skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Combining lifecycle and risk assessments of mineral waste reuse scenarios for decision making support

Abstract

Lack of regulations and standards on mineral waste recycling makes Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) useful methods for environmental assessment of recycling scenarios. An unsolved problem arises whenever two scenarios of recycling have to be compared according to both ERA and LCA impact results considered simultaneously. A methodology to combine LCA and ERA results and tools toward Integrated Environmental Assessment (IEA) is proposed together with three application examples based on case studies. The most effective combination approach is to define further impact categories for ERA to be considered with the standard LCA ones. Then, the use of a multicriteria analysis method was proved to be an efficient way to rank alternative scenarios with respect to all the results. The key issues to be further researched are discussed and proposals are suggested.

Authors:
 [1];  [2];  [3]
  1. ECOINNOVA France, 47 rue M. Flandin, 69003 Lyon Cedex 3 (France). E-mail: benetto@ecoinnova.it
  2. INSA Lyon-LAEPSI, 20 rue A.Einstein, 69621 Villeurbanne cedex, since November 2005: INSA Toulouse-LIPE, 135 av. de Rangueil, 31077 Toulouse cedex France (France). E-mail: ligia.barna@insa-toulouse.fr
  3. ENTPE-LSE, rue M.Audin, 69518 Vaulx-en-Velin cedex (France). E-mail: perrodin@entpe.fr
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
20972045
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Environmental Impact Assessment Review; Journal Volume: 27; Journal Issue: 3; Other Information: DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2006.10.007; PII: S0195-9255(06)00129-6; Copyright (c) 2006 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES; DECISION MAKING; INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY; LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT; MINERAL WASTES; RECYCLING; RISK ASSESSMENT

Citation Formats

Benetto, Enrico, Tiruta-Barna, Ligia, and Perrodin, Yves. Combining lifecycle and risk assessments of mineral waste reuse scenarios for decision making support. United States: N. p., 2007. Web. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2006.10.007.
Benetto, Enrico, Tiruta-Barna, Ligia, & Perrodin, Yves. Combining lifecycle and risk assessments of mineral waste reuse scenarios for decision making support. United States. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2006.10.007.
Benetto, Enrico, Tiruta-Barna, Ligia, and Perrodin, Yves. Sun . "Combining lifecycle and risk assessments of mineral waste reuse scenarios for decision making support". United States. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2006.10.007.
@article{osti_20972045,
title = {Combining lifecycle and risk assessments of mineral waste reuse scenarios for decision making support},
author = {Benetto, Enrico and Tiruta-Barna, Ligia and Perrodin, Yves},
abstractNote = {Lack of regulations and standards on mineral waste recycling makes Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) useful methods for environmental assessment of recycling scenarios. An unsolved problem arises whenever two scenarios of recycling have to be compared according to both ERA and LCA impact results considered simultaneously. A methodology to combine LCA and ERA results and tools toward Integrated Environmental Assessment (IEA) is proposed together with three application examples based on case studies. The most effective combination approach is to define further impact categories for ERA to be considered with the standard LCA ones. Then, the use of a multicriteria analysis method was proved to be an efficient way to rank alternative scenarios with respect to all the results. The key issues to be further researched are discussed and proposals are suggested.},
doi = {10.1016/j.eiar.2006.10.007},
journal = {Environmental Impact Assessment Review},
number = 3,
volume = 27,
place = {United States},
year = {Sun Apr 15 00:00:00 EDT 2007},
month = {Sun Apr 15 00:00:00 EDT 2007}
}
  • This paper summarizes the nuclear explosive hazard assessment activities performed to support the US Department of Energy (DOE) Stockpile Stewardship (SS-21) Integrated Safety or ``Seamless Safety`` program. Past practice within the DOE Complex dictated the use of a significant number of post-design/ fabrication safety reviews to analyze the safety associated with operations on nuclear explosives and to answer safety questions. These practices have focused on reviewing-in or auditing-in safety vs incorporating safety in the design process. SS-21 was proposed by the DOE as an avenue to develop a program to ``integrate established, recognized, verifiable safety criteria into the process atmore » the design stage rather than continuing the reliance on reviews, evaluations and audits.`` The cornerstone of the SS-21 design process is the hazard assessment, which is performed concurrently with process and tooling design. The hazard assessment is used as the key management tool to guide overall risk management associated with the nuclear explosive activity through supporting risk-based decisions made with respect to process design.« less
  • Cited by 10
  • The decision process involved in cleaning sites contaminated with hazardous, mixed, and radioactive materials is supported often by results obtained from computer models. These results provide limits within which a decision-maker can judge the importance of individual transport and fate processes, and the likely outcome of alternative cleanup strategies. The transport of hazardous materials may occur predominately through one particular pathway but, more often, actual or potential transport must be evaluated across several pathways and media. Multimedia models are designed to simulate the transport of contaminants from a source to a receptor through more than one environmental pathway. Three suchmore » multimedia models are reviewed here: MEPAS, MMSOILS, and PRESTO-EPA-CPG. The reviews are based on documentation provided with the software, on published reviews, on personal interviews with the model developers, and on model summaries extracted from computer databases and expert systems. The three models are reviewed within the context of specific media components: air, surface water, ground water, and food chain. Additional sections evaluate the way that these three models calculate human exposure and dose and how they report uncertainty. Special emphasis is placed on how each model handles radionuclide transport within specific media. For the purpose of simulating the transport, fate and effects of radioactive contaminants through more than one pathway, both MEPAS and PRESTO-EPA-CPG are adequate for screening studies; MMSOILS only handles nonradioactive substances and must be modified before it can be used in these same applications. Of the three models, MEPAS is the most versatile, especially if the user needs to model the transport, fate, and effects of hazardous and radioactive contaminants. 44 refs., 2 tabs.« less
  • Massive efforts are underway to clean up hazardous and radioactive waste sites located throughout the United States. To help determine cleanup priorities, computer models are being used to characterize the source, transport, fate, and effects of hazardous chemicals and radioactive materials found at these sites. Although the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US Department of Energy (DOE), and the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have provided preliminary guidance to promote the use of computer models for remediation purposes, no agency has produced directed guidance on models that must be used in these efforts. As a result, model selection ismore » currently done on an ad hoc basis. This is administratively ineffective and costly, and can also result in technically inconsistent decision-making. To identify what models are actually being used to support decision-making at hazardous and radioactive waste sites, a project jointly funded by EPA, DOE, and NRC was initiated. The purpose of this project was to: (1) identify models being used for hazardous and radioactive waste site assessment purposes; and (2) describe and classify these models. This report presents the results of this study. A mail survey was conducted to identify models in use. The survey was sent to [approx] 550 persons engaged in the cleanup of hazardous and radioactive waste sites; 87 individuals responded. They represented organizations including federal agencies, national laboratories, and contractor organizations. The respondents identified 127 computer models that were being used to help support cleanup decision-making. There were a few models that appeared to be used across a large number of sites (e.g., RESRAD). In contrast, the survey results also suggested that most sites were using models which were not reported in use elsewhere. Information is presented on the types of models being used and the characteristics of the models in use.« less
  • In response to the significant number of statutory requirements passed by Congress as part of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), as well as with numerous problems that exist in the current regulatory structure, Marcia Williams, Director of EPA's Office of Solid Waste, recently issued a strategy for implementing the hazardous waste program over the next 10 years. The following report represents the integrated results of her Implementation Task Force. The strategy consists of four key components. They are to use a risk-based decision-making approach to set and to implement priority activities; to set a finite numbermore » of priority activities to address the problems identified in EPA's existing program; to simplify implementation of the hazardous waste program; and to improve data collection activities to better track progress and accomplishments. The focal point of this strategy is to use risk-based decision making wherever feasible. Historically, RCTA has been implemented primarily as a technology-based program to prevent future releases of hazardous waste. The current framework places most of the emphasis on the type of facility managing the waste, without considering such factors as the facility's distance to population, hydrogeological conditions, and the waste's toxicity, volume, transport, and fate. A risk-based approach bridges that gap. The approach provides several necessary benefits to implementing the hazardous waste program.« less