8 for human heath and sf environment tnd hind payor saeholder concern. ndicaing hey re only aspera as the ae remediation Inga for he categorie. R&D Technical Report P3I6 at“The final step is to apply weights at the category level. The category weights have been calculated as follows: + human health and safety is considered tothe most important factor, therefore, itis given a weight of 10: + third pary or stakeholder concern is considered tobe between 35% and 40% as important asthe category of human health and safety and hence is weighted as 0.38; + environment is given a weighting of 0.04 (Iherefore, the category of environment is teonsidered to be only 106 as important as thitd party or stakeholder concern. Ta i pao eres orm Wa Sn Tape ‘Human Health | yyironment | Land use o a | oe mt a 0 Torte a = ae canst |e} a oa = oe or Soon aS oa EN NE Ee ed tr a htt Toa pe rman Sod Wa enon Serena ‘Human Health em wept | paiement | Lande? | =a = = ‘S eka a a oo = Na s 6 We [oo os — ose ep Wander a eee M45[Net costs need to be calculated to take account of the increase in house prices following remediation, Option 1 accrue all ofthese benefits, whilst Option 2 does not (es the house prices remain depressed given the residual contamination). ‘The revised net present value 0st for Option I are, therefore: + £1.36 million (tal costs) minus the benefits (£480,000, from Table 13) giving £880,000 (in present value terms). (Costs for Option 2 remain at £3.26 million (present value terms). “able 12 Compare and Rank Options Conteticvenes ‘Option ‘Toutseore | caste) | Coser | ank Trl Reni a 2 T 2 Pal Remediation 3 | £26 a5 2 3 ‘Thera sors have bee vied by £088 and £3.26, respective ‘Table 12 shows that Option 1 has the highest cost-ffectivenes, and is also the only option with overall positive impacts. Iti, therefor, the prefered option. The costs given in Table 10 are the discounted costs (calculated following the method given in Section B3.4). C25 Sensitivity Analysis Five types of sensitivity analysis have been undertaken for Case Study 2to test the influence ‘of various factors on the choice of preferred option, and to provide examples of how each type of analysis is performed + the scores have been changed to reflect uncertainty ‘weights have been applied (o Sub-categories to reflect the different importance of these impacts; + weights have been applied to impacts occurring during and after remediation; the category weights have been changed to reflect the viewpoints of others; + costs and probability of success have been changed, These analyses willbe used fo check whether Option 1 always remains the preferred option, ‘rif there are circumstances under which Option 2 would become preferred, RAD Technical Report P316 146€25.1 Changing the scores Table: Revised score for CEAIMCA iMPACT a San | oer a oot [Base [ater Dating [ater TOTAL SCORES PROT STEFTA Tar eines | Tales [ano an] Taal enesin [0 [os [| as aa TFllReneion ive soo [295 Paral Reneton | ~30 | 28 | 19 [ 0 aioe Tap SSIS ——[ Treatise | so [aan [ | concer 2 Partial Remediation 200 [30 0 0 Tana Tieton rsh en apd ding he ep apa “ie ab a ap pad rae ee TEVISED SCONES taming pecs aero Tameisibantstey [1 FilRemtoe ——[ a0_[ saan [a Paria Renetass [80 | si00_| 20] 8 ira Talents [100 [ stop] —20 [os Pata Renee [<0 [388 | 10] v0 Tata Tapa oraas —[ Ta Rate [ae | ae me 2 Partial Remediation 200 +70 “40 0 coma ici uc ar tase og ano 10s as, Fe rn cer eee are ge Bo Saat Sep herr aoa ast SCORES ai al pc rial a me = Ta Reption | 40 [ro | sn[ a8 a TRaiRenein [#0 [8 [ao [3 Pea Remetave [40 [is [10 | a0 Ta Tian waters [Tralee eC eT conser 2 Partial Remediation 160 10 0 +40 a ‘Theabove scores assume that uncertain mean the cores are les inpactng than was originally estimated ‘Theat sft on uncertain it rece the cert of opats(moving thm lose 022). ln has on salud ang Sup 1V an herve s a cue ere R&D Technical Report P3I6 “7For brevity the reapplied weights are not given here. The same weighs are used as in the Iain assessment to ensure consistency. The results (Table 12) are reproduced to illustrate how changing the scores affects the tolal score and the rank order ofthe remedial options. Assuming impacts are under-estimated Table Be Compare Option Toutscore | costa | Crmenectnenss | rank Tallrenedinion ae +32 7 2 Pani remediation 21 | 83260 08 2 3 ‘het woes have bee ded by £0 8m and £3.26, espectely Option! veins the prsfered pion, wth it coaeffetnenss nresing from +9 (original azezmen 0 Thc bois of Opn have Increased (rm in he original arse) 30a the overal Dns sre nly sna, Assuming impacts are over-estimated “Tae 2s Compare and Rank Options Revie Sores Over mated Coates Option ‘ouatscore | cone | Cobstictrenes Tank Tr Fall eediaion | tate “8 T 2: Pal emedia 16 | 63.260 s 2 Coen pron I remains the prefered opin, bt now Option hax more poste impacts (bent) than in the tinal essen fee i had 8) Option 2 has additonal negaive oncom “i he original ‘Ssesment, Proportional the ncrene nate befits for Opin ha the icreaze in pose for on ene of Opn ha reel +o hse ea R&D Technical Report P316 143C252 Applying revised weights to sub-categories Tae Api Revie Weighs Sab Caper PACT oy ‘Ontn Revie wnt [Sore | Daring eed ‘neal and fe [1 Fale i000 Site users. os 2: Pra ee a a T:Falremeion v9 [100 72: Partial remediation to 10 10 Tora T Fal edition 150 Pal ene 25 rironmae 1 Fl edition ae we T Fal enediaon 2: Pal ein tans gy TF endow 2: Paral endion a TF edn “i090 2: Partial remediation fo 50 0, Ta ay Fall edit ral dion TORT 1a emion 100 2: Pil ein = Tani tee Fal ein Sis Une 2: Partial remediation Sanoutig Tad ie Pal ein 2: Fal ein Ton Tilman “Td pay or waco [Palme a eT a 2: Paria remediation os oo | 0 sea T Palen 0 | 10 2: Partial remediation fo 100, 100, TORT T Fl endian 20 2: Pal eed 150 R&D Technical Report P316 M9Table he Reve Weights Sub-Categories nee = Onin [ewiavase| sow [Et iareeters a za ‘Site users 2: Partial remediation os +20 +10 ae ie To aa a aos imran ——} Fate ae or 7 faa oe 2: Partial remediation we 25 425 eae cae = Te — ‘Site Use 2: Partial remediation ao Se ae are os Sopa 2: Partial remediation 1 +10 +10 a ra ‘The elht have hoon tered so haste ser ar now considered lf as important asthe publ: hid or aakholder confidence ils now cndred alas importa’ asanepal RAD Technical Report P316 150“able 1: Compare and Rank Options Sub-Category Weights Coste Option ‘outscore | comes) | meee [wank TR enediaon | aia hd z 2: Pana remediation wa | S260 367 Cone ‘pion becomes the preferred option when the subcategory might ae reve. The most significant ‘hang ithe eight applied o publ heat and sf. which penales Option T considerably. Hence, ie hull an sf wre thc only ding factor behind emai. Option 3 would be prefered. ‘Changing the sub-category weights so tat health effects on the public are considered twice as Important as health effects on site users (inthe orginal assessment, risks t0 ste users were considered twice a important as risks tothe public) and making third party or stakeholder fvceplabilty twice as important as confidence (originally, they were considered of equal ‘mportance) means that Option 2 becomes the preferred option, “This happens because Option I has more ten times the negative impacts of Option 2 on public health and safety. Inthe original assessment, this was negated to some extent by the weights Which gave ste user health and safety greater priority. For site users, Option I has only twice the negative impacts, Hence in the original assessment, Option {hada weighted score of 20 for human health and safety, with Option 2 having a weighted score of +17. In the revised assessment, these scores become -25 Tor Option I and +41 for Option 2 ‘The original assessment also had significant postive impacts for Option | for third party and stakeholder concern (weighted score of +28). Option 2 had significant negative impacts (weighted score of -25). Using the revised sub-category Weighs, the weighted scores become +26 or Option | and -19 for Option 2. Combining the weighted scores (environment has a weighting of 0.04 so does not significantly influence the resul), the total scores become +1 for Option | and +22 for Option 2, Taking costs into consideration makes the costefectiveness of the two Options closer, but (Option 2is still prefered, is necessary to note the outcome of these changes since this is the frst time that Option 2 ‘becomes the prefered option. RSD Technical Report P316 151C253 Applying weights to impacts occurring during and after remediation “Tavie 25 Appling Welds o Tact Occuring Daring and Aer Remediation ‘Onion [Option | Opdon3 [Onion 4 ‘DURING REMEDINTION Pavan Hel fy ‘Sse ped rom Sep am] 3s We evs) Revie oe i=] TAPTER REMEDIATION Hanan Wes Sfer Sr apd om Se s_70 Wei eve Reve oe me _ DURING REMEDIATION. Envonment Sere pe rom Sp Ul i I ‘Wei erie) io Revs oe io] 50 | CARTER REMEDIATION. Enviroment Sere apple rom Sep HD vo] Weigh ev) as Revised core oe ‘DURING REMEDIATION: Cand tie Sere ape om Se Wei eve | “AFTER REMEDIATION” Land Ue — Sex pp rom Sep I Wah eve) J I a I t—r ‘DURING REMEDIATION Td Party Saker Concern Score ape rom Se 20200 Wel evi Revd ae = a0 "AFTER REMEDIATION. Third Porto Saher Conse Sore apie (ro Step ID 00 [330] I Weigh eve) | 08 Revised coe we] Conners ‘Te netsh have been changed so hat the pacts ecaring daring romeaton are now considered 0 be the most importants inpacs occuring afer remedaton are consered to be SO as important a the Impact occuring dating ronson R&D Technical Report P316 182"Tae 12 Compore nd Rank Options ~ Weights for inate Occurring Daring and Afr Remediation Cotten Option Tottscre | con icy | Cometecteenes Tank TrRalrenetiaion 21 | aie 24 z 2 Parl remediation 9 | 83260 389 n 3 Conan Fever the wight ppd 0 the during and after remediation phases meas that Option 2's the prefered ‘tion. The diferenceberweon he vo options hs increased, wih Opin 2 now the oy option with overall, As for changes to the sub-category weights, Option 2 becomes the prefered option. Again, it is the change in the human health and safety scores that dive this change and if this was ‘considered tobe the only eategory of importance, Option 2 may become the prefered option. ‘Changing these weights so that impacts oocurring during remediation become more important ‘means thatthe prefered option becomes the one with the least negative impacts and not the ‘one with the most postive impacts (benefits) (C254 Applying Different Weights to Categories “Two additional ‘viewpoints’ wil be used: ‘+ a local resident, who is only concemmed about their health and the type of remediation being undertaken; 4+ anearby resident who is concerned about the sit “The first viewpoint will require high weighting for human health and safety, land valves and third party or stakeholder concern. The second will use a high weighting fr third party and sakeholderconcem R&D Technical Report P316 133“Tahie34 Opion Peformance Sores and Weighs - Viewpoint One rounded significant ares ‘pon ha by for the grate benef associated with i ‘hind party or ahcholder nolennt and mabe and safety are rane as 1.0 (the most signa) ‘The weigh for enranmen har ben kp the same a i the a inal opprasa ond te hasbeen led ating Sop and heer leno eluded here sna Meg | atom | ante | sar =e oe a = mee sto a =a fs eae ee = Ears [at ce Serene a ae H rounded ro gfe fares Table 20 Option Perormance Sores and Weighs Viepoln Two “Tira Par Haman Health oe tnd Safety "| Pavlenment Stakeolder ‘Coos ‘OPniONT ‘Nalin Tapas Sores Tome F ; 7 SS 20 3 88 Revied wee os oa 1 Revises SCORE 0 21 8 Revised TOTAL He ‘OPTION? RoR SSTRS |v 7 > Revd weigh a 08 10 Revised SCORE 6 02 5 Revised TOTAL 2, Comment ‘hind party or uathodernoiement is raked as 1.0 (he mast signa, with human heath and safety ranked 1 hence the are onder o behalf as sgnfcat ‘ewe for enronment has een ep the samc she original appraisal and te ha boo aed ing Sep Vand here int ede here RAD Technical Repost P3I6 154"Tac 12 Compare and Rank Opions~ Changes in Weights Between Categories — Viewpoint One Cosetfectivenes Option ‘Toatacore | Cost 6) etme Tank Tr falensdiioe a a7 7 Patil ened a #326 2 2 Comment ‘Theta scores hae been mail by £0.88n and £3.26 rexpecly ions prefered ass tc fecnnen closet eo bath soe te negate, nosy omalpy the wal sae bythe coos The ete options then the oe wh thighs oneffectven (ens zara). Soe Box T (Sep ce Par) foe father eplantion “Table 1 Compare and Rank Options ~ Changes a Wels Beineen Calories Viewpoint Two TTotalacare Costetfcivenes Option cone, | Coen [Rank Tr Fallrnediion a 8 T 2: Pata remedaion| 79] 66m 26 2 Conan ion 1s profered when ting the view ofa nearby resident it hava postive cone ‘Changing the category weights only (keeping the sub-category and during and after remediation weighs the same) means that Option 1 is clearly the prefered option since in both cases itis the only option with overall positive impact R&D Technical Report P3I6 IssC255 Costs and Probability of Achieving the Objectives “Table 25: Revised Costs and Probably of Achieving Objectives ‘count Rate oF Revie Cont Option cos se ortmertowna | seein Se 10% or upper ound 1 Fllrenalniontt 80 Tso nae 2: Paris ened 302m £3260 B60 3 ‘ratty afoucuss | Low tite Beste High imate 1: Fuleeneiaion” 026 077 ox 2: Pal enainion 09 10 10 3 4 Probabiiieo Peles Praia PagiCosy 1: Fllremedaion 03 oat om 2: Paria eneition 03 oat 031 Rak ask Rank nid) Rank ehh 1 L i i 2 2 2 z 3 7 Ti The ots have ben ler by assuming ferent lan hows ale hence or she upper bound Option 1 has hon sumed 0 onl ai 1 and forthe lower Bound has bem asume hat Option 2 gains 10% lan ae hs ifort 30% te for Opin I Step 1, and where Option 2 was asuned 0 orc no nt roegh rou ln an) rehash bon sed rte han changes fo the ‘doco factor rhe probably of sucess for Option is clelated wsing the formate given in Bax AB, where she robbs of Option 2s assumed be 09 forthe lower Bown and [0 forthe a and app ound. Ths “hows hw ance Option! ned ben order hl Option 2 Becomes the prefered opion. Is xsmad ieee Opin 1 has oneal probably of teat 185 (a comervtv extinate). Therefore sold the roby cedted above he bebo hy, hon Option 1 il be the preferred option. mal eases einen (hove P'S therfore, Opin 1 prefered. Nora thse figures have Be rounded toro Signatures, hence there maybe some mathematical R&D Technical Report P16 136C26 Selection of the Preferred Option ‘The sensitivity analysis has esulted in Option 2 becoming the prefered option when sub category (Table 22) and during and aftr remediation weights (Table 23) are altered. This ‘change in rank order occurs because the revised weights penalise Option 1 much more than they penalise Option 2. However, the most appropriate assessments (the main assessment, ‘changed scores and category weights based on the Viewpoints of local stakeholders) all result in Option I being preferred, Therefore, Option Lis taken to the preferred option overall, (On completion of the remediation, validation sampling exercise was caried out to confirm the achievement of the risk based clean-up criteria. Whilst the risk based criteria had been achieved, there vas still a residual Blight issue which had redoced property values. A valuation process was undertaken to reconcile potential re-sale values with current house and Tand values and this formed the basis ofa compensation package forthe residents RAD Technical Report P316 137RAD Technical Report P316 158C3. CASE STUDY 3 C31 Background Details Part of «15 hectare former industrial site situated in a mixed industralresidental area was found to be contaminated (within both soils and groundwater) with chlorinated solvents associated with previous operations of the site, The site was 10 be re-developed for ‘commercial use and was underlain by a minor aquifer although there were no groundwater structions from the aquifer within five kilometres ofthe sit. [As a result of a detailed site investigation, the mass of chlorinated solvents inthe unsaturated one (i.e above the level ofthe groundwater) was determined fo be approximately 83% ofthe total while tht inthe saturated Zane was determined tobe approximately 17% ofthe total. A Fisk assessment demonstrated 10 the satisfaction of the Regulator that the groundwater Contamination did not pose a significant risk for offsite migration provided that the main source of contamination within the unsaturated zone was removed. ‘The following remedial options were evaluated (costs ae given in brackets): offsite disposal of contaminated soils and groundwater treatment (€1.3 millon); ‘+ oncste treatment of contaminated soils and groundwater treatment (£11 million); 1 offsite disposal of contaminate soils only (£300,000) {on-site treatment of contaminated sils only (£135,000) ‘The cots ae given in present valve terms (the remediation is limited ta timescale of three to our months, therefore, there is no need for discounting). R&D Technical Report P316 139C32 Screening Methodology “Tae 1 Checklist of Data Available for Ge Study Three Approaches Proposed (es Data Required ‘Available? | Uncertainty [Detals Proper nda ote 7 Tiel yi ean Bare Montrngharvelans onl ‘iter (ese) Remedial Oo v So exravatin ard grander treatment ‘meal Option ‘Sod reament ons and groendver Number ftehnigues x treatment proposed ‘Remsal Option {ets where avaible of ‘Solace aad poset ony. pe ¥ ‘esta Option & Sal rene on tion ¥ Renata Opon Tis vale Vegi 7 mone ‘aS FTF aon ~aclar al ret Cot anda ie ney abou, dposl, transport. monitoring and ” proesionl foc Tarai enced | The = some pockets ee) y Remedial Option Does ihe emai epon nst [7 Rene Opion? the ebjctves? (es mo, 7 Remedial Option mmybes uncer) < cE Remedial Option 4 Remedial Option 5 ‘Gar ‘Do yooh te rnairoftdesk aay? Yen ‘Do yu hiv he res of i te vention? Yer ‘Do yu hiv te ress of i rakes? RAD Technical Report P3I6"Ta Ma fo Seving St Crt for ave Sad Tree ‘OPTION: Gre Tanke Dinos | [Deception —[ ¥ [ Descpaon [7 Comat nrsiete | Foxe —| ¥ | RED BUT TVaRIARC Approaches ONE v Two TWOPLUS: Raneta Ope a lel Tak Tine NAYEE Yor CRITICAL sionincant? | “| staxticant Seale: Costs <£10K <£500K £500 K v YESBUT wwe objinestemet” | YES: YES BUT marae, | v | MAYBE,NO NOwUT a Tettese ifued sce stb dele for manele; eres one apne propane sre ona Taver four teal ops propa marked he sco cola sce ere coy one Fe nay sino, to ere Toco othe mow epee apn 90 ‘The Yond jc shoul be me at ers th consideration of ence 10rd as YES nor ‘The majority of ticks for Case Study Three lie in the centre column. This indicates thatthe qualitative assessment alone is unlikely to produce a clearly prefered option, and that either a Step Ill or Step IV approach wil be required. This decision will be taken after completion of the qualitative analysis. R&D Technical Report P316 161C33. Qualitative Appraisal C331 Completion of Table 3 Tae Dei Quah Appa Opn 1 Sal etn and Grande Tent cone Te on [Deamon | Aer roman Remelal Onions | 1 T Ta a ad Spi sone en ¥ w ¥ Sip rks ple? wo Sein Y . x Sigutomnin ofp apaat [Ne x inp o uy sais wut [Ne = Teo uty ets wae?—[_N S Teco guy of nto? Y ¥ x Tron gy of onto? [NE ¥ Tifosi war roe ena pe RE TT Saytecaga ¥ N ep = it ial bess? [Ne © Del ep © cand tse Sica ae y s © Sun lad abe x x Slane eid? ¥ x x Sica an we ea? x x Think yo Sika ona Signs ta ofp? = z Lact alien? © on Ti = stag el TO TT RAD Techni 16"Table 3 Detaled Qualitative Apprabaly Option 3 Sol Treatment one and Groundwater Treatment ‘caezory Bebe on _ | Daring remediation | After remediation Remedi! Opin | —? I Taman Hea an fey Sig rls ste ¥ 7 x Sine ism tic? © ve Ser i Y . i Sign makes ofais po? |W © Enionment ina ony ori a w © inp on qui of wa? N x inp on gulp of gendvae? ¥ Y © ina nan of odo x ¥ Theataate nar toa ‘rin. pe ne x y cust Ss z Nhatectamst Ingato ea x a an nl ni ima N x sgl snp? N x Sisal abe te ¥ w © Savon de SP x x Sila eves? Y x v7 Sorodig nd we ed? x x Tid Pry Sako Concre Signa oof ine” w ¥ = ask of lnm? N © cou Tim R&D Technical Report P316“Tae Detaled Qualtaive Appratia: Option 3 Sal Excavation and Dposl Category Tee [Dering emeiaton | er relation Rene Onions | 3] H Ta Hea 6 Sati ns se we ¥ WF x Si i lt x v Seater emo Y y x Staite mane mbicepaer |W Tact oni wate? © x Tac on oat of rte wae? N N Trpic on guy of oan Y v 7 Insc on qs of oon? x 6 Tica ati wa or oor fn spars y y v Ceca [yl x impo ea a w 7 Pd inal mie ipa N ® Dasa ts ie” x x and Ue Sie nd a a Y © 7 Suro ln abe ei? x x Sh nd eee? Y x x Sroting nd we Ge x x Sign ive of pale” N ¥ Taek of alarms? N ® Gon aor RAD Technical Report P3I6 168"Table 3 Dated Qualitative Apprabalr Option 4 Sol Treatment om sie only Cans et [Daring emit | er een Remedil Onions | 4 | z Tanna Seaton ote z z z Ste ere ; : - Sips nates of pice | _N x Enea! ieerngentamaean | n oi erageydteeet [ON i Tap ru oa ¥ ¥ = Tey nui of pe [ 8 x te dataetae aoa teidarpapeiocesiaim | N x = opel! Tap nl ® = Ftd inal nites ingest | _N x Deg sine” x x ‘aad Sib be a c z " Sestng i ibe x x Ser o x @ a an © 7 Th Pr or Sater ocr Tact ai te? © = co Ti R&D Technical Report P3I6 165€33.2 Completion of Table + “Table 4 Appraisal Rooting o Step and Step IV Slakeblde concern yaa : 5 water quality {if differences are sell) v =a : ‘soil ‘inctuded in tand use) v air quality - é a a oe 7 z Feri 7 7 ce z z Coane (step V1 ssals Sep For Case Study Three, fll Step Il approach willbe followed, given that there is insufficient information to enable quantification of land use benefits, and also because the differences in the magnitude of impacts on land use are small between the four remedial options proposed (Ge valuation may not beable to distinguish between the remedial options) RSD Technical Report P316C34 Step III Appraisal 34.1 Human health and safety "Fahl S Homan Helv and Ste conea Sore Uncertain =) i oe Dring | After | Durag [ After Tarn aie Tiawaioet Genie 6 | samy | wo | o Grounds Test es | 3 Sal Excvaon Only 0 [00 “Sol Treament Only 0 [9 [10 Tas aT TExcwaion &Gromdvaier T1559 | vay | a | 0 Sipe Ten as | wo | s | 0 3: So Excavation Only io | ws [0 [3 Soi Tresiest Oni as_| ws | s_|s 3 Tora Teearoame | | om | wo |e Spear Teen us | sss | 5 | 5 5: Sol Exesvaton Oni aw [os | | Soi Tresimest Oni ns_[ iss |_s | 1s Option 1 ~ reasoning behind scores Risks 0 ate] The pon nas asooed [Ths opon offers he] Tere const bem es Shs option aeconsdered_ | most complete remedial | mam level fence Tbteles hart sol | Slaion ands asthe. | during the remedion work trsiment opr. Hence. gents poste impact | ducts the penta fo SSorcot S0has been sven. | orstewsersatey- | unexpected eves ocu Hence, ascore of 100 | Aci option wil abaye as bec ves ove te “est son a ‘eo unceraie as ees Gremio the ac station Tastopibie | The seaaton and dapoa | Tas opton oer ie] Zero uncer sores ave options arecomisredto | mestcimplet remedial | been geno tah he presente pears psec! | Sluionand soa the | "ing an “ater Fiktothe pbledictnthe | peste poste gut | stuaton a ese clely Columes ofcoatmimted” | forpublesaey. | havethe mest sipnean ‘aera ta wl be ence, acre of +100 | impacts compared the traneponed fee Hence, the | har bee ven ‘ihe option R&D Technical Report P316 167Option 2~ reasoning behind scores Subsategony [Daring ‘fer Dasari Ris ate wars] Ths onion ewe Ahigh sore GOS) Rarbaan [A tro acer ar Towestpomibleworent_ | piven arthis ai reesens | bas ben pen othe 100detotheineased | Sroitelycompredersive | ‘ding situation. ‘rset akesncited | elton However alam | together ith Option this Siththe onsite | comznations of ‘Sey hehe ost ‘rstnet paces. Sentinel» | signiean impacts feminwithinthe tend) | compared ote ber Sout scoreissigly | opuoas. ow level of TowerthanforOpton |. | nce ha Been ‘Sorel these Suton allow forthe tin weed so. Taisipitis | Avsacot 1s aateor | Thropion scotia | A lw evel of way Dvenforthisopionas st | becoutalen tothe mist hasbeen ascribed the Foie luge sue tate | complete remedial sation | uring mage deo te ison wtih {Option 1) sates of pus | potential fr signa omstered repent | say. Hence ascre of | public iss to ecu fom Therese posenal rs | 10D harbeen given. | Beonste weatment toike pote process. Aa thera score as een SS: togeter with Opin Tisopton cen > input inept to reducing publ iss. ‘Option 3 reasoning behind scores Subsatagonr | Dang ‘ie Taser ‘Risso ste tas [The ptcaal as] As poundwner weasments | Actal rats wil doped enced within | ele rom ths option |e cool ofthe werk and Gpuomare comideredso | ere isconsiered tbe | oer exeral fer eles fortes! | hier tema rik ster | Hence, mum anergy eatmentopions | completion athe ‘sores heen sero Tem acoso 80hse | remediation work, Hence | to bth the tee and teengven Tower score of 80% fee | ass ies Tiss pubis | Theexsratonand —] As roundwaer wena s | A eo anos soo Siponalapnoneie | excaded foe this oon | has ben piven tthe made o presente | there considered bea | "rng stations thi peas pte iso | sgh hgher potent vik | clay hs he most Tiepabiedaewoihe | afercompleton ofthe | significa impact ql © ‘ites of contaited | remediation work. Hence | Opin I. Alow ve of tinea ht willbe | Iowersere of +95 has beon | uncer as been Camponedatiste, | gen, "ciel the “ater ence, the iia, ‘Staton tallow ote Dee oreo ORs posse siifiane of eensien| Feséal genni RAD Technical Repon P316 168Option 4~ reasoning behind scores 10 de tothe nsresed Denial rik itd ithe cmt sll, ‘eaman proces: ‘ela he greatest cure ‘st vsl contamination bring presen. Hence, he lowest acre of al be pons or ae remelaon| 0) hasbeen en, Subsategonr [During “ee Tacerain ‘Ral ost usw] Ths optoneavestbe | On conpedon fe A ze ueeaaiy Sa Towestponitis sone ot | remediation, hs opin wit | as ben gene “ring station a his Sgtcat gave impact tops ith Opbon 2 Take he poe AesasoF tabs ‘Bven fr is opton at {ods args of ste ‘Sor wo represen the greet potent ik ‘As roundvater weunen ‘lat fom his pion thee comidre bea Sty hier tea rk ‘emedaon wor Hence, Tower sore of #95 has cn iow velo wai far teen acted othe ing age ete Potent or stg Publish occ fom fheonste weumert procanes. Alow evel ot hci has ees seribed the after’ ston allo forthe cal signin of ay ‘esd contamination R&D Technical Report PSIG 160€34.2 Environment “Table 6 Environment IMPACT criteria Sate wae vali ‘Trond ‘ali roan Tabard ely Ficraton & Grandson ‘So Treatment & Groandvare Tieames Sol Excaaton Only So Testers Only Tacsvaon & Groavate Teme! ‘Sol xsaaton Oni ‘Sol Treen Only 5 Tr Bkeaaioe & Gosdhaier Tara 2 Sol Tenner & Grosndvaer Teeamen Sol Exton aly ‘Sol Treatment Ony s RAD Technical Report P3I6 170‘Option 1~ reasoning behind scores Daring fie Taceain ‘roster qty Whiston emp Section poundeatrqualiy eal ecu rng the ‘dation work he velit tps to be minor Titel igh ‘oor of 10 haben ndihe wement ot ‘Sumit roundoater se psiive mp on rounder gal Hens, ‘hemacmam ponblescore ‘100 a ben gen, ‘A media weary sare oT TOs ben asi tte “rng” stage ashe potest shor em impact on pounder galt ceria score has ben [Bren the ‘afer sage as postive impacin respect © longterm groans gi Arenson ing te remediation process could gute ‘ermetaton ops, However af te psa ofthe is ingots Score of -80 hasbeen ‘a conplaion ote ‘emedton, hre shuld be othe maximum pssibe Scr of +100 hasbeen gen ‘A medium uncer sor oT “aring” stage she pret shor em pct on it ‘gay lia oped Scour). A zero unceay Scores been vento te "ae age ahi oton pone in apo Option 2~ reasoning behind scores ‘he maxima ten fora emasons do 2 the iolaan of oh solland gunna treatment onthe lowes possible core of To ae besn gen, tetsu bereits quay do to the sobs “However duc ta the rescoe ‘flow level esd treated sl hs option ‘Sonered oe a spy ess ene tan Option Hence, herein igh scurof S har beg en ‘Sutategony | Darn ae Tnserainty ‘Groundnut | Wai some wap | Trestnerofconaminaed —[ A media energy mara uty erro in sols and pounder all | 10s bean ascribed oe Poundwater qty | have asiglcam postive | ‘during stage a th poeta Suldocsur during | npactongowndwaer | hatter enact on Sears of ti quay. Hower dust the | groundwater quay ical Teoaton wick the | presence oom eve eid | fo predit crate Some ‘rellimptis | Eontminaon tiie | uneasy has een seb fpecadtnbe mir. | weal sol thes cided | oe ‘afer sage de the Hidnea relatively tow | taba sgh higher than | presence of lo level esa Ssoreof-10 hasbeen | forOpsion I. Hence the high | Cntminaton win ie en seoraol 198s been given | ued sol we ‘As hisopuam mole | Int lng term tre boa A seo unceainty Soe as teem given othe “uring ‘pos signi imps Compared othe ote option. ‘Scribd the ae stage doco the presence oft with te tested al. R&D Technical Report P3I6 mSean re Hence arise bow score of 95 han be ‘Saategony | Daring ier Taseraint ‘Groandnatet | As thie opionelaies Removal oTcomamination win [A zero ue 5 way founder texnert, | une me shoud | hasbeen vente Cheminnum possible | reece ong term imps on | ‘drig” station ashe ‘Roreot 100 hasbeen | goundvater guy: However | lea tas he mst een Tis ieconsderad be Spica mpc ogee ‘stata coved bent | with Option & ompared the options which ence ono 0 bas Been we Ti opion Ecniaed sas consterad a | Amecian aera omg hase he | Bete principal pte ource | sora 10 as een lett penal impoct | oflone term ai gay pac] ascbed othe ‘arin ‘nal quiy Surg. | Auta oon volves the | wage abe potenti shot Teremedaton sro | remove ofcortemised soi,» | term impact ona quality fate wesmoncof | relvelyhighpostinescore | iia predict, tier ei (G80) bar been given, This option | sceraty- Alow eve of round i tescrd bipher than Option? | uncer as een Tivalted ands givens | thee aoveteaon onsite of | ascbed the ter oreo 5. Tow levered contamination | stun oso othe ‘within rented ot ‘el sinieane of ny res omameation sein goundvae Option 4 ~ reasoning behind scores ‘Sebaatepory [Du ‘ie Tac Cioundwas [| Ar bis jon Te | Removal of comarinaioa ibaa] A zero unerainy So cally ovndvuer eaiment | theunatursted zone should | has ben piven tte ‘fersnimum possible. | rede longterm pact on | "rng station ahi {oreot 100 hasbeen | prudaerqualty Howes, | clay haste most pen, is contdeed a bea ‘Spica impact ogee Sst rece Best | wat Option ‘Sompared 0 he pins wich Inco rounater mediation ‘Tis option scores lowest ofthe for pions (75) doe ‘eaten f ow ve WF “Thasapina mera] IntbTong ier, ee oad bea PATow una ae ‘santa bnetito sr quay fie the satan cope of he Femediton work. However, dae tothe presence of lo level. ‘dl somtamition within the ‘ese so this options rieed be ey es [eet hn Option. Hence 2 oor of +75 at bon sven, hasbeen piven tothe “oor staton thie ‘pt cleus he eel or spine frgut compared ote ‘ier opons Asmar low eelof cern iteen ced othe ‘ie sige de oh ‘sida onamintion ihn he ated R&D Technical Report P3I6 m(€34.3 Land use “Tae: Land ae IMPACT Sore Uncertain re oe During [ Ater | Daring | ner Tee Tava ° Groundwater Treumene | 102 | +100 | 9 2: Sol Treaeat& 5 Gromer Tresmene | 10 | +95 | & 3: Soil Excvaion Only | 100] 200_[ 0 | 10 Soil True Only | 100 | +80 | 0 | 10 Sora nd we c 3 4 3 Torr 1 Ecaaiond > bo Groundwater Treniment_| 10_| +100 Geuiwnctawmn | 0 | | 9 | 5 ‘3 Soi Excstion ny | too | +30 | 0 | 10 ‘ SoiTrment Only | too | _+30_[ 0 | 10 ‘Option I~ reasoning behind scores Sabatagonr — | Daving Ter Taser Siew During ie cone ofa] On conpiion af eo sera Se Femrdiaion work tere | Somprehesve remediation | fave ben sea 0 bth ‘Sifbeuckarrswan | Spton:hee shou be ao” | th ‘drng” and ‘ater Unite posible we ofthe | praca estan fe | santons shes ley Se Hens, telowest | te ofthese. Consequently | fave he os signiant psablesowof-100. | themasimum nie score of | impacts compare ihe bs teen given ‘Hobfas been ge ‘er opr RSD Technical Report P316 3Option 2— reasoning behind seores Shane Dating Tae Dising te coane of ‘mean work ere willbe sear esi ‘nthe posse wef te She Hence, th lowet posse oe of 10 hstece evee ‘On couple oie ‘nprekense emedition ‘pon te soul bebo practical ress use thea este. However, doe Tod presence offow eve reseal comamination within tres sos possible tat here could sme gh resin on er seve land ‘Sex Comseguealy. a gh ’A zt wean ae basen event ington ahi leary has equally pico pact 8 he ‘te pts AT level ‘carn hs Been ‘Sonodbe ater ‘futon slo forthe ‘tal inifeance of ay remediation werk ee Te pessible use ofthe te Hee te lowest ees aves ‘cle fom is pon toilbea car estat on | here isconieed abe a Sly ise potential fo ‘extan n and e poe sieof-10 bas | flowing completion of tbe renedaon wore Hence Tower soe of #80 a cn lower sorehas teen gen waa vested sol shan or Onin Option 3 - reasoning behind scores Sabai avin “ee Tacit Stewse Dating Recursos | As goundvatr venoms [A zr unceain a hasbeen penta the “daring” station a 8 slely bs eal Sica impact a the ‘ther options, A mea cert score as ees hen forte afer ution ascot or tal varios inthe lgnieace of rest oad runt Option 4— reasoning behind scores Se Heme, te lower ‘enn on land posible reo 10 ba | following competion of he remediation work. Honea Tower sore #80 bar bon gen ata Dang curd Tarai She we During he coane oie] As poondvatr womans [A ao uncer ore Femeciaion work tee | excluded om is option hs boon pen the Sileeackarresaaton | ereieconidered 0 be | "before station as is {he pnile we ofthe | sigh higher poem for cleat has ely Significant as tbe ft opts. A mea (poem ore ar ‘Santon wo aceoet or ‘ul varios mee ‘Spicer of eid ‘Stunted groondeater investing R&D Technical Report P316 m4(C344 Third party oF stakeholder concern “Tae Tied Party or Stakeholder Concern Sore Uncertain =) ci on _ oe During [ After | During | ter "Td pany oak TExenaton 00 | a 0 ceofiene undue Treament | 100 | +100 e 1 So Treatment we bs Groundwater Tesimee_ | 1? | +100 3 Sal Excavation Only | oo | a75_| 0 | _10 Sal Treament Oaly | loo | +75 | 0 _| 10 5 Th pny wake T Ewan ® mo [on D secepabliy Grounds Teaent ND SomiueTeumn | 5 | +9 | 0 | 0 3: Sol Exsavaion aly [| a0 | 60 | 0 | © ‘Soi Treamen ony | 725 | 75 [0 | 0 5 TOTALS Tr Eaaion co GeoudvaserTrninen | 200 | +200 | 20, | 0 2: Sol Trexment & nica Groandatr Tresest a) 3 Soi Excwaion Only | 200 | iss | 0 | 10 “€SalTieament Only [175 | +150 10. Option 1 ~ reasoning behind seores “Sabsategory | Davin “ae Taceraing Tina Re oe Lac pop ETRE [Lil pepe we mans PA in eval aay Saketole fodstngushtewoon he [content share wo | ss ben ascribed othe sontgese Smpetece ofthe fms | contactors ae involved | ‘Gung suge ue to he range wonting ote Srihibe remedaton, | of eter fia which can ‘Therefore allio: | Hence, this option sores | infaence hid pty Se 108 si. onbdenee The ser sage Isoosdered io be tvaysthe ‘mow fivurable oan cern factor of 26 as een rte, “Tridpanyor | Lal pope eles] Oncompiaion ofthe A medi eve ofan skeet happy witiopiento | remediation scheme. | has ben sete othe fecepabiiy | exenatead dapos off. | masimamacoeaiy | “during” stage due he range ‘Neath wilieeae | shouldbe ssocated | of external factors which can tric moverens | withthe most lence thd party ‘Sonmahly: Hee is | compres scteme. | scepubliy. The ser Sponscaes-100. | Hees, the mainun | Sages considered be Pre score +100) | abaya the mos favour so Bsten given a ucerainy foro 0 as een ure RAD Technical Report P3I6 ns‘Option 2~ reasoning behind seores ‘este Heme ‘pons which cde 5 This opto irene sores. tease withthe heme However, db to the presence of ove whine rene ti ‘pon comidre 1oBe a ‘Spy ess bevel han Subsategony —[ Dang ‘ee Taser Finance [Local poplewe [Lal peoples more [A adr level of unr Suicide | ombletodcnguish | confident were wo hasbeen sted the Ssofdene | Bewecn te ‘Seracoes ar insved wih | ring” age do te ange Compeeecoftte | he remedition. Hence ts | ofexeral fas which ean fam wrking ote. | oon seve +100. fence hid pry “Torte ll pions onfdence Ao eve of sore 00 resin as Ben mid {tbe afer ston allow forthe otal sigieance of| ty rei comaminaton sui ete That panyor | Coal peoples aw | Oncompieton ofthe A mec eve of ices fiche” | happywab te opton | remediation seme. high | fas ben ascribe Siemuiity[octcavateand poe | level of ovine shold | ‘ring stage due the rags ese factors which | {nence hid pry Sonfdence Ao level of Sheri is Ben ib {othe afer susan allow Forth act piace of hy rs comtamation ‘tte ol Incest Soir. Hence, ‘his opon res 100. Stl ber potential for reduced conden {Soong completion of be feneiton werk. Honea Jowerscureu 80 ars Option I Hence2¥95 | wabin weed si ‘Sicha teen gen Option 3 ~ reasoning behind scores Sebscategoq —[ Daring ‘ae Taser ‘rd pry ot [Coal pele we] Leal psople we mare A eo uncer core Bs Stasheder [unable distinguish | contin were wo tee piven tote luring” Soofdence | eevee te ‘Saco are ivaved wih | stato hilary a the Competence ofthe | theremedation, Hence, ts | wos signin nepive fers working onsite. | epton wihonly one impact together with Option. ‘Therefore alanis | conan, scoes 75. | Armedium uncertain eae See 8. fasten piven fr th ser Sato sccm esta ‘aration inte sigiieance ‘esl contrat (oondwater nee Erode. “Tara penser | Cowal rope wees | As pooner wats [A ze nee oes Teicee” | happy option | excel fan this opion | bean given othe arn” SSepabliy—|oetcanate and dspre | fees coniered bea | sian a icles te otal negate pct pete wih Option ‘Amedim ance score fasten even forth ile ‘tution fo count fo ata ‘aritons inthe iiance fresdualcontaniatd (sounder ines RAD Technical Report P36 176Option 4 reasoning behind scores ‘Subzaiegon_| Davin ‘ite Tasers “Thi party or [Local popleare | Local panswe more A ee uneraiy ore ar Boat satemider | unable dsingush | conden whore 90 {oeota the before” suaton onmidene | eaneen the enacts rivaled wih | this clearly has the most signa omer ofthe | theremodiaton, Hence his | ngave impact gether ih fame working ors. | oon, with omcontacr, | Option. Aredia unceraaty ‘Therefore al options | soo 75, ‘core hs been pte for tse” ‘arabs in te sigiicance of ‘idl contimated poonévaer invading confiences Td pany or | Leal pape we Tew | Ar poundwacr weameats [A zo unerany sor fav beh stsetlaer | happy withthe op | excluded fom his option | given othe “daring” station Scputlsy | oewuvteand | thretecomidered bea | hs cll tas th most signa Ciopowoff ste. | Sil igber penal for | negative impact gee is Hence opto whic | redced confess Opin’ Armed usaty incledeomsie | fllowng completion ofthe | scr as been gen forte ae” ‘remem core 75. | romeiation work ‘tation acount for acti [Addonly some ean! | varuonn the staniieance of Contamination willemsin | udu contaminated grounder Srihntheweated so | nreding acceptably Hence. he lowest coe of C345 Compare and Rank Options In onder to compare the options, weights must be applied at the sub-category and category level. It is also posible to compare the significance of impacts oceurring during and ater remediation. The first step io apply Weighs tothe sub-categories. 9 Apbing Wes wSui-Categoren——SSSSSSSSSSSSSCSCSCSCSCS~*d ‘pact tera ‘Option ‘Seore | Welehe | Revied Sore Darin emedaon - Tr Exernion € Grendvate Tremere [0 = aman anhani [Sol & Gosden ee on 7 coon 3: Sail Excavation ny 0 0 Sal Treument Only 100 =i00 1 Bxcavaoa& Groundwneremen_|100 75 ote 2 Sul Groundvater Tennent 15] ays 1 3 Soll Eacavaion Oly 100 78 Sal Treaiment Only 5 Tr Eisai & Guha Teanet 15 2 Sol & Gwar Teme it roman 3: Soll Exevaon Only =i55 4: Sot Treament On i RAD Technical Report P316 m"Tanke Anping We 1 Sub Categories Crea o ‘Score | Weieke Revied Score Environment Sic we gualiy ication & Grosdvaior Tena ‘Soi & Grose Tremere ‘Soil Esevaton Only So Teeter Only Sure water quntiy Eschaton & Groner Treatment Sol Groundwater Tresment Sol Excavation Only Soi Treatment Only rounder iy Txssaton& Grothe Team 7 ‘Soi & Grover Trea ‘Soi Esevation Oy “i00 ‘So Treen Only 7100 100, Groundwater quanti Escivaton & Grosnivater Treet Sol & Groundwater Trestment Sul Eaton Only Soi Tete Only xenon & Grou Treinen ‘Sol GropdvaterTeameat ‘Sel xeavaton aly os a5) Soi Trenment Only 35 a5 abit nd Ecology Essivation & GrnivatrTeameat Sol & Groundwater Teta Sol acavaton Only Soi Teeanen Only Tora Ensiaton & Groundanier Traine So Groundwater Tenet Sei Excavation Only Tn ‘Sci Tenent Only 1475 RAD Technical Report P3I6 178Sere | wei [ Revd re Raion 8 Gants Tea [10 =i ae 2: Ss & Granda eames io] |, [oa Sictse 51 Si Fan Only 00 it 4 So Teen On m7 io 1 Beate & Gola Tai 2: So 8 Giver Tet ‘rounding Land Use >i Excavation Only “So Teen Oy T Bevan & Gomi Tae it Sal & Gowivae Tne 0 ort 5S On it ST Oy “on T Besviton& Giver Teamea [0 99 down [2 Sol Gets Tee wo] ,, [2 etna 5S Exam Oxy co 90 4 So Teen On wo 20 1 Beaton Given Teese [00 10 2S & Ganda Teme 75 38 sane ‘3: Soil Excavation Only 100 to 100, 4 Si Tee Only 38 75 Tr Breaon & Grenier Tame =o tome 2: Si & Give Trae 18 So Elon Oy 150 1 Sol Tenens Ony ra “erremaiaon 7 Becta & Geanae Teme [00 ae Hunan ath and [Soir Gravure 8 795 =. 5a Only wo] [se “Sa Tess On .o a T Bevan & Gouna Traine | 100 = nae 2 Sal GeivaerTanmen [ion] ,, [9 3: Sosa Only 5 “Ai So Teme On 735 ra 1 Bao & Gwin Tar 8 2 So & Gouna Tea 20 TOTAL “B: Soil Excavation Only +151 Sat Tema Only SB RAD Technical Report P3I6 179“Table: Applying Wal is Sob Canoe IMPACT ‘cera ‘Option Seore | Welsh | Revise Sore Ty Brean & Grondvat Tame vironment 2 Sol & Grondvater Treatet Strice water quay [= Sol Exeavation Only Sol Tennent Only Tr Bxsvition & Gruso Taunt 2 Soil Greed Treatment Sur war aus |= RCT “Soi Trent Only Tr Bxenation & Goundvaer Tree |100 ib counivoneqaiey [2 SHE Gente Teme | 45 3 3, Soll Exewaton Oly 80) a0 Sol Tresiment On a5 a5 1: Excwvatin & Grondvat Tame 2 Soi & Grodno reset Grandunerquniy | Se ee “Soi Tenet Only Tr Fresaion & Growsoner Tremont | 1100 = 2 So & Gouna Teast 5 was “ ‘Sol Eesaton Ont a] °° a So Treatment Only as aS, 1: Bxenvaon & Gouna Tea 2 Sol & Grovndvatr Trenent HabiotandEssoey [5 Sor excoaton Oo 1: Sol Tresment On Tr Bresson & Goudver Tener 0 2 Soi Grouse Tree TEs rorae 1 Sil cation ny 7} ‘Sol Treen Only was RSD Technical Report P316 180"Fae 9 Appipng Weighs o Sub Cateorien IMPACT ‘Cetera Option ‘Seore | Weiebt | Revbed Sore Ty Becnaton € GrounvaierTeameat_[ +100 “100 Land Use 2 So & Grondvater Tasman 5 25 Sie tse 3 Sol Excavation Only wo) +0 Sol Treumeot Only “80 “80 1 Exevation & Ground Treen soning ng i [238 Goober Tee 3 Sl Ecwaton Only Sai Treumet Only Tr Bscavatin & Groundwater Treament En ror. 2 So & Gronivatr Teste 5 Sol Exsaton Oly “80 So Trement Oni “80 1: Bxevaon & Groondiaier Trsimest_[_ 4100 “0 Third party or [Si Grover Tresmen “0 | yy “0 comet Sal Excavation Only a5 was Sal Tenet Only a5 was Tr Bxenvation & Groundvaie Tresineot[_+100| =| 2 So & Grounvater Treatnen 85 Bs cad 3 Soil Exsaation Oat wo | * “80 So Tennent Only Ea 5 Tr Bxsviton & Grouneaer Treiman 7150 ror 2: Sol & Grondvater Trent a Sal Eston Only wars ‘So Treament Only 1a Comma ‘he pubic are considered to be 75% a nportont ate wr: ari 0% as important as grounder aly: and tid party confidence 90% as nportant a acceptability. The weight have been dee rom thers assesmnt th lel of public concern and he nubs and pes of epotres “The next step isto apply weights according tothe relative sizeof the impacts during and after remediation. For Case Study Thvee, the impacts after remediation are considered to be 80% as important as impacts during remediation (due mainly (© human health and third pay or stakeholder concems), R&D Technical Report P3I6 181“Tae Apiping Wea to Inpcts Occuring During and Aer Remediation Options ‘DURING REMEDIATION: Haman Heh & Safe Seo apie (om Step TD m3] ur Revised oe m_] 3] “AFTER REMEDIATION: Hoan Heh & Safe Sere appt (om Sep as a Weis Revised are a0 as ‘DURING REMEDIATION: Environment Score appli Grom Sip) Wala Revel core = AFTER REMEDIATION. Easvoonewt Sa ps en ip so ms [ae ns Wehr a Reve oe sm] aioe [ 6 DURING REMEDINTION Land ie Sere oped rom Se oo] 100 [00 _[_-00 Wes 18 Revie aoe im_[ 100 [100 [100 AFTER REMEDIATION Land Ue Sere apd (om Se 706 | [oa Revise oe ws [ee Seppe rn Sep | as [ 90 [a We ie Rete sm] es [a "AFTER REMEDIATION Wi Party or Sucholer Goce Ser api rom Sep TD ES EST EER Reve oe ae [see Connor Inga curing efter readin ae 80a giant as thas cern dri “The final weighting stage isto apply weights a the category level. This allows a comparison to be made between human health and the environment, or land use and third party or stakeholder concern for example R&D Technical Report P3I6 182“Tabie H: Option Performance Scores and WS ‘OPTION i: Excaration and rounder Treatment "hind Par wae Hatt | ronment | Land Use ace ‘Concern Davag rein D) 1s 0 i 190 ‘ter emediaion (A) iso ise “0 152 Tos impact caepny sae (AWD) Is “100 20 38 oral to 00 2 “6 2 2 ‘Nalin Tpast eae Seo - om 5 ” exes) z Bs w Weigh os mo os a ‘SCORE (NICS x wesw) a ‘Theo score i err, 9S The weighs hve ben pad otha environment th most important category (hence, weighted a 1.0) ‘th man helhand fey th second mot ingot, witha ght of 0 hence BD% as bnportan as ‘nnvonmen Laws consdered he tind meat important category and weighed a 75% of ‘Shrnment, whl thd ary or lade concen the leat portant tego evra wi weigh of O17 Alljour eight are high inden hat there are important ies sca wih each, “Tae 1 Option Peformance Seors and Welais ‘OPTION: Sol Treatment and Groundwater Tremont TF Manantieath | ernment | ate | gana cone Dag eas a a m8 At een ig | aioe [te [a Teal np cy SecA) ay “a en ta Neale wD 2 = 2 2 a oo was 2 os 7 SCORE (NICS x weighs) eS Cone Prete sor hrf +8 RAD Technical Report P316 183"Tae 1 Option Performance Seores and Wels [OPTION 3: Sol eavetion Ons "Tied Party man Heats ue |e aoa Safety | Pavironment Stakeholder ‘Concern ‘Darngenedinion Dy 1s Tas i00 190 ‘Allerrenediaion eT 6 vee ane Total inpacteatgnry sere (APD) M as 36 7m Nora 100 2 6 2 2 Reali ie Ca S " a A oe Woah os to os 7 SCORE (NICS nla) as) That sore therefore 0. “Tier Option Performance Score and Wels [OPTION a: Sol Treatment Only "noon nau "Ted Far joaeteth | aizoument | Lande | soy Soser ‘Concern arog ened) 7m Tas 0 165 ‘Afr remediation G) 708 0 68 ie “Total impac tpi sore (APD) é TS, 36 Sr Nore 100 2 ry 2 2 Normsed Inga Cae) SOE a NICS) a za Weigh os 2 os a SCORE NICS x wea) 2a 36 i st Theta core therfore. 44 Hiromded a 00 sgt gues. “Fahie 12 Compare and Rank Options ‘nn Jousaure Coates | Ran Tr Sai Excnaion and GronnaierTreatmon | 93 a z 2: Sel Treatment and Groundwater Treatment | 87 = 7 1 Sel Ecavson and Dipl 0 | Oe 20 3 ‘So TeetmentOny as [asm 6 “ Option is, therefore, the preferred option when taken from the Step IT appraisal. Its also the only option with postive benefits. RAD Technical Report P3I6 188C38 Sensi vity Analysis, A separate sensitivity analysis isnot included here forthe sake of brevity. You should refer to (Case Study Two for an example of where a full sensitivity analysis has been undertaken. FFrom the above, i is clear that any sensitivity analysis for this case study should focus on Options and 2 as these perform significantly beter than Options 3 and 4. In particular, one would want to re-examine the scores assigned to ‘uring remediation’ across the options 3s the results are most likely to be most sensitive to significant changes in these. Sensitivity analysis on the weights used for during and after remediation may also be significant, C36 Selection of the Preferred Option Without fll details ofthe sensitivity analysis, the preferred option cannot be determined with any degree of confidence. However, the results ofthe original assessment shows thatthe prefered option is most ikely to be Option 1 or 2 RSD Technical Report P316 185RAD Technical Report P316PART D: APPRAISAL TABLES D1. STEP I: SCREENING METHODOLOGY “Table Chek of Data Ava Data Regie ‘Avalaie?[ Unernny[ Dt Pops echo te oo Argon Props ese a a rose Montosnesaneins ony ‘ier ese) ena Opn Tema Opn Numer of eenigves iron i Tata Opie (ech avaible ot rad Temata Opn Temata Opin “Tine wale ene ons a ht hile) Seabees asl sone pst) Tenet Onan Rema Opn Deedee Ge, ema Op impberoseai) ane Onan eed On on Dayoan ie eine ey ‘Do you have ess of he sisson? Do you vee els of he ase? RAD Technical Report P316 187“Tae 3 Mat for Scoring Se Cer Ciera Tans Dacipion [7 | Desrnion | | baste [7 Gaenanramse | axe XE BUT VARIABLE ‘Approaches ONE, ‘Two ‘TWO PLUS ent Oa = a = Tae Tne 5 TAYE 3or CRITICAL SIGNIFICANT? [SIGNIFICANT Seale: Costs <£100K <£500K > £500K TEST Wie Ogee MATHE.NO| ; ‘es. BUT wayse = marae: BUT NO RAD Technical Report P316 188D2. STEP Il: QUALITATIVE APPRAISAL, Box Ar Questions for Before Remediation Human Health and Safety 4+ Ave there likely tobe significant risks to site users (temporary and/or permanent)? Are there likely oe significant risks to the public? ‘Are significant numbers of ste users (temporary and/or permanent) likely o be exposed to these risks? + Are significans numbers ofthe public likely be exposed to these risks? Environment + Are there likely t0 be significant impacts on the quality of surface waters (rivers, streams, lake, ponds, tc)? 1+ Are there likely tabe significant impacts on the available quantity of surface water? 1 Ave there likely tobe significant impacts on the quality of groundwater? Are there likely 1 be significant impacts on the available quantity of groundwater? 1s the quality or quantity of local surface water likely 19 be important for industry, ‘agriculture, or drinking water supplies? + Is the quality or quantity of local groundwater likely to be important for industry, ‘agriculture, or drinking water supplies? + Ave the chemical or physical properties of the soil likely to be changed (eg. through contamination)? + Ave any impacts on local air quality (including odour) likely 10 be caused by the + Are significant populations of plans or animals likely 10 be impacted by the «+ ‘Are any designated conservation sites (e.g. SSSI, nature reserves, SPAS, etc.) likely 10 be impacted by te contamination? Land Use {the land value likly tobe significantly reduced because the site is contaminated? {Is there likely toe any significant impact on surrounding land values? {Is the nypeof land us likely tobe significantly restricted until remediation is complete? Ave there likely tobe any sila impacts on surrounding land wses? ‘Third Party or Stakeholder Concern + Is there likely to bea to of interest inthe ste? 1s there a lack of readily available information about the site? R&D Technical Report P3I6 189Wox Bi Questions for During Remediation Human Health and Safety Are there likey 10 be significant risks t0 ste users (both those involved in remediation ‘and shose continuing 10 work on-site)? + Are there likely to Be significant risks tthe public (e.g. from increased trafic levels, or ‘changes in contamination)? + Ave significant numbers of ste users likely t be exposed to these risks? 1 Are significant numbers of he publi litely tobe exposed 10 these risks? Environment + Are there liely to be significant impacts on the quality of surface waters (rivers, ‘reams, lakes, ponds, etc:) (2. from movement of contaminants into surface waters ‘during remediation)? + Are there likly 10 be significant impacts on the quantity of surface waters (eg. are streams diverted during remediation)? Are there likely to be significant impacts on the quality of groundwater? Are there likely to Be significant impacts on the available quantity of groundwater (eg. is groundwater pumped 0 increase the effectiveness of remediation)? + Is the quality o7 quantity of surface water likely 10. be important for industry, agrcultre, oF drinking water supplies (wil they be impacted by the above changes)? + Ts the quality or quantity of groundwater likely 0 be important for industry, agriculture, or drinking water supplies? + Arethe chemical or physical properties ofthe sol likely 1 change significantly through ‘remediation (eg. so washing)? «+ Are any significant impacts on local air quality likely to be caused during remediation (e.g venting of volatile contaminants)? ‘Are significant populations of plants or animals likely 10 be impacted by the remediation? + Are wildlife coridors likely tobe lost (e.g. through disturbance of a hedgerow or other linear habitat fanures)? ‘Are there any designated conservation sites (e.g. SSSI, nature reserves, SPAs, et.) likey to be sgnificanly impacted during remediation? Land Lie 15 there likely to be any significant restriction on current land use during the 2 Ane ae ey bean gin inact oF runing ant er remediation? Third Party or Stakeholder Concern + Is there tkely 10 be ator of interest inthe remedial works? _sthere a tack of readily available information about the remedial works? RAD Technical Report P316 190Box C: Questions for Afr Remediation Human Health and Safety 4+ Ave there likely tobe any significant risks to site users from the remediatd ste? {Are there likely tbe any significant risks to the public fom the remediatd site? {Are significant numbers of sit users likely 1 be exposed to these risks? Are significant numbers ofthe public likely 10 be exposed to these risks? Environment 4+ Are there likely o be significant impacts associated with the remediated site on the (quality of surface waters (rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, etc.) (e.g. from movement of ‘residual contaminants into surface waters)? + Are there likely to be significant impacts associated with the remediate site on the (quantity of surface waters (e.. are streams diverted during remediation not restored to ‘her original courses)? «Ave there likely to be significant impacts associated with the remediated site on the ‘quality of groundwater? + Are there likly to be significant impacts associated with the remedied site on the ‘available quantity of groundwater? ts the quality or quantity of surface water likely to. be important for industry, ‘agricultre, oF drinking water supplies (will they be impacted bythe above changes)? + Ts the quality or quantity of groundwater likely be important for industry, agriculture, ‘or drinking water supplies? + Are the chemical or physical properties of the soll likely to have been changed “ignficantl through remediation (e.g soil washing)? ‘Are any significant impacts on local air quality likely to be caused by the remediated + Are significant populations of plants or animals likely 0 be impacted by the remediated site? + Are any designated conservation sites (eg. SSSI, nature reserves, SPAS, et.) likely to ‘be significantly impacted by the remediated site? Land Use Is the land value likely 1 be increased significantly from average land values of non- ‘contaminaed sites) once the site hasbeen remedied? + Isthere likely o be any significant impact on surrounding land values? 1 Isthere likely tobe any significant restriction on future land uses once the site has Been remediated? + “Are ther likely 10 be any sinlar significant impacts on surrounding land wses? Third Party or Stakeholder Concern {Isa significant level of interest in the site Tikely to continue afer remediation? {Ave the interested partes likely to dispue thatthe ste has Been remediated 1 the best possible stare? RAD Technical Report P316 wi“Table 3; Qualiatve Apprabal Category remediation Daring ‘After remediation Remelal on Taman Heh and Safty Signi iso public? Significant number of ie wee exposes? ‘Sinifisan nombers of ae apse? Eerironment Inputs on quali of race wate Impact on quant of sce water? pacts on quali of groundwater? pats on quantity of oundvaer oeof race ater or goundvair forint. aclu, odie Chen o pel operas oT Ista changed? pst onal i a Plata animal mune ipa? Designated ses impact? Land Use She land ale eal? Surovnding and vale elucod? Sean we ested? ‘Suonding land we ened? ‘Third Pary or Stkeholier Conca Lick of wale infrmion? out RAD Technical Report P3I6‘Table 4 Appratal Rowing to Sep HT and Step IV =n aS “recommended Scoring recommended | qualitative appraisal) —— . fi Es zi _water resources s {Gif differences are small) =e : Fi Ee ae z — : Z re 7 ee “stakeholder concern “ era} eee ws R&D Technical Report P3I6 193R&D Technical Report P3I6D3, STEP Il: CEA/MCA ‘Searing Methodology During Remediation 1+ scores run from: -100 t0 0; where -100 is given 10 the remedial option with the worst Jimpacts and 010 an option with no impact. After Remediation + scores ran from 0 to +100; where +100 is given to the option withthe greatest benefit and 0 to an option with no benef ox E: Factors to Consider when Scoring Risks to Site Users + the significance ofthe risks + the numbers of ste users exposed. The significance ofthe risks will depend upon: + immediate riss (resulting from a once-off exposure exceeding safety levels chronic (those resulting om exposure over a prolonged period or long-term effects ‘resting from limited exposure): degree of risk management; types of tasks that result in exposure (normal or abnormal); ‘ype of contaminant (included in the risk assessment); the way the remedial option treats the contamination (included in the risk assessment) The numberof site users exposed wil depend upon: the nuaners of ste users within the vieinty: 1 the ype of contaninant (eg, volatile or more stable - included in the risk assessment): {the way the remedial option teats the contamination (included inthe risk assessment) ‘The scores for during and after remediation should take the duration of exposure into R&D Technical Report P316 195Box Fr Factors to Consider when Seoring Risks to Public + the significance ofthe risks 1 the numbers of people exposed, The significance ofthe risks will depend upon immediate risks; chronic risks; degree of risk management; ‘any changes in arafic movements: Tevels of dust; odours The monbers of people exposed will depend upon: + distances from which trac is routed: the spread of dust and odours; + gasupour movement {the exten to which inconvenience is encountered. R&D Technical Report P316 196“Tae 5: Haman Heal and Suey rac Criteria Rare aks pai 197Hox G: Factors to Consider when Scoring Surface Water Quality Quality issues include bork short and long-term impacts and each score will need t0 Consider the following potential impacts. Factors affecting the scores for during and after remediation wll be similar. Degradation of surface water quality: Water Quality Objective (WOO) failure (or otherwise) ‘occurrence of pollution incidents (with and without WQO failure) ‘severity of polation incidents (.,fsh kills, loss of certain species): longer-term effects (e.g. changes in overall aguatic species mix). Improvements in surface water quality + achievement of WQO (previously failed): fewer pollution incidents 1 “change in species mix (e.g, new, more sensitive species) When remediation may lead to either the loss (lemporary or permanent) or creation (vermanent) of water supply source as result of a change in quality this also needs to be taken into account. See Sip IV for an indication of how significant such changes can be. Box Hi: Factors to Consider when Scoring Surfuce Water Quantity During Remediation: + disruption to flow (both overall quantity and direction) {reduced water levels in surface water bodies below normal level reducing potential for abstraction: + impacts on water users (agriculture, drinking water supplies, industry, et). After Remediation: «+ permanent re-routing of surface water body resrcting access to water by those who previously used the water Similarly to surface water quality if there is a loss (temporary or permanent) or the ‘creation (permanent) of @ water supply source due to a change in quantity (resources) then this may also need to be considered. Step IV gives an indication of the significance such changes RAD Technical Report P316 198ors to Consider when: ring Groundwater Quality the hydrogeology ofthe aquifer affected (type of aquifer, and is properties, et) the presence of abstractions and nature of uses, whether for drinking water irigation ‘of crops, industrial processes from cooling water to food processing), ec: + background quality of the groundwater up-gradient ofthe site; + the ype of contaminants present e.g, List Land II substances other contaminant) ‘Again, there isthe potential forthe creation or loss of a groundwater supply source. Where this occurs it can be included in the appraisal. Purther deals onthe potential significance ‘of sich impacts are piven in Step IV. Box Jr Factors to Consider when Scoring Groundwater Quantity During Remediation + disruption to flow of grounabwatr: 1 dravedown reducing water levels in wells below the normal level increasing abstraction ‘costs or making it impossible to abstract e.g. water level below Bottom of well) + impacts on water users agriculture, drinking water supplies, industry, et: After Remediation + permanent changes to low direction (eg. barrier preventing movement of groundwater causing a lowering of groundwater levels with this making it more expensive or Impossible 0 abstract) “After remediation, impacts may be short-term or long-term (e.g. depending on the time it takes groundwater to move back into the affected area, under the influence of gravity). [Box Ke Factors to Consider when Seoring Air OO (Onsite air quality will be affected by the following factors: + dt * odours: 1 venting of VOCS into atmosphere ox L Factors to Consider when Scoring Habitat and Ecology ‘There are four main factors associated with the assesament of habitat and ecology: + numbers (species or individual organisms or both) potentially affected: 2 los of wildlife habitats ‘changes in the species composition and biodiversity importance of the site (in tems of conservation designations) RAD Technical Report P316 199cteria Sars wa a round RAD Techni 200paract Tox Nir Factors to Consider when Seoring Site Use During Remediation «amy cessation in nomal activites (industriel, agricultural or acces to houses, After Remediation: + any residual risks left may result in some loss of land value; _retrctions on future land use R&D Technical Report P316 201Box N: Factors to Consider when Scoring Surrounding Land Use After Remediation + there may be some residual lose of land value, scored as an impact (negatively) or tively asa planning gain "Fah Land Uae irae criteria Siew or Suroonig an | RAD Technical Repor P316 202Tox Or Factors to Consider when Scoring Third Paty or Stakeholder Confidence The level of third party oF stakeholder confidence will depend wpon 1+ the level of confidence and trast inthe regulators the eel of confidence and trust inthe tandovnerldevlopericontractor, ee: «the level of information given 1 and involvement of third partes or stakeholders (what Is the remedial process, what will be achieved, what problems may be encountered and ow will they be overcome?) Box " Factors to Consider when Scoring Third Party oF Stakeholder Accept inmost cases, scores will nly be given for ater remediation: will the third party or stakeholders" objectives be achieved? ‘vill there be unforeseen additional impacts? will the stakeholders concerns diminish? uncertainty (especially whether the site wil be ‘eleanor not); the length of time required for remediation (how long will people be subjected to the ‘above environmental impacts) RAD Technical Report P316 203“Table Ted Party or Sakbolder Concern IMac Cetera Tid pry orstaeler cofiens Thi party oF Saket scopy RAD Technical Report P316 208Box Q Awigning Weights to Sub-Categories Table 9s used to record the sub-category weights and scores. 1. Taking one category at a time, determine which of the sub-categories is the most important. 2. Assign a weight of I 10 this sub-category 3. Assign a weight fo the second most important sub-category that is proportional 10 the relative importance ofthe impacts (hence, ifthe impacts are half as important this sub- ‘Category would be given a weight of 0.5 (10.5, for sub-categories where there are no impacts. no weight needs tobe applied). 4. Repeat forall sub-categories where necessary eg. environment will need weights 10 be applied to six sub-categories 5. Multiply the total score for each sub-category by its weight and enter the results into Table 9 6, Obtain the total weighted scores by adding together all the scores from each sub- category. The during and afer remediation scores need to kept separate. Table 9 includes rows for these total scores. RAD Technical Report P316 205‘Tle 9 Apptying Wel teria aman beats and Shevter Pubic Tora vironment Groundwater qui Groundwater quan ait nd Bsoogy ‘and Use Sie Use Swrounding Land Ue rors. Third par Confideae Aesepabiiy Tora RAD Technical Report P316 206Tube 9 Appling We IMPACT ‘Cera ‘Aer remediation Human beatae Steuer, Public TOTAL “Environment Stace water uly Stace water quay router uty roundnster quantity Habit nd Bsoogy and Use Ste Use Surounding Land Use roraL, “Third par oF Hake concer: Confidence Accepbiliy Tora. Comment R&D Technical Repor P316 207Box R: Applying Weights to Impacts Occurring During and After Remediation This process follows a similar method to that used when assigning weights 10 sub- ‘categories (Box Q). The scores following the application of weights to the sub-categories should be taken from Table 9. 11. Determine whether during or after remediation impacts are he most important 2. Assign a weighting of Ito the most important factor. 3 Assign a weighting tothe second factor tha is proportional to the relative size ofthe limpacte (hence, ifthe impacts are half as significant ths factor would be given a weight of 5) 4. Multiply the total score for impacts occurring during remediation for each category by the weight |S. Multiply the total score for impacts occurring after remediation for each category by the weight. 6, Enter the revised during and afer remediation scores into Table 10. R&D Technical Report P316 208"Table 10; Appling Weighs wo Impacts Occuring Daring and After Remediation Onion [opten? [Onion ‘Options DURING RENEDINTION Haran Halh Say ‘Score apie rom Step) Week Revised AFTER REMEDIATION, Haman Wel & Safe Seo applied (om Step ‘Weis Revised sae DURING REMEDIATION: Enronmnt ‘Sere apie (Hom Sep Revie coe “AFTER REMEDIATION: Enviroment Sse ape rom ep) weak Revel coe ‘DURING REMEDIATION: and Use Scoe applied (om Step AFTER REMEDIATION: Land Use Score apple om Sip) Wei ‘DURING REMEDIATION Tid Party or acnolor Conca Score apple from Step) Weis Revised oe “AFTER REMEDIATION: Tht Pryor Salcoler Gomera Score sped om Sep) Weak Revie oo Conon: R&D Technical Repon P316 209Box S: Normalising the Impact Category Scores 1. Divide the revised score (taken from Table 10 if both sub-category and during and after remediation weights have been applied: or Table 9 if sub-category weights only have ‘been applied) bythe maximum score that can be achieved 10 give the normalised score + human heath and safer: 200; + environment: 600; + land use: 200; third party or stakeholder concem: 200. 2._You are now ready 10 apply weights tothe categories Box Ts Appiping Weights to Categories Table 11 is used to record the category weights and scores. 4. Rank the diferent impact categories inorder of importance. 2. Assign a weighting of Ito the most important category 3. Assign a weight 10 the second most important sub-category that is proportional to the relative importance of the impacts. For example, Honan Health & Safety may be ‘assigned a weight of 1, with impacts on the Environment considered to be 80% as Important (where for example, there isa large population living close tothe site, but there is litle surface or groundwater to be impacted) and thus assigned a weigh of 08 0.80) 4. Now consider the third highest ranking category and determine how important itis relative tothe second highest ranked impact category. For example, Land Use may be Considered t0 be 80% as important as Environment (where, for example, there is no planned development), and thus be assigned a weight of 0.64 (= 0.80 x0.80). 5. ‘This procedure would be repeated forthe fourth highest ranking category to determine how i should be ranked relaive to the third and thus the weight which wil be assigned Box Ur Obtaininga Total Score for Bach Remedial Option SSCS 1. Multiply the normalised impact category score by ii relative importance 10 give the ‘weighted impact sere for each ofthe four categories (using Table I): 2. Add the weighted impact scores together 10 give the total weighted seore for each ‘remedial option. R&D Technical Report P3I6 210Table 1s Option Performance Score and Weights ‘OPTION : Human Heath tanatne | ‘and Satery | Bavronment Staktlder ‘Canc Disag emediaion ‘Aes remediation (A) “Totlmpast cpr score (AWD) Normlise0100| Normalised Inpuc ego SE ics) Wee SCORE NICS x weg) Cons: ox Vr Caleulating the Cost-Eifectiveness of Fach Remedial Option 1. Divide the total weighted score by the present value of the remedial option’s costs 10 sive the cost-effectveness of each option. Table 12 ean be used to record the cost- ‘effectiveness of each remedial option. 2. You can now rank the remedial options: where the preferred option (rank 1) i the one with the highest cost-effectveness The above method is used in cases where: + both total scores are positive: or 2 atleast one toral score is postive. Where all of the total scores are negative, itis necessary 10 take a slightly diferent approach: 1. Multiply the tral score by the costs. 2. The option withthe highest costeffetiveness (Le, closes 0 zero) is ranked number one {the preferred option RAD Technical Report P316 anTable Compare and Rank Options Option Totascores | Cost) Care "hen both coves ne apa, sac muy hol wor ye css The peeved options then oe with hehghetcosteflecvenet (close 0 200), See Box T (Step I x Pat) fr tthe planation R&D Technical Report P316 a2D4. STEP IV: COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS "Tae Val of pacts impact First year impact Oneott | Annual ‘Marketsed ects and Vales ‘Changs in vas ‘Change value of aang Water Sap Sores Drinking water qui Til water ai Incesedvetent cote ‘Non Markel Based Enviconmentl and Human Healt Ee Water Supply Sou “Ascoli ‘Commerc Fiherie Aerie ppl source Restocking cos Los of tery ‘Human Heath and Enviroment Huan lh ands ‘Steuer Human eh a Te Publ Enron ‘Asa Informal eeaion Ervioanen Property values Ensionnen Nome coaeration R&D Technical Report P316 23Box Wi Standard Formulae used In Discounting Procedures Present Value of £1 “The preset value ofa payment of £1 made in year nis given by Dye Le ane Where; r=the discount rate and he discount factor For example, if emedtion results in a benefit to angers of £200 000 in Year 4, assuming & real discount rate of 6% then the present value of the Benet is £200 000 x 005" 200 000 x 0.7921 (given in Table 14) = £160 000 (to to significant figures) Discount factors are given in Table 14 Equivalent Annual Cost of £1 ‘An annual payment, made fora years starting in Year 1, with a preset value in Year 0 of £1 's given by: Ae iD, Where: ie equivatent annual cost of EL F isthe discount rate Dy is the discount factor For example, assuming a discount rate of 6%, a payment of £10 000 in Year 0 is equivalent to S annual payments stating in Year 1 of: 10-000 x 0.2374 (given in Table 15) 2400 (to two significant Figures) “Table 15 shows the equivalent annual cost of £1 foetors RAD Technical Report P3I6 24Box W: Standard Formulae used in Discounting Procedures (continued) Present Value of £1 per Year ‘The present value, in Year 0, of a stream of ennual payments of £1 starting in Year 1, is given by the ceciprocal ofthe equivalent anual cos, i. For example, if damage costs avoided are estimated at £300 000 pa for 12 years (starting in ‘Year 1), then the presen value (assuming a real discount rate f 6) of the benefits in Year oie = 300000 x (1-C1_) 006 0.06 = £300 000 x 8.3838 (given in Table 16) £2,500 000 (to two significant figures) Factors giving the present values of annual payments are provided in Table 16. Regular Annual Payments Starting Later than Year 1 ‘The present value, in Year 0, of n annual payments of £1, starting in year nel can be calculated by using the present value factors presented in Table 16 For example, assuming a discount rate of 6% if damage costs avoided were £200 000 pa starting in Year 4 and would last until Year 12, then the present value ofthe flow of benefits could be found using the following equation: PV Years 4-12 = Value (Present value year 12- Present value year 4) £200 000 x (8.3838 - 3.4651) ££980 000 (two significant figures) tT RAD Technical Report 316 assemen eso 9 ae, ne RSD Technical Report P316Jo-sersoneae a7 [RAD Technical Report P316my oss uy og 30 eR own 8 EL, as RSD Technical Report P16“Table 17 Eaample Downing Oneofvalaes Fr oncoff vs then need coun Hence, iad vals increase by £25 GOD a aes fremaation, hs she toa value regres of the amber of yearend a the hori. Annual als that begin in Year 0 Example: benef to worker sey of £10 00 per yar, wth he it imgctocaing i YearO. The time tnt 25 yor an he Treasury scout at oF 0 sued: Fr Tale 16th dso fat for 25 eas a 65 12.184, paso for yer O equa 13.734, Renee dicount over 25 yeas: £10000 13.734 = £140 000 tw sine Fes) Given the uncer involved in these calculations, ll vals shold be given 1 a maximum of to Sinica figures Hes he dicot bereft to worker hth is £140 0. Annual alas hat gin na Your ther han Year 0 yam: benefits £2500 per yearn angles in occur in Yeu 5 following te cretion ofa cous fey {nthe ‘lay iver sunoundng» preva coruminted Again the ne bz 625 Yes an the acum rate 6: sing Table 14, atogeterthe vs on yaw year 25, nce Yar23=02618 Year 240270 “Tot: 07873 + 07050 + 06681 + 402618 40247001842 29.318 £25009 18. £25 00 (to wo sige gues RAD Technical Repor P316 219RAD Technical Report P316 20DS. STEP V: SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS AND SELECTION OF PREFERRED OPTION Box X: Over Predicied Impacts Using Table 18 (in Part D) indicate the ranking given during Step 1 [Now assume that the impacts in one category have been overstated and are in fact negligible, for each category or sub-category that you wish o assess. 1. Assuone the impacts are negligible, and shouldbe ignored. Rank the remedial options ignoring the influence of his category or sub-category. ‘Note any changes inthe ranking (particularly if the preferred option changes) in Table 18, Repeat for other categories or sub-categories where required 3 4 RAD Technical Report P316 22‘Table 18;_Ranked Order — Over Predicted Impacts category RANK Feast it Option 1 Option 2 Option | Ranked Over from Sep During Remetation Hunan Health & Safe Se wa Human Hel & Safe pub Enviroment: rie waters avium taba logy Tad ese and Ve: rounding "Tied Party Suheboe Coosa Inet "Th ary oF Sakae Coe ‘Mer Remediation Haman esl & Sify ae wee Huan esl & Salty pole Environment: rie waters Envonnert grounder Environment Enironmen hair ad oy Land Use se Third Panty Stakeholder Comers Ingest Tard Payor Steller Conon Infomation vale Cost Conn R&D Technical Report P316 mBox Vr Under Predicted Impacts Using Table 19 (in Part D) indicate the ranking given during Step I [Now assume thatthe impacts in ane category have Been understated and are in fat very Jimportan, for each category or sub-category that You wish 1 assess, in tum. 11. Assume the impacts are importan, and al other impacts should be ignored. 2. Rank the remedial options ignoring the other influence of other categories or sub categories. 3. Note any changes in the ranking (particularly ifthe preferred option changes) botk ‘during and after remediation in Table 19, 4. Repeat for other categories or sub-categories where required RAD Technical Report P3I6 23“Tae 192 Raned Order = Under Predicted Tacks Catezory RANE ‘Option 1 Option Option ‘Onton Options Ranked Over Fom Sep Th ‘During Remon Human Heh & Ste ae war ‘Enveonment_rounater Environment si Environment ar Environment habia an eanay Land Use ie Land Use sorouning “Th ary or Sakeolaer Conar Interest Third Pany Sakai Comers Remediion obs goal state? ‘Aer Remediation Hunan Heh & Suey ie wa Huan Heath & Safety pubis Enviroment sic wen Envionent grande Enviroment, Rabat and ogy and Use Land Use soning “Thr Pry oe Satsoler Concer: Comma RAD Technical Report P316 24Box Z: Costs and Probability of Achieving the Objectives Costs: 1. Obtain an estimate ofthe uncertainty involved for option costs (if you do not have data ‘on this use a different discount factor to obtain lower and higher costs, see below) 2. Given the predicted level of uncertainty, calculate an upper and lower Bound for the ‘casts to give a range in which the ‘trae’ costs ma fall 3. Combine the lower and upper bounds with the probability of achieving the objectives to assess whether the preferred option may change (choosing the preferred option, below). (Changing the Discount Factor: 1L. Following the illustrative example given in Section B2.3.5, recalculate the option costs sing a lower discount factor e.g. 3%) anda higher factor (e. 10%). 12, Repeat for each remedial option and compare end ranking Hdentifying the Preferred Option Given Different Probabilities of Succes. 1. Obtain the probability of achieving the objectives foreach remedial option. 2. Assume tht the prefered option from Step I! (the option ranked as number one) now hhas costs equal tothe upper bound and thatthe second best option has costs equal 10 the lower bound, 3 Input these into the formula given below (where Cy are the cost ofthe preferred option, ‘and Py isthe probability that this option will meet the objectives; Cis the costs of the Second best option and P> sits probability of meetin the objectives) Bo> B G G 14. Determine whether the second hest option now hecomes the preferred option. ‘5. Repeat with other options as appropriate (this will only need 10 be completed where the oferved option changes). Enter the results into Table 20. R&D Technical Report P316 ns“Table 20; Revd Costs and Probailiy of Achieving Objectives ‘Dissut Rate oF Revo Conte option Sao owerl or ent ed Step 1 3 Probabiiy ofwces | Low etimate est stint Tih tine 2 3 « Probables Polos PredCost| Puree 1 Rank Bank ow) Rank aid) Rak i) z 3 « Com R&D Techni 26ox AA? Changing the Scores (Changing the Scores using Total Category Scores Determine the range of uncertainty foreach category (from Tables Sto 8). You may want te consider both a negative and positive range (where negative means the impacts could be ‘worse, for example, by assuming thatthe changes could be 225% (or equal tothe greatest loncertainy that you have noted). This process wil ned 10 be repeated for both the during ‘and after remediation scenarios. You can now recalculate the scores into ways + by assuming all impacts are under-estimated relative to the remedial option with the ‘worst impact ~ add the uncertainty othe score to give the revised score; + by assuning all impacts are overestimated relative t0 the remedial option vith the worst impact take the uncertainty from the score to give the revised score n ths case Table 21 should be used to note the revised scores. If you are using this part of the sensitivity analysis in isolation from the other parts, you wil need to assign weight in the Suome manner asin the original assessment. Ifyou are combining sensitivity analyses, you ‘only need 10 apply weights once 10 each combination. Tables 9 10 12 are used to record tneights and to reassess the ranking of the remedial option following changes to scores. RAD Technical Report P3I6 2"Tae 2: Reva Scores for CEAMICA iMPac ceria TOTAL SCORES FROM STEP I Homan lh and fey ‘Ta pry o sake [REVISED SCORES (assuming ll impacts underesinated) ‘Human ih ase Enver R&D Technical Report P316 28“Tae 3 Revised Sore IMPACT Comment [REVISED SCORES (assuming al inputs overtinated) Horan eal and ae RAD Technical Report P316 29Box AB: Applying Revised Weights to Sub-Categories ‘This process follows that used in Step Il (Section B3.6 2) where weights are applied 10 the ‘main categories used in the assessment (Table 22 is used to record changes to the sub- ‘category weights and scores) 1. Determine which ofthe sub-categories isthe most important. ‘Assign a weighting of 100 the most important sub-category. 53. Assign a weighting to the second most important sub-category that is proportional 10 the relaive importance ofthe impacts (hence, if the impacts are half as important this sub-category would be given a weight of 50, for sub-categories where there are no Impacts, no weight needs to be applied). 4. Repeat for ll sub-categories where necessary (e.g, environment will need weights to be ‘applied to all six sub-categories. 5. Multiply the tonal score for each sub-category by its weight and enter the results into Table 22. 6, Ifyou are using this part of the sensitivity analysis in isolaion or in combination with score changes only, you wll ned to assign weights to the during and afer remediation phases and to categories before assessing any changes tothe rank order of the remedial ‘options. Tables 1010 12 can be used for this purpose. Ifyou are combining these new Sub-category weights with other changes, there is no need to apply he other weighs at his ta R&D Technical Repor P316 230“Tae 2 Applying Weighs wo Sub-Cateoren iMPACT ‘rleria Daring remediation Toman bests and af Sewers TOTAL Surface wate quay Sata wae gay Goan ea) Groner aan Tera Eas Tora Tana te Sie Use Suroanig and Uae TOTAL RAD Technical Report P3I6 231“Table 2: Appling Weights to Sub-Categories teria Option ‘fer remediation Horan elt and ay ‘Steuer, TOT Tavironment Surfce water quay Saraswat Cea ay Taba BR Tana te Tora “Ted pany oF akbar ‘Cafes Rese TOTAL Comment RAD Technical Report P316 22Box AC: Applying Weights to Impacts Occurring During and Affer Remediation This proces follows thar used in Step Il (Section B3.6.2) where weights are applied 10 the four categories used in the assessment (Table 23 should be used to record all changes to Scores and weights). 1. Determine whether during or after remediation impacts are the most important 2. Assign a weighting of 100 1 the most important factor. 43. Assign a weighting to she second factor tha is proportional to he relative size ofthe Impacts hence, ifthe impacts are half ax significant this factor would be given a weight of 50) ‘Multiply the total score for during remediation by its weight ‘Multiply the total score for afer remediation by its weight Recalculate the impact category scores (Box U) Ifyou are using this part ofthe sensitivity analysis in isolation, or this isthe final part of a combination of analyses, you wll need to apply category weights before assessing ‘any changes in rank order of the remedial options. Tables 11 and 12 can be used for this purpose. Otherwise, you can finish your sensitivity analysis before applying these weights, R&D Technical Report P3I6 23‘DURING REMEDIATION: Haman Heath & Safe ‘See apie (om Step 1) Weigh eid) "AFTER REMEDIATION: Hoan Helh & Sey ‘Sie appli om Sep i Wei eve ‘DURING REMEDIATION: Environment Sore apie rom Step) Weis evs Revd sore AFTER REMEDIATION, Ervine ‘Sire applied (om Sep Weis erie Revie coe ‘DURING REMEDIATION: Land Use Sea apte om Sip I Wig evi) Revised coe “AFTER REMEDINTION: Land Use See applied om Sep Weight eves) Score appl Grom Step) Welah wenis “AFTER REMEDIATION: Tn Party o Sabor Concer ‘Sou apple om Sep 1 Wei eve Revised se Comme: RAD Technical Report P316 24Box AD: Applying Weights to Categories ‘This process follows that used in Sep Il (Section B3.6.2) where weights are applied to the four categories used in the assessment (Table 24 i used to record changes 10 these ‘weights 1. Rank the diferent impact categories in order of importance. 2. Assign a weighting of 100 points othe highest ranking impact category. 4. Consider the second highest ranked impact category and determine how important itis relative tothe highest ranked category, where this is less than 100 points (unless wo categories were both ranked of equal and highest importance). For example, Human Health & Safety may be assigned a weight of 100, with impacts on the Environment considered to be 80% as important (where, for example, there isa large population living close o the ste. but there is lite surface or groundwater 10 be impacted) and ‘thus assigned a weight of 80 (=100 x 0.80) 44 Now consider the third highest ranking category and determine how important itis relative 1 the second highest ranked impact category. For example, Land Use may be Considered to be 80% as important as Environment (where, for example, there is no ‘Planned development), and tus be assigned a weight of 0.64 (= 080 x 0.80). This procedure would be repeated forthe fourth highest ranking category 10 determine hhow it should be ranked relative 10 the third and thus the weight which should be assigned 10 i overall Table 12 can be used to assess any differences in ranked order that may occur following the ‘changes made during the sensitivity analysis RAD Technical Report P316 235“Tale 24 Option Performance Sores and Wels Third arty Human Heath | egsivament | tand ie | seaside “ on ‘OPriONT ‘Nod apace sas om Sep Revised TOTAL ‘OPTION? ‘Nowmaled apace oars Fo EP i Revised weighs ‘Onions ‘nals pan sores om Sep a Revised wes ‘OPTIONS Novrlsed gas ses TOR TEP ul Revie wg Revised SCORE Revised TOTAL Comment Lo RAD Technical Report P3I6 236Box AE: Costs and Probabili ‘of Acleving the Objectives Costs: 1. Obtain an estimate ofthe uncertainty involved for option costs (if you do not have data on this use a diffrent discount factor to obtain lower and higher cost, see below). 2. Given the predicted level of uncertainty, calclate an upper and lower bound for the costs 10 give a range in which the “true” costs may fal. 3. Combine the lower and upper bounds with the probability of achieving the objectives to ‘assess whether the preferred option may change (choosing the preferred option, below). (Changing the Discount Factor: 1. Following the itusraive example given in Section B34.2, recalculate the option costs tusing a lower discount factor (.g. 3%) and a higher factor (eg. 10%). 2. Repeat for each remedial option and compare end ranking. dentfying the Preferred Option Given Different Probabilities of Success: 1. Obtain the probability of achieving the objectives foreach remedial option “Assume tha the prefered option from Step II (the option ranked as number ome) now hhas costs equa tothe upper bound and thatthe second best option has costs equal to the Lower bound, 3. Input these into the formula given below (where Cy are the cost ofthe preferred option, ‘and P, isthe probability that this option will meet the objectives; Co isthe costs ofthe Second best option and P> is its probability of meeting the objectives): Bo> c G 4. Determine whether the second best option now becomes the preferred option. 5 Repeat with ether tions as appropriate (his wil only need to be completed where the referred option changes). Enter the resulis into Table 2. RAD Technical Report P3I6 oT“Table 25: Revised Costs ane Probaiiy of Achieving Objectives Dt Rte of Revd Cons ae Teortvertmuna [SOFC BETTSI | 5 rape oa Feb fms | Low timate Baten Tice 1 2 Feta iast Peon Poftrie Fogo 3 i Rank Rank oh oak) ant a) H 2 RAD Technical Report P316 238APPENDIX I: VALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS. Step IV considers those impacts which can be valued using market price effects Here, ‘nethods for valuing non-market based effects are discussed should you wish to develop first Onder estimates of the money value of other effects. This Appendix, therefore, support the ‘Step 1V appraisal but does not provide a core component ofthis guidance owing to concem ‘over the reliability and in some cases, validity ofthe benefit transfer methods described. In particular, caution is warranted i the valuation of human health and environmental effects. All wilingnessto-pay values quoted inthe tables given below have been updated 10 1998 pves. Where you are using values obtained from other sources, iis important to verify the Year in which they were calculated. ALL Agriculture and Commercial Fishing Alt Agricultural supplies Abstraction supplies are highly valued by fermers where they are used for iigaton purposes. if contamination would lead to a supply source being unfit for use on agricultural land, the Tesses incurred by farmers could Be high. These losses relate to lower crop yields, reduced control over produce size and timing of harvest, and/or poorer quality of produce. In some tases, buyers (eg. the big supermarket chains) will specify quality, size, timing and other parameters such thatthe los of iigation supplies will have significant financial implications for farmers. Longer-term impacts may include changes in the mix of erops grown on areas of land. The Environment Agency is currently exploring the feasibility of developing» database fof valuations of environmental Benefits which could enable beter derivation of ranges of appropriate valuations. ‘Under UK conditions, the value of ierigation water is highest for vegetables (notably early ‘pew potatoes) and soft fruit high yield, high valve products). The vale of irrigation water is Towest for eeeul, sugabeet,oloved rape and grass, and only in cernin cases will farmers tke inigation water for these crops (se Murphy (1992) and Bailey (1990). “The approach suggested here for valuation ofthe loss of irgation supplies i based on work nderaken by Silsoe College whichis reported more fully in Low Flow Alleviation: Benefit “Assessment Guidelines (Environment Agency, 1997). This approach relies on determining the average value of spray iigation in terms of yield and quality. Table ALI sets out festimates ofthe value added in terms of yield benefits by spray irrigation per unit of water “pplied toa range of crops, using 1998 prices. The erop yield response data presented here aye based on ADAS and MAFF data ‘Table AL2 contains estimates of the average benefits per unit of water applied, assuming ievgaton delivers the quality price premia associated with prime quality produce. Quality benefits on potatoes, fruit, vegetables and horicultural commodities are substantial, with 20% 10 30% price differentials arising between first and second class produce (Morris & ‘Weatherhead, 1996), These benefits acerue 10 the whole crop, with inigaion being 3 prerequisite for quality assurance in many cases, RAD Technical Report P3I6 AL"Table ALL: Average Grop Response to Inigation and Related Financial Benefits = Grp Ext Crop Ex Net Response Bera Neon ice (ot) Cows) Margin) vam ha nn) [iaiesep panies 3000 1200) ‘aco <8 sa Early Potses 15000 2250 mrs 08 020 Super 3800 80 sin as as Wier whe 100.00 300 oro au 196 Wier ey 5700 291 9609 a 1a Spring bay noo 291 os au. as Winer els beans a0 206 950s aot 380 Spring ld beans noo 296 9506 aot 80 Peas ied 103.00 30 sot at 40 Passing 190.00 570 1430008 oy casage 000 1800, m0 as 1428 — $500 v0 0 003 208 Fresh beane 000 3800 1200 0.06 ou amr beans sso 9000 seo 00s 1800 Brussel sroes sow 00 20m aot 960 |couttower 200 00 17600 oar a Lee sow $000 sao 003 360 Onions hom = 2200, shoo 008 08 sabes sono) © sano 20000 os 400 Rasperies 175000 35000 = 40000 ons 200 Blsckeurans sm 12500 song 003 15.00 ess pps siso0___7800 saog ou 600 Addon Cone ot Gros Oat Combine cops 3 Sugueet, 0 oes Averge npn bro on ADAS (7), MAFF (985) ‘rs cous cade aisooal resigning, eng, and where relevant, det packaging an tarkting cons Estimates tase 09 Nt (195), ABC (1990. R&D Technical Report P36 AL-2Tae oe marr cm yaaa, gyre en "rent i oe PSE a a a | enremee Somos tomer ee 200 Som wae an 5 moma kent” voce tm oe aa ast Rene toma an noes {0 me m8 staal Sm se eae sme mas gaye cone 3 Ge stat —— 7 etm ce, Sona — 3 me Smee a um ome tat on ono 2 m0 @ aan = Sem tment joonsne $0 Me owt soe $m Seis exes 1 bm ge oo 8a) a —— tot so0 ata Dessert apples u 375.00 » 3b aos, S47 Se REA ITA Goa RT EST a ee ar a mah an paw ng earns Loss of an iigaton supply would result in the farmer losing yield and quality benefits. ‘Thus, the benefits of land remediation in this case relate to the prevention of supply source ‘contamination and, henee, othe continued ability of farmers to irrigate crops. Estimation of these benefits requires data on the area of crops (in hectares) which would be affected by the Joss of irigation supplies and the types of crops grown. Using Tables ALI and AL2, the calculations would then be as follows: eld Bef» Mean Water pied (nm). sara Net Marin (ha) ‘Quay Benefit = Potential yeld (ha Price x Prem (%)/ Water ma) Toa nef = Yl Bonh + Quay Beet RAD Technical Report P316 AL-3‘Where productivity is affected by changes in yield and/or quality, financial and economic ‘benefits should be estimated in terms of changes in the ‘net margins” realised by farmers for the affected crops. ‘The figures given in Tables AL.| and AL? are already provided in terms ‘of net margins and thus no further adjustments are required. Note that for most crops, Financial losses will also corespond to economic losses, with the main exceptions being any crops such as cereals receiving Subsidies under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Such subsidies are effectively transfer payments and distort the financial value of the crop so that itis higher than its tre economic value. MAFF (Mortis & Weatherhead, 1996) has laid ‘dwn a set of reduction factors tht should be applied to CAP subsided commodities, with that applying 0 cereals, oilseeds, peas and beans curently being 10%. ALL2 Commercial fisheries ‘Aquaculture in England and Wales is dominated by rainbow tout farming, with earp and salmon farming being of far less financial or economic importance nationally. Trout farming equites a constant supply of Water large volumes in order to maintain sufficient levels of ‘oxygen forthe fish to respite and o remove toxic metabolic wastes. Should contamination move info waters which ae used as a supply soutce for a commercial fishery, it could result inthe need for the fishery to Find altemative supplies, to introduce new treatment plant, to restock where the contamination isa one-off event, oF to cease operation. Valuation of each ‘ofthese cass is outlined below. Alternative Supply Souree In the event of a contaminated land site resulting in the pollution of surface waters, it may be possible for a commercial fishery to switch supply sources. However, tis is unlikely 10 be feasible for most fisheries owing 10 their river dependent location, Where it i possible to switch sources, the inereased costs in obtaining wate supplies (units consumed multiplied by change in price) provides a measure ofthe damage costs resulting from contamination ‘The benefits of a land remediation option which would prevent such contamination, therefore are equal tthe avoidance ofthese damage costs. They should be entered ino the ‘analyse inthe yar at which the sak asesement predicts that contamination of surface waters ‘would take place und fr the duration ofthat contamination Operating Costs ‘Changes in operating costs may include the need to install on-site treatment, and may include both the capital costs of any treatment plant and annual running costs. Estimating these costs will require consultation with fishery owners, as such costs are likely to vary considerably ‘over farm size, farm system, andthe change in quality. “The benefits of land remediation in this case are equal to the avoidance of increased operating ‘costs. They should be entered into the analysis in the year at which the risk assessment predicts that contamination of surface waters would take place and for the duration of that ‘contamination. Restocking Costs In the case of periodic pollution events resulting from contamination, commercial fisheries ‘may face restocking cots following fish mortalities. Restocking costs can be estimated in R&D Technical Report P316 Alaterms of the actual costs of restocking fish of a similar size, or the market value ofthe fish at the time of loss (aking into account size, etc.) The steps involved in calculating restocking cost areas follows: 1. Determine the curent and future Hkelihood ofa contamination incident which will result in fish lls or loss of stock (for example, through lack of oxygen). 2, Establish the stock at risk and the costs of restocking. 43, Fatimate the expected restocking cost (where this takes into account likelihood pollution events) under both the current before remediation situation and after remediation. 4. Caleulate the benefits from the reduced likelihood of an incident, where this is the sllerence between the expected restocking costs before and after remediation. ‘Table AL illustrates how the costs of restocking resulting from periodic pollution events should be caleulated. As for the other two cases, the benefits of land remediation are the svoidance of such costs, “Fable ALS: Restocking Costs ‘The tet of eduig the telnood ofa pllaion event in ems fhe need ests fey (beer Commer or ata) cone elelted as flows ret iktnod of polation event ejore remediation parser Revie etn i sem after emeiton 05 pr year (tn 20 yeas) {Cut of etching aking maria ts into sob) ‘0000 (Coren expected sss of stocking 1h $0 00 = £50000 per anna Reve expected cn fetching 08 30000, Benes pr amu = #50 000-2500 = £47500 Loss of the Fishery Contamination may lead to a fishery ceasing operation as a result of surface waters becoming polluted on permanent basis. In such cass, the benefits of remediation are equivalent 0 the {ross margins eamed by the Fishery over the relevant period ofthe analysis. Estimates of the ioss margins associated with different types of commercial fisheries can be found in the ‘Various agricultural budgeting books such a those produced by AgroBusiness Consultants = The Agricultural Budgeting and Costing Book - and Nix - Farm Management Pocketbook. AL2. Valuation of Human Health and Environmental Effects AL2.1 Human health and safety “This category is divided into two components based onthe populations affected + health and safety of site users {public health and safety R&D Techni 1 Report P16 ALS“The relative importance ofthese two components will depend upon the characteristic of your site in terms of the degree and nature of contamination, any current uses of it (whether futhorsed or not), any eurent safety arrangements andthe level of remediation undertaken, ‘Health and Safety of Site Users “The steps involved in determining the value of any changes in risks tothe health and safety of site users (both permanent and temporary) areas follows |. Establish the current level of risk to the health and safety of site users associated with the health outcomes listed in Table ALLA, where these range from a fatal injury to 8 minor case of ill health, 2, Determine the change in the level of risk to the health and safety to both those undertaking remediation and to site users following remediation associated with the tlferent health outcomes listed in Table ALA. This change will probably be expressed in terms of a reduction inthe numberof cases of a health outcome. 3. Multiply the figure representing the net change inthe numberof eases of given health futcome by the appropriate value quoted in Table AL4, which reflects individuals” willingness-to-pay to avoid that effect, The sum of these provides the estimated value of the change in risk, 44. Determine the time period over which such reductions in risk would occur. ns ad injures oe wes TWP pr incident (1995) "a nury £72000 Permanent sepa flowing injury £14000 emaesy inapsciing i ell 148000 Serious inary absence of 3 oats) 5000 Nowra pole ine lnthan 3 woes seas) 1300 (ter ess of el aoincpsciating) 1300 Minar ca fil eat evoing 7 dys) absence) 2 Source: Divs & Tele, 1996 [Note thatthe values quoted in Table AI are not the only valuations which could be used and you may wish to test the sensitivity of the results t0 other valuations (e.g a value of £2 hl fra fatality related tothe health and safety of site users. This is particularly true fone ofthe valves quoted above are specific to remediation of land contamination and any fassociated construction activities. I is also recognised that guesstimates may have to be ‘made as tothe relevant ‘site user” population both during and after remediation “The timescale over which such effects are assumed to occur should be consistent with both the risk assessment and the characteristics of the remediation option. Thus, if the risk fassessment indicates thatthe risks would exist for, say, 30 years if no remediation were Undertaken (assuming breakdown of the contaminants through natural processes would occur ftherwise over this period), then this period shouldbe assumed forthe baseline against which the altemative remedial options are compared. RAD Technical Repon P316 Al-6Where the risk asessment predicts that a range of different effects may be experienced by liferent groups within the site user population, then the change inthe number of cases for ‘each should be determined. These should then be valued individually. However, where no Aistnction is made between types of site users, then itis suggested that only the “wort (i. the highest valved) illness or injury predicted by the risk assessment i carried forward inthe analysis, This assumption is recommended asthe willingness-o-pay values given in Table ‘AL cannot be assumed tobe aditive in nature; in other words, an individual may be willing {o pay less to avoid « combination of effects than the estimate which would be given by the ‘Summation of the willingness to pay values (conversely, he/she may also be willing t0 pay ‘more to avoid a combination of effets). Public Health and Safety “The value of impacts on public health and safety ae calculated ina similar manner to those for site users. However, the impacts of concern are slighily different, with Table ALS containing the valuations considered to be relevant to public health and safety. It should be ‘noted that other sources may provide other estimates. This includes values for stress-related problems arising a areslt of ether living on or adjacent roa site which has been identified as being contaminated, as wel as illness or injuries In applying these values, i is important that you recognise that they were not developed for application to land contamination decisions. These valves relate to general health care decision making, to air quality policy or stress associated with flooding and similar types of ‘events, Their validity within the context of land contamination is, therefore, questionable ‘The steps involved in determining the value of any changes in risks to public health and safety are as follows: 1 Establish the curent level of risk to public health and safety associated withthe health ‘outcomes listed in Table ALS; this may require guesstimating the number of individuals who may be affected (in the case of stress this may have to be based on the levels of ‘cancer expressed by those living on or nearby the site), Determine the change in the level of risk to public health associated with the different heath outcomes listed in Table ALS. This change will probably be expressed in terms of 2 reduction in the number of cases of a particular health outcome. Note that thought should be given to how risks might vary both during and following remediation. 3, Mukiply the figure representing the net change in the number of cases of a given health futcome by the appropriate value quoted in Table ALS, which reflects individuals” ‘willingness to pay t avoid that effect. The sum ofthese provides the estimated value of the change in risks. 4. Determine the time period over which such reductions in risk occur. RAD Technical Repor P36 ALT“Table ALS Monetary values for es and injuries to he poi ines oF ny ‘WP pr incident (1998) ‘ACUTE MORBIDITY Respiratory tsp amisions 300 Cardiovascular hospital admisons sse00 Emergensy oom visits 2165 ‘Acasa aac a (est scarf dey rau effet in ast (whee) 6 ‘CHRONIC MORBIDITY ‘Cronies SC) esr o00 Norful cancer 0000 Chronic ase of asta eon ze change n bronchi coughing in chien aus Source Commision forthe European Community (995) ‘MORBIDITY IMPACT Shores of reath seer) or Nansen er Drowsiness 2 Shores of reat (id) a9 Coupee severe or than day) 9 Headsche as Cant sth deeply eu ‘Sins congexion| 210 (Coupee (i more than as) a Runny se 2 Sout: ERO Esnams 190) ‘STRESS “Change in ving condone 20000 Coange in esidence 1s co0 ‘Change in slesping hai £12000 Source: Roy P eal (997) "TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS Aeciet its 006 perk Source: Deparcat of Transat (1993): Madson a (956. R&D Technical Report P316 AL-8[AS forthe health and safety of site users, the timescale over which such effets are assumed to occur should be consistent with both the risk assessment and the characteristics of the remediation option During remediation, the most significant impacts to public safety may result from increases in traffic movements, and hence increases in the potential for injuries arising from road ‘accidents, Table ALS also includes values which can be used to estimate impacts associated Unit increased levels of HGV movements and are general to al traffic movement contexts, “These values are expressed per kilometre of HGV movement and so can be used to assess the safety impacts arising under options involving offsite disposal (where the number of kilometres would be equal tothe return trip distnce tothe end disposi site) or treatment off- site (vhere the number of kilometres would be equal to the retum tip distance to the twoatment site. In such cases, the value of the increase in road traffic related risks during remediation sre caleulated as the sum ofthe willingness to pay to avoid an acident risk multiplied by the {otal kilometres of HGV transport offsite AL22 Environment In the appraisal steps, «division was made between impacts on the physical environment and fn the natural environment, No such separation is made here, in part because of the onstaints on valuation posed by the lack of relevant and suitable valuation studies. As @ Fesult ofthis paueity of existing studies, valuation is restricted to only @ smal sub-set of the potential non-market environmental impacts, with these being + impacts on rereatonal Fisheries as a result of contamination of surface waters (either directly from the site or indirectly through groundwater sources which are linked hydeautically): + impacts on other recreational uses of surface waters, including bankside recreation and ‘water based activities, where contamination affects the chemical and aesthetic quality of the waterbody: + impacts on the level of amenity conferred on adjacent properties asa result of changes in water quality, and in paricular in the sestheic quality of surface waters (ex. Aiscolouration of waters); impacts on the conservation value of aquatic habitats as a result of surface water contamination (where these are related to what are commonly referred to as non-use of passive use values) + impacts related to increases in noise and congestion arising from inereases in the number ‘of HGV movements associated wit off-site transport of wastes during remediation Valuation ofthe first four categories of impact as described below is based on the techniques set ut in the EWR Manual on Assessing the Benefis of Surface Water Quality Improvements EWR, 1996), which was commissioned by the former National Rivers Authority the Water Services Association, OFWAT, the Department of Environment and SNIFFER. This Manual seis out guidance on the application of benefit transfer based, desk-op techniques 10 the ‘monetary valuation of changes in water quality. Note that the valuation of conservation R&D Technical Report P316 Alorelated impacts using the type of approaches set out in the FWR Manual has been criticised ‘nd such figures may not be accepted by the relevant interest groups. Valuation of impacts associated to increased HGV movements during remediation is based fon the same type of approach as used in valuing the increase in acident risks described above, ‘The FWR Manual and Valuation of Recreation, Amenity and Conservation Benefits If the risk assessment predicts that, in the absence of land remediation, site will lead tothe contamination of surface waters to sulfiient degree to result insignificant changes in river water quality, then consideration may need to be given to the valuation of impacts on recreation, amenity and conservation impacts using the FWR Manual “This Manual can be applied at wo levels: +a the beginning of the Manual isa ready reckones’ which can be used (0 develop an forder of magnitude estimate of the potential benefits associated. with preventing reductions in or improving surface water quality; this “ready reckoner’ an be applied in ‘the minimum of time: while + the remainder of the Manual sts out a more detailed set of instructions for estimating the impacts of changes in water quality; application of the full Manual may take considerable time and resources (varying from a few weeks toa few months depending onthe site, is characteristics, and data availability). Note thatthe ‘ready reckoner’is a crude approach to valuation and may not be a reliable indicator ofthe benefits of land remediation. In panicular, it may be difficult o distinguish between the marginal differences in impacts aross alternative remedial options using this approach, However, application of the full Manual has significant data and resource Constraints, and it may be of value, therefore, to apply the "ready reckoner” first to determine ‘whether application ofthe fll Manual would be worthwhile “Thee other key issues should be bore in mind when applying the FWR manual to land remediation. These areas follows + the ability 0 link the types of pollution which may result from contaminated land to the types of pollution covered in the FWR Manual whichis targeted towards valuation of changes in sewage discharges; + identification of the relevant populations over which benefits should be aggregated this js of particular concern asthe population assumptions within the Manual for some use categories (and in paricular angling) and for conservation-elated non-use benefits have ben severely eniiised since production ofthe Manual For the sake of brevity, the requirements of the fll Manual application ae not detailed her, Instead, procedures involved in completing the ‘ready reckoner’ are summarised below to provide an indication of what such assessments involve (Tables AL6 and ALT) R&D Technical Report P316 AL-10“Table AL Ready Reskoner rom the FW Manual Vee ni Estinting Pred ‘Anelng Pena tiplear Depending or the «pe of Take consent Flowing OWE nutes fhe manera year iohnge medium wage low spe cane “GOO tao woe 3680370 o Simon 1880180 » Select he appropriate estimate fr he sty ste an mil by te [Engh of ever rach ose nk Tonal Panipat Foran ary Toa pa the Felon provider mae oF stor unter 29000 pesonspyearforamedum usage ste $400 ferson-po en fra igh sige ste Fora special atracon honeypot’ (4.000 person-plyea fora ow sage site 125008 penne ampaserfora medium usage te 250000 per-pla fora igh wpe se Prope Tne he ia amar of proper within 2 00 Fe (600 ween) ‘lth eed river reach, Choon the most pial Coun Tax hand Gt popes in te aca and mil the eimaed uber of ropes he afeod ea bythe conespooding midpoint ae Band A £20000, Band B £6 00; Band C #60000, Band D £780: Band €108 O00, Band 140000; Band £24000, Fund H £50000. Houser ely th appropri water apply company and aoc er fuses alin) fom te ishing below Anglian 20; Nonhuman 1.0; North West 26, Severn Trent 32 Yorkshire L8. - Mutpy ech yh length of the iver reach ok Soa FR 90) RAD Technical Report P3I6 ALI“Fae ALT Realy Reckoner fom the FWR Manual Vals Uses Unie ah (per ann) £1995 “Raglng”Ferpeson ap Coe angers (rom CV AUCH H44sC2 C676CI £1299T1 £172851 Cours eles (ested funn as27 72 Noga salon ot) ngs om C¥M: Freeh lat $7003 LITI7T 24 73SL ‘Migetory simon ala) angles (rom CVM): Eigect #93071 £2801 St ‘Migs simon (son) anglers (tit): Eilat Tilo Perpesn er £13 fo sare ean ai (GOA Cas 1) Reventon £06 fom oo sapble of eoppotng water Meds good enough for ter bids $B Gs pce wae Sd snd nuh 1 spo £0 tom ttn cour her table suport out rey F ‘Ae givenin Tabi ALS Nima Pe fousetol perm EDUOET owt media (ame Tak such as roach saves a wot fives peryear Seve seme to pluto, sme spends and soe insets Wr er some pls will gow it and ne the ale 1 poo (Gunde ah bite ad plans ih sacha wont dace or Bying which re senive to pola wl orn breeding populations ut poses of tds, cays, deagonties and cer insets wl be fond any pls prowing inthe wate) £10051 rm oe (supose ft ad plats: wae sted oly ty san nd common tps of dk that donot depend on wae fo ‘ds any tiger: water may be dcoue, covered in fam and tiny smal ba ay be abo sign of pollaion by sewage cr oi © Sars FR IMO AL3_ References for Appendix I [ABC (AgroBusiness Consultants) (1996) The Agricultural Budgeting & Costing Book, No. 43, November 1996, Melton Mowbray: Agro Business Consultants Lid. (1998 version now availabe). |ADAS (1977) in Morris, J. and Weatherhead, EX. (1996) Financial Consequences 10 Farmers of Introduction of Iigation Cessation Orders, Silsoe College, Cranfield Univesity, October 1996 Bailey, R. (1990) ligated Crops and Their Management, Ipswich: Farming Press. Davies, NV. and Teasdale, P. (1994) The Coss to the British Economy of Work Accidents and Work-Related Il Health, London: HSE. Department of Transport (1995) Valuation of Environmental Externalities, London: HMSO. Environment Agency (1997) Low Flow Alleviation: Benefit Assessment Guidelines, report ‘prepared by Risk & Policy Analysts Limited for the Agency. RAD Technical Report P3I6 ALB[ERM Economics (1996) The Feasibility of Cost Benefit Analysis for Integrated Pollution Control, report prepared forthe Environment Agency, Reference 3714, May 1996, ‘Commission for the Buropean Community (1998) ExternE: Externalities of Energy ~ Methodology, EC - DG XII: Science, Research and Development, Luxembourg, Office for Publication of the European Communities. Floyd, Pt, etal (1997) The Beonomie Benefits of Flood Warning and Forecasting, in Kay, M,, etal (eds) Water: Economics, Management and Demand, Intemational Commission on inrgation and Drainage, Proceedings ofthe 18" European Regional Conference "Water - An [Economic Good?” Oxford, UK, September 1997, London: Chapman & Hal. [FWR (1996) Assessing the Benefits of Surface Water Quality Improvements Manual, Foundation for Water Research, FR/CL 0008, December 1996, Marlow, Maddison, D., et al (1996) Blueprint 5, The True Costs of Road Transport, London: Earthscan MAFF (1983) in Morris, J. and Weatherhead, E.K. (1996) Financial Consequences to rarmers of Introduction of Irrigation Cessation Orders, Silsoe College, Cranfield University, October 1996 “Mois, J. and Weatherhead, E.K. (1996) Financial Consequences to Farmers of Introduction of ligation Cessation Orders, Silsoe College, Cranfield University, October 1996. Murphy, MLC. (1992) Report on Farming in the Eastern Counties of England 1990/91, ‘Agricultural Economics Uni, University of Cambridge. Nix, J. (1997) Farm Management Pocketbook, Wye College, 27" Editon, University of London (September, 1998 version now available). R&D Technical Report P316 ALBR&D Technical Report P316 AL