Environmental Management

, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 315–331

A Framework for Net Environmental Benefit Analysis for Remediation or Restoration of Contaminated Sites

  • Rebecca A. Efroymson
  • Joseph P. Nicolette
  • Glenn W. SuterII


Net environmental benefits are gains in value of environmental services or other ecological properties attained by remediation or ecological restoration minus the value of adverse environmental effects caused by those actions. Net environmental benefit analysis (NEBA) is a methodology for comparing and ranking net environmental benefits associated with multiple management alternatives. A NEBA for chemically contaminated sites typically involves comparison of several management alternatives: (1) leaving contamination in place; (2) physically, chemically, or biologically remediating the site through traditional means; (3) improving ecological value through onsite and offsite restoration alternatives that do not directly focus on removal of chemical contamination; or (4) a combination of those alternatives. NEBA involves activities that are common to remedial alternatives analysis for state regulations and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, post-closure and corrective action permits under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, evaluation of generic types of response actions pertinent to the Oil Pollution Act, and land management actions that are negotiated with regulatory agencies in flexible regulatory environments (i.e., valuing environmental services or other ecological properties, assessing adverse impacts, and evaluating remediation or restoration options). This article presents a high-level framework for NEBA at contaminated sites with subframeworks for natural attenuation (the contaminated reference state), remediation, and ecological restoration alternatives. Primary information gaps related to NEBA include nonmonetary valuation methods, exposure–response models for all stressors, the temporal dynamics of ecological recovery, and optimal strategies for ecological restoration.

Key Words: NEBA Net environmental benefit analysis Ecological risk assessment Petroleum Remediation Ecological restoration 

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Baker, J. M. 1999Ecological effectiveness of oil spill countermeasures: How clean is cleanPure and Applied Chemistry71135159Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Daily, G. C., Alexander, S., Erlich, P. R., Goulder, L., Lubchenco, J., Matson, P. A., Mooney, H. A., Postel, S., Schneider, S. H., Tilman, D., Woodwell, G. M. 1997Ecosystem services: Benefits supplied to human societies by natural ecosystemsIssues in Ecology2116Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Efroymson, R. A., J. P. Nicolette, and G. W. Suter II. 2003. A framework for net environmental benefit Analysis for remediation or restoration of petroleum-contaminated sites. Report ORNL/TM-2003/17 Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Efroymson, R. A., Carlsen, T. M., Jager, H. I., Kostova, T., Carr, E. A., Hargrove, W. W., Kercher, J., Ashwood, T. L. 2004a

    Toward a framework for assessing risk to vertebrate populations from brine and petroleum spills at exploration and production sites

    Kapustka, L.Galbraith, H.Luxon, M.Biddinger, G. R. eds. Landscape ecology and wildlife habitat evaluation: Critical information for ecological risk assessment, land-use management activities, and biodiversity enhancement practicesASTM International, West ConshohockenPennsylvania
    Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Efroymson, R. A., B. E. Sample, and M. J. Peterson. 2004b. Ecotoxicity test data for total petroleum hydrocarbons in soil: plants and soil-dwelling invertebrates. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 2: in press.10: 207–231Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    EPA 1992. Framework for ecological risk assessment. Report EPA/630R-92/001. US Environmental Protection Agency Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    EPA 1998. Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. Report EPA/630/R-95/002F. Risk Assessment Forum, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fiocco, R. J., Lewis, A. 1999Oil spill dispersantsPure and Applied Chemistry712742Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fonseca, M. S., Julius, B. E., Kenworthy, W. J. 2000Integrating biology and economics in seagrass restoration: How much is enough and whyEcological Engineering15227237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gregory, R. 1999

    Identifying environmental values

    Dale, V. H.English, M. R. eds. Tools to aid environmental decision makingSpringer-VerlagNew York3261
    Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huesemann, M. H. 1995Predictive model for estimating the extent of petroleum hydrocarbon biodegradation in contaminated soilsEnvironmental Science & Technology29718Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    IPIECA (International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association)2000Choosing Spill response options to minimize damage: Net environmental benefit analysis. IPIECA Report Series Vol. 10IPIECALondonGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lai, S.-K. 2001An empirical study of equivalence judgments vs. ratio judgments in decision analysisDecision Sciences32277302Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Luftig, S. D. 1999Issuance of Final Guidance: Ecological risk assessment and risk management principles for superfund sites. OSWER Directive 9285. 7-28. Office of Emergency and Remedial ResponseUS Environmental Protection AgencyWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lunel, T., and J. M. Baker. 1999. Quantification of net environmental benefit for future oil spills. In Proceedings of the 1997 International Oil Spill Conference, Seattle, Washington, paper 210.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lunel, T., J. Rusin, N. Bailey, C. Halliwell, and L. Davies. 1997. The net environmental benefit of a successful dispersant operation at the Sea Empress incident Pages 185–194 in Proceedings of the 1997 International Oil Spill Conference, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Martin, J. F. 2002Emergy valuation of diversions of river water to marshes in the Mississippi River DeltaEcological Engineering18265286Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Marwood, T. M., Knoke, K., Yau, K., Lee, H., Trevors, J. T., Suchorski-Tremblay, A., Flemming, C. A., Hodge, V., Liu, D. L., Seech, A. G. 1998Comparison of toxicity detected by five bioassays during bioremediation of diesel fuel-spiked soilsEnvironmental Toxicology & Water Quality13117 126Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Milon, J. W., Dodge, R. E. 2001Applying habitat equivalency analysis for coral reef damage assessment and restorationBulletin of Marine Science69975988Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nedunuri, K. V., Govindaraju, R. S., Banks, M. K., Schwab, A. P., Chen, Z. 2000Evaluation of phytoremediation for field-scale degradation of total petroleum hydrocarbonsJournal of Environmental Engineering126483490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nicolette, J. P., Rockel, M., Kealy, M. J. 2001Quantifying ecological changes helps determine best mitigationPipe Line & Gas Industry84(9)5257Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Niemi, G. J., DeVore, P., Detenbeck, N., Taylor, D., Lima, A., Pastor, J., Yount, J. D., Naiman, R. J. 1990Overview of case studies on recovery of aquatic ecosystems from disturbanceEnvironmental Management14571587Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    NOAA Damage Assessment and Restoration Program. 1999. Discounting and the treatment of uncertainty in natural resource damage assessment. Technical Paper 99-1. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    NOAA Damage Assessment and Restoration Program. 2000. Habitat equivalency analysis: An overview. Revision. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Silver Spring, Maryland; available. at http://www.darp.noaa.gov/pdf/heaoverv.pdfGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    NOAA Hazardous Materials Response Branch. 1990. Excavation and rock washing treatment technology: Net environmental benefit analysis. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    NRC (National Research Council) Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources. 1994. Assigning Economic Value to Natural Resources, National Research Council, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Odum, H. T., Odum, E. P. 2000The energetic basis for valuation of ecosystem servicesEcosystems32123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Penn, T., Tomasi, T. 2002Calculating resource restoration for an oil discharge in Lake Barre, LouisianaEnvironmental Manageent 29691702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Peterson, C. H., McDonald, L. L., Green, R. H., Erickson, W. P. 2001Sampling design begets conclusions: The statistical basis for detection of injury to and recovery of shoreline communities after the “Exxon Valdez” oil spillMarine Ecology Progress Series210255283Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Powell, J. 2002Using expectations of gain to bound the benefits from contaminated land remediationInternational Journal of Environment and Pollution17337355Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Principe, P. P. 1995Ecological benefits assessment: A policy-oriented alternative to regional ecological risk assessmentHuman and Ecological Risk Assessment1423435Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Reagan, D. P. 2000

    Natural remediation in the risk management process: goals, options, and monitoring

    Swindoll, M.Stahl, R. G., Jr.Ells, S. J. eds. Natural remediation of Environmental contaminants: Its role in ecological risk assessment and risk managementSETAC PressPensacola, Florida929
    Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rubin, R. R., Brennan, M. J., Bracken, M. C., Hirsch, R. L., Leonard, C., Rundlett, F. M. 2001Options for enhancing the transfer of excess and surplus military property for conservation or recreational useBahr, IncMiddleton, WisconsinGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sprenger, M. D., Charters, D. W. 1997Ecological risk assessment guidance for Superfund. Process for designing and conducting ecological risk assessment, Interim FinalEnvironmental Response Team, US Environmental Protection AgencyEdison, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    State of Florida. 2001. Ecosystem Management Agreements. The 2001 Florida Statutes, Title XXIX Public Health, Chapter 403, Sect. 403.0752; available at http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Strange, E., Galbraith, H., Bickel, S., Mills, D., Beltman, D., Lipton, J. 2002Determining ecological equivalence in service-to-service scaling of salt marsh restorationEnvironmental Management29290300CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Suslick, S. B., Furtado, R. 2001Quantifying the value of technological, environmental and financial gain in decision models for offshore oil explorationJournal of Petroleum Science and Engineering32115125Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Suter, G. W., II 1999A framework for assessment of ecological risks from multiple activitiesHuman and Ecological Risk Assessment5397413Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Suter, G. W., II, Cornaby, B. W., Hadden, C. T., Hull, R. N., Stack, M., Zafran, F. 1995An approach for balancing health and ecological risks at hazardous waste sitesRisk Analysis15221231PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Suter, G. W., II, Efroymson, R. A., Sample, B. E., Jones, D. S. 2000Ecological risk assessment for contaminated sitesLewis PublishersBoca Raton, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Suter, G. W., II, Luxmoore, R. J., Smith, E. D. 1993Compacted soil barriers at abandoned landfill sites are likely to fail in the long termJournal of Environmental Quality22217226Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Thorn, R. M. 2000Adaptive management of coastal ecosystem restoration projectsEcological Engineering15365372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    TNRCC 2001. Guidance for conducting ecological risk assessments at remediation sites in Texas. Toxicology and Risk Assessment Section, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Austin, Texas.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Unsworth, R. E., Bishop, R. C. 1994Assessing natural resource damages using environmental annuitiesEcological Economics113541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Vasek, F. C., Johnson, H. B., Eslinger, D. H. 1975Effects of pipeline construction on creosote bush scrub vegetation of the Mojave DesertMadroño23113Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wang, X, Bartha, R. 1990Effects of bioremediation on residues, activity and toxicity in soil contaminated by fuel spillsSoil Biology and Biochemistry22501505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Warren-Hicks, W. H., Moore, D. R. J. 1998Uncertainty analysis in ecological risk assessmentSociety of Environmental Toxicology and ChemistryPensacola, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Washington State Department of Ecology. Amended February 12, 2001. Model Toxics Control Act. Chapter 173–340 WAC. Publication No. 94-06 Seattle, Washington; available at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/9406.pdf.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Weston, D. P., Jarman, W. M., Cabana, G., Bacon, C. E., Jacobson, L. A. 2002An evaluation of the success of dredging as remediation at a DDT-contaminated site in San Francisco Bay, California, USAEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry2122162224PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wike, L. D., Martin, F. D., Hanlin, H. G., Paddock, L. S. 2000Small mammal populations in a restored stream corridorEcological Engineering15S121S129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zarull, M. A., J. H. Hartig, and L. Maynard. 1999. Ecological benefits of contaminated sediment remediation in the Great Lakes Basin. 1999. Sediment Priority Action Committee, Great Lakes Water Quality Board, International Joint Commission, Washington, DC; available at http://www.ijc.org/boards/wqb/ecolsed/execsum.html.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rebecca A. Efroymson
    • 1
  • Joseph P. Nicolette
    • 2
  • Glenn W. SuterII
    • 3
  1. 1.Environmental Sciences DivisionOak Ridge National LaboratoryOak Ridge, TennesseeUSA
  2. 2.CH2M HILLAtlanta, GeorgiaUSA
  3. 3.National Environmental AssessmentUS Environmental Protection AgencyCincinnati, OhioUSA

Personalised recommendations