Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, SE-41296 Gothenburg, Sweden.
Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, SE-41296 Gothenburg, Sweden.
Sci Total Environ. 2023 Jul 15;882:163664. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163664. Epub 2023 Apr 22.
Contamination of soil and water systems by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) due to uncontrolled use of aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs) at firefighting training sites at civilian and military airports is a universal issue and can lead to significant human health and environmental impacts. Remediation of these sites is often complex but necessary to alleviate the PFAS burden and minimise the risks of exposure by eliminating the hotspot/source from which the PFAS spreads. This study presents a probabilistic cost-benefit analysis (CBA) for evaluating PFAS remediation alternatives, which includes monetisation of both direct costs and benefits as well as externalities. The method is applied for a case study to compare five remediation alternatives for managing PFAS contaminated soil at Stockholm Arlanda Airport in Sweden. The social profitability, or the net present value (NPV), of each remediation alternative was calculated in comparison to two reference alternatives - 'total excavation' of the site (Alt 0) or 'do nothing'. Sensitivity analyses and model scenarios were tested to account for uncertainties, including small or large PFAS spreading and simulating different values for the magnitude of annual avoided cost of inaction (i.e., aggregate benefit) from PFAS remediation. In comparison to total excavation, four of the five studied remediation alternatives resulted in a positive mean NPV. Excavation and stabilization/solidification of the hotspot on-site combined with stabilization using activated carbon for the rest of site (Alt 2) had the highest NPV for both spreading scenarios, i.e., Alt 2 was the most socially profitable alternative. Simulations of the annual avoided cost of inaction enabled estimation of the breakeven point at which a remediation alternative becomes socially profitable (NPV > 0) compared to 'do nothing'. Alt 2 had the lowest breakeven point: 7.5 and 5.75 millions of SEK/year for large and small spreading, respectively.
由于在民用和军用机场的消防训练场地不受控制地使用水基成膜泡沫(AFFF),土壤和水系受到了全氟和多氟烷基物质(PFAS)的污染,这是一个普遍存在的问题,可能会对人类健康和环境造成重大影响。这些场地的修复通常很复杂,但为了减轻 PFAS 的负担并通过消除 PFAS 扩散的热点/源头来最大限度地降低暴露风险,修复是必要的。本研究提出了一种用于评估 PFAS 修复替代方案的概率成本效益分析(CBA),其中包括对直接成本和效益以及外部性进行货币化。该方法应用于瑞典斯德哥尔摩阿兰达机场 PFAS 污染土壤的案例研究,以比较五种修复替代方案。与两个参考替代方案(场址的“全部挖掘”(Alt 0)或“不采取任何行动”)相比,计算了每个修复替代方案的社会效益,即净现值(NPV)。进行了敏感性分析和模型情景测试,以考虑不确定性,包括 PFAS 的小或大扩散,并模拟了避免 PFAS 修复不采取行动的年度成本(即总效益)的不同值。与全部挖掘相比,五种研究的修复替代方案中有四种导致了正的平均 NPV。对现场的热点进行挖掘和稳定/固化,并用活性炭对其余场地进行稳定(Alt 2),在两种扩散情景下均具有最高的 NPV,即 Alt 2 是最具社会效益的替代方案。对避免不采取行动的年度成本的模拟,使我们能够估计修复替代方案相对于“不采取任何行动”变得具有社会效益(NPV>0)的盈亏平衡点。Alt 2 的盈亏平衡点最低:大规模和小规模扩散时分别为每年 750 万和 575 万瑞典克朗。