304 Integr Environ Assess Manag 7, 2011—PM Chapman, Editor

evidence linking incinerator emissions and lake beds, the‘‘missing water license condition’’ has been found, in the formof a license requirement for incineration management planswhich follow the guidance document recommendations.

REFERENCESBlais MJ, Froese KL, Kimpe LE, Muir KCG, Backus S, Comba M, Schindler DW. 2003.

Assessment and characterization of polychlorinated biphenyls near a

hazardous waste incinerator: Analysis of vegetation, snow, and sediments.

Environ Toxicol Chem 22:126–133.

[CCME] Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 2001a.

Canadian sediment quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life.

Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans

(PCDD/Fs). Winnipeg, MN: CCME.

[CCME]., Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 2001b. Canada-wide

standard for dioxins and furans. [cited 2011 Jan 5]; Available from:

www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/d_and_f_standard_e.pdf

Hermanson MH. 1990. 210Pb and 137Cs chronology of sediments from small,

shallow Arctic lakes. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 54:1443–1451.

Su M-C, Christensen ER. 1997. Apportionment of sources of polychlorinated

dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans by a chemical mass balance model.

Water Res 31:2935–2948.

Webster E, Mackay D. 2007. Modelling the environmental fate of dioxins and

furans released to the atmosphere during incineration. Prepared for

Environment Canada by the Canadian Environmental Modelling Centre.

Report No. 200701. [cited 2011 Jan 5]; Available from: http://

www.trentu.ca/academic/aminss/envmodel/CEMC200701.pdf

USE OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEDDECISION MAKING IN CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTREMEDIATION

Magnus Sparrevik,*y,z and Igor Linkov§

yNorwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo, Norway

zNorwegian University of Technology, Trondheim, Norway

§US Environmental Laboratory, US Army Engineer Research and

Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi and Concord,

Massachusetts, USA

*magnus.sparrevik@ngi.no

DOI: 10.1002/ieam.172

The selection of remedial alternatives for contaminatedsediments is a complex process that balances environmental,social and economic aspects. The decision to remediate andthe identification of relevant remedial options are often basedon quantitative ecological risk assessment (ERA) (Bridgeset al. 2006) with qualitative consideration of other factorswithin frameworks of feasability studies and environmentalimpact assessments. While ERA is suitable for assessingwhether contaminated sediments constitute an unacceptableenvironmental risk or whether remediation may reduce thisrisk below acceptable threshold levels, the life cycle impact ofa remedial action is often overlooked. Specifically, environ-mental consequences associated with the use of energy andother resources and environmental impacts incurred duringremediation may differ between different remedial strategies.Furthermore, any beneficial uses of removed sediments arenot integrated in the ERA. We argue that quantitative LifeCycle Assessment (LCA) can supplement ERA in thisrespect, to create an enhanced systems approach to sedimentmanagement.

LCA Methodology and Use

LCA is a well-known quantitative method to assess theimpacts associated with all the stages of a product or aproduct system. In this ISO-standardized approach, theinputs, outputs, and potential environmental impacts of asystem are compiled and evaluated throughout the system’sentire life cycle. In contrast to ERA, which generally addressesrisks associated with a specific chemical or stressor, LCAaggregates multiple impacts associated with defined productor management alternatives across the project or product lifecycle in space and in time to comparatively assess the overallpotential for environmental damage.

An LCA consists of 4 steps: goal and scope definition,inventory analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation.Goal and scope definition is important since it determines thecontent and methodological choices for the subsequent steps.The inventory analysis aggregates the various inputs andoutputs into cumulative numbers, whereas the impact modelconverts these numerical data into potential effects asenvironmental and human harm and resource depletion.Finally, the impact results are interpreted, and uncertaintyand sensitivity in the results are addressed.

The use of LCA has evolved significantly over the past 3decades, from niche applications to a more systematic androbust framework for project management and systemsevaluation. Examples of less traditional areas now usingLCA include the food industry, construction activities, andthe service sector.

Life Cycle Impacts for Sediment Remediation

Even though life cycle impacts of environmental manage-ment in aquatic ecosystems are gaining interest in bothacademia and industry, LCA has rarely been used forsediment management. However, in the related field of soiland groundwater contamination, an LCA framework has beendeveloped to address environmental impact from differentremedial technologies (Lesage et al. 2007). An adaptation ofthe LCA framework for sediment remediation is given inFigure 1. The LCA impacts have normally been referred to asprimary, secondary, and tertiary effects. Primary effectsoriginate from the contamination source and site specificimpacts, for example, effects from contaminant uptake inseafood, local ecotoxicological effects on the benthic fauna,and physical local impacts of the remediation operation.Secondary impacts are the effects related to the use ofresources and energy during the remedial implementation.Tertiary impacts could include additional postremedialeffects, such as increased recreational use of the area afterremediation.

The Grenland Fjord Capping Case

Sparrevik et al. (2011) applied LCA to assess possiblefuture remediation alternatives for the Grenland Fjord inNorway, which is contaminated by polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and -furans (PCDD/Fs). Capping the contaminatedsediments has been proposed as a viable option to mitigaterisk, based on ERA for fish and shellfish. The risk-reductioneffectiveness of different capping alternatives has previouslybeen assessed based on the ability to reduce the flux ofPCDD/F from sediments to the food chain below thresholdlevels (Saloranta 2008).

The intention of the LCA study was to complement theERA by assessing the environmental footprint of active andpassive thin-layer capping alternatives as compared to naturalrecovery. Three capping materials were used: locally dredgedclay, crushed limestone from a regional source, and activatedcarbon (AC). The AC originated from 2 sources; fossil-basedanthracite coal and carbon from renewable biomass. Whenusing a renewable material for AC production, a net carbon-sequestration effect was accounted for when the material isdeployed on the seabed.

The results of this LCA study showed capping to be apreferable alternative to natural recovery with respect toenvironmental footprint, only if the analysis was limited toprimary effects related to the site contamination. Incorpo-ration of secondary effects related to the use of resources andenergy during the implementation of a thin-layer capincreased the environmental footprint, making cappinginferior to the natural recovery alternative. Of interest, theuse of biomass-derived activated carbon showed an environ-mental footprint comparable to natural recovery, due to thesequestration of carbon dioxide.

Implications for Future Cases

One lesson from the above study is that LCA of theenvironmental footprint of sediment-remediation projects canbe used to prioritize remedial alternatives for sedimentmanagement. The study further showed that even technolo-gies with relatively low resource intensity, such as thin-layercapping, can have a significant environmental footprintdepending on the materials selected.

The use of LCA can enhance the relative attractiveness ofremedial solutions with limited resource use and emissions,including the effects of beneficial sediment use. However,the methodological differences between traditional ERAresults and results from the LCA are substantial, and anLCA may therefore only be attempted for comparativeassessment of remedial alternatives found to be acceptablethrough ERA.

Integrating LCA in a Decision-Making Framework

Even though both ERA and LCA provide useful andimportant information to support risk management decisions,each does not explicitly consider many factors important inthe selection of sediment management alternatives. Cost,technical aspects, and the tertiary effects mentioned earlierare just a few examples of factors not integrated in presentLCA and ERA procedures. One way to include all of thesefactors is to monetize social and economic impacts. However,monetization is a controversial topic, and assigning monetaryequivalents to nontangible metrics may be difficult forstakeholders. Moreover, monetization may further reducethe transparency of the method and increase the complexityof communicating results, both of which are undesirable. Areasonable alternative to this approach is the integration ofERA, LCA, and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) asadvocated by Linkov and Seager (2011). Our current researchfocuses on illustrating application of this combined frame-work on contaminated sediments.

REFERENCESBridges TS, Apitz SE, Evison L, Keckler K, Logan M, Nadeau S, Wenning RJ. 2006.

Risk-based decision making to manage contaminated sediments. Integr

Environ Assess Manag 2:51–58.

Lesage P, Deschenes L, Samson R. 2007. Evaluating holistic environmental

consequences of brownfield management options using consequential

life cycle assessment for different perspectives. Environ Manage 40:323–

337.

Linkov I, Seager T. 2011. Coupling multi-criteria decision analysis, life cycle

assessment and risk assessment for emerging threats. Environ Sci Technol

(in review).

Saloranta TM, Armitage JM, Haario H, Naes K, Cousins IT, Barton DN. 2008.

Modeling the effects and uncertainties of contaminated sediment

remediation scenarios in a Norwegian Fjord by Markov chain Monte Carlo

simulation. Environ Sci Technol 42:200–206.

Sparrevik M, Saloranta TM, Cornelissen G, Eek E, Fet A, Breedveld GD, Linkov I.

2011. Use of life cycle assessments to evaluate the environmental footprint of

contaminated sediment remediation. Environ Sci Technol (in review).

Learned Discourses— Integr Environ Assess Manag 7, 2011� 2010 SETAC 305

Figure 1. Adapting the impact framework for LCA effect characterization to sediment remediation at contaminated sites.