Framework for integrating sustainability into remediation projects

The US Sustainable Remediation Forum (SURF) created this Framework to enable sustainability parameters to be integrated and balanced throughout the remediation project life cycle, while ensuring long‐term protection of human health and the environment and achieving public and regulatory acceptance. Parameters are considerations, impacts, or stressors of environmental, social, and economic importance. Because remediation project phases are not stand‐alone entities but interconnected components of the wider remediation system, the Framework provides a systematic, process‐based approach in which sustainability is integrated holistically and iteratively within the wider remediation system. By focusing stakeholders on the preferred end use or future use of a site at the beginning of a remediation project, the Framework helps stakeholders form a disciplined planning strategy. Specifically, the Framework is designed to help remediation practitioners (1) perform a tiered sustainability evaluation, (2) update the conceptual site model based on the results of the sustainability evaluation, (3) identify and implement sustainability impact measures, and (4) balance sustainability and other considerations during the remediation decision‐making process. The result is a process that encourages communication among different stakeholders and allows remediation practitioners to achieve regulatory goals and maximize the integration of sustainability parameters during the remediation process. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Guidance for performing footprint analyses and life‐cycle assessments for the remediation industry

The US Sustainable Remediation Forum (SURF) proposes a nine‐step process for conducting and documenting a footprint analysis and life‐cycle assessment (LCA) for remediation projects. This guidance is designed to assist remediation practitioners in evaluating the impacts resulting from potential remediation activities so that preventable impacts can be mitigated. Each of the nine steps is flexible and scalable to a full range of remediation projects and to the tools used by remediation practitioners for quantifying environmental metrics. Two fictional case studies are presented to demonstrate how the guidance can be implemented for a range of evaluations and tools. Case‐study findings show that greater insight into a study is achieved when the nine steps are followed and additional opportunities are provided to minimize remediation project footprints and create improved sustainable remediation solutions. This guidance promotes a consistent and repeatable process in which all pertinent information is provided in a transparent manner to allow stakeholders to comprehend the intricacies and tradeoffs inherent in a footprint analysis or LCA. For these reasons, SURF recommends that this guidance be used when a footprint analysis or LCA is completed for a remediation project. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Integrating Remediation and Reuse to Achieve Whole‐System Sustainability Benefits

This perspective article was prepared by members of the Sustainable Remediation Forum (SURF), a professional nonprofit organization seeking to advance the state of sustainable remediation within the broader context of sustainable site reuse. SURF recognizes that remediation and site reuse, including redevelopment activities, are intrinsically linked—even when remediation is subordinate to or sometimes a precursor of reuse. Although the end of the remediation life cycle has traditionally served as the beginning of the site's next life cycle, a disconnect between these two processes remains. SURF recommends a holistic approach that brings together remediation and reuse on a collaborative parallel path and seeks to achieve whole‐system sustainability benefits. This article explores the value of integrating remediation into the reuse process to fully exploit synergies and minimize the costs and environmental impacts associated with bringing land back into beneficial use. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Estimating Social Impacts of a Remediation Project Life Cycle With Environmental Footprint Evaluation Tools

This article presents a methodology to calculate the social cost of sustainability metrics with environmental footprint evaluation tools. Measuring the impacts of a remediation project on society is challenging because the methods by which these impacts can be measured have not been established. To perform a complete sustainability assessment of a project's life cycle, costs borne by society in terms of environmental, economic, and community impacts must be evaluated. Two knowledge gaps have been identified among the sustainability assessments currently being performed during a remediation project's life cycle: (1) lack of methodologies available to evaluate impacts on the socioeconomic aspects of remediation and (2) lack of sustainability assessments conducted during the site characterization stage. Sustainability assessments were conducted on two case studies using the methodology proposed in this article: one during the site characterization stage and the other during remedial action. The results of this study demonstrated that costs borne by society from a remediation project are significant and metric specific. This study also highlighted the benefits of conducting a sustainability assessment at the site characterization stage using environmental footprint analysis tools, cost benefit analysis, and an evaluation of costs borne by society. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Closing the mass balance at chlorinated solvent sites: Sources and attenuation processes

Using detailed mass balance and simple analytical models, a spreadsheet‐based application (BioBalance) was developed to equip decision makers with a predictive tool that can provide a semiquantitative projection of source‐zone concentrations and provide insight into the long‐term behavior of the associated chlorinated solvent plume. The various models were linked in a toolkit in order to predict the composite impacts of alternative source‐zone remediation technologies and downgradient attenuation processes. Key outputs of BioBalance include estimates of maximum plume size, the time frame for plume stabilization, and an assessment of the sustainability of anaerobic natural attenuation processes. The toolkit also provides spatial and temporal projections of integrated contaminant flux and plume centerline concentrations. Results from model runs of the toolkit indicate that, for sites trying to meet traditional, “final” remedial objectives (e.g., two to three orders of magnitude reduction in concentration with restoration to potable limits), “dispersive” mechanisms (e.g., heterogeneous flow and matrix diffusion) can extend remedial time frames and limit the benefits of source remediation in reducing plume sizes. In these cases, the removal of source mass does not result in a corresponding reduction in the time frame for source remediation or plume stabilization. However, this should not discourage practitioners from implementing source‐depletion technologies, since results from the toolkit demonstrate a variety of measurable benefits of source remediation. Model runs suggest that alternative, “intermediate” performance metrics can improve and clarify source remediation objectives and better monitor and evaluate effectiveness. Suggested intermediate performance metrics include reduction in overall concentrations or mass within the plume, reduction of flux moving within a plume, and reduction in the potential for risk to a receptor or migration of a target concentration of contaminant beyond a site boundary. This article describes the development of two key modules of the toolkit as well as illustrates the value of using intermediate performance metrics to evaluate the performance of a source‐remediation technology. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Integrating the Social Dimension in Remediation Decision‐Making: State of the Practice and Way Forward

Sustainable remediation guidance, frameworks, and case studies have been published at an international level illustrating established sustainability assessment methodologies and successful implementation. Though the terminology and indicators evaluated may differ, one common theme among international organizations and regulatory bodies is more comprehensive and transparent methods are needed to evaluate the social sphere of sustainable remediation. Based on a literature review and stakeholder input, this paper focused on three main areas: (1) status quo of how the social element of sustainable remediation is assessed among various countries and organizations; (2) methodologies to quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate societal impacts; and (3) findings from this research, including challenges, obstacles, and a path forward. In conclusion, several existing social impact assessment techniques are readily available for use by the remediation community, including rating and scoring system evaluations, enhanced cost benefit analysis, surveys/interviews, social network analysis, and multicriteria decision analysis. In addition, a list of 10 main social indicator categories were developed: health and safety, economic stimulation, stakeholder collaboration, benefits community at large, alleviate undesirable community impacts, equality issues, value of ecosystem services and natural resources, risk‐based land management and remedial solutions, regional and global societal impacts, and contributions to other policies. Evaluation of the social element of remedial activities is not without challenges and knowledge gaps. Identification of obstacles and gaps during the project planning process is essential to defining sustainability objectives and choosing the appropriate tool and methodology to conduct an assessment. Challenges identified include meaningful stakeholder engagement, risk perception of stakeholders, and trade‐offs among the various triple bottom line dimensions. ©2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Debunking myths about sustainable remediation

Sustainable remediation concepts have evolved during the decade 2007–2017. From the establishment of the first Sustainable Remediation forum (SURF) in 2007, to publication of ASTM and ISO standards by 2017. Guidance has been developed around the world to reflect local regulatory systems, and much has been learned in applying sustainability assessment to contaminated site management projects. In the best examples, significant improvements in project sustainability have been delivered, including concurrent reduction of the environmental footprint of the remediation program, improved social performance, and cost savings and/or value creation. The initial advocates for the concept of sustainable remediation were quickly supported by early adopters who saw its potential to improve the remediation industry's performance, but they also had to overcome some inertia and scepticism from other parties. During the debates and discussions that occurred at numerous international conferences and SURF workshops around the world, various opinions were formed and positions stated. Some proved to be correct, others not so. With the recent publication of ISO Standard 18504 and the benefit of a decade's‐worth of hindsight on sustainable remediation programs implementation and project delivery, this paper summarizes a number of myths and misunderstandings that have been stated regarding sustainable remediation and seeks to debunk them. Sustainable remediation assessment shows us how to manage unacceptable risks to human health and the environment in the best, that is to say the most sustainable, way. It provides the contaminated land management industry a framework to incorporate sustainable development principles into remediation projects and deliver significant value for affected parties and society more broadly. In dispelling some myths about sustainable remediation set out in this paper, it is hoped that consistent application of ISO18504/SuRF‐UK (or equivalently robust guidance) will facilitate even wider use of sustainable remediation around the world.     

Sustainable Remediation Considerations for Treatment of 1,4‐Dioxane in Groundwater

1,4‐Dioxane remediation is challenging due to its physiochemical properties and low target treatment levels. As such, applications of traditional remediation technologies have proven ineffective. There are a number of promising remediation technologies that could potentially be scaled for successful application to groundwater restoration. Sustainable remediation is an important consideration in the evaluation of remediation technologies. It is critically important to consider sustainability when new technologies are being applied or new contaminants are being treated with traditional technologies. There are a number of social, economic, and environmental drivers that should be considered when implementing 1,4‐dioxane treatment technologies. This includes evaluating sustainability externalities by considering the cradle‐to‐grave impacts of the chemicals, energy, processes, transportation, and materials used in groundwater treatment. It is not possible to rate technologies as more or less sustainable because each application is context specific. However, by including sustainability thinking into technology evaluations and implementation plans, decisions makers can be more informed and the results of remediation are likely to be more effective and beneficial. There are a number sustainable remediation frameworks, guidance documents, footprint assessment tools, life cycle assessment tools, and best management practices that can be utilized for these purposes. This paper includes an overview describing the importance of sustainability in technology selection, identifies sustainability impacts related to technologies that can be used to treat 1,4‐dioxane, provides an approximating approach to assess sustainability impacts, and summarizes potential sustainability impacts related to promising treatment technologies. ©2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Sustainable soil remediation by refrigerated condensation at sites with “high‐concentration” recalcitrant compounds and NAPL: Two case studies

Remediation of recalcitrant compounds at sites with high concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or nonaqueous‐phase liquids (NAPLs) can present significant technical and financial (long‐term) risk for stakeholders. Until recently, however, sustainability has not been included as a significant factor to be considered in the feasibility and risk evaluation for remediation technologies. The authors present a framework for which sustainability can be incorporated into the remediation selection criteria focusing specifically on off‐gas treatment selection for soil vapor extraction (SVE) remediation technology. SVE is generally considered an old and standard approach to in situ remediation of soils at a contaminated site. The focus on off‐gas treatment technology selection in this article allows for more in‐depth analysis of the feasibility evaluation process and how sustainable practices might influence the process. SVE is more commonly employed for recovery of VOCs from soils than other technologies and generally employs granular activated carbon (GAC), catalytic, or thermal oxidation, or an emerging alternative technology known as cryogenic‐compression and condensation combined with regenerative adsorption (C3–Technology). Of particular challenge to the off‐gas treatment selection process is the potential variety of chemical constituents and concentrations changing over time. Guidance is available regarding selection of off‐gas treatment technology (Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, 1996; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006). However, there are common shortcomings of off‐gas treatment technology guidance and applications; practitioners have rarely considered sustainability and environmental impact of off‐gas treatment technology selection. This evaluation includes consideration of environmental sustainability in the selection of off‐gas treatment technologies and a region‐specific (Los Angeles, California) cost per pound and time of remediation comparisons between GAC, thermal oxidation, and C3–Technology. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Ten years later: The progress and future of integrating sustainable principles,practices, and metrics into remediation projects

In 2009, the Sustainable Remediation Forum released a white paper entitled “Integrating sustainable principles, practices, and metrics into remediation projects” (Ellis & Hadley, 2009, Remediation, 19, pp. 5–114). Sustainable remediation was a relatively new concept, and the white paper explored a range of approaches on how sustainability could be integrated into traditional remediation projects. This paper revisits the 2009 white paper, providing an overview of the early days of the evolving sustainable remediation practice and an assessment of the progress of sustainable remediation over the last 10 years with a primary focus on the United States. The current state of the sustainable remediation practice includes published literature, current practices and resources, applications, room for improvement, international progress, the virtuous cycle that applying sustainable remediation creates, and the status of the objectives cited in the 2009 white paper. Over the last decade, several sustainable remediation frontiers have emerged that will likely be a focus in advancing the practice. These frontiers include climate change and resiliency, weighting and valuation to help better consolidate different sustainable remediation metrics, programmatic implementation, and better integration of the societal impacts of sustainable remediation. Finally, as was the case for the 2009 white paper, this paper explores how sustainable remediation may evolve over the next 10 years and focuses on the events and drivers that can be significant in the pace of further development of the practice. The events and drivers include transformation impacts, societal influences, and the continued development of new technologies, approaches, and tools by remediation practitioners. The remediation industry has made significant progress in developing the practice of sustainable remediation and has implemented it successfully into hundreds of projects. While progress has been significant, an opportunity exists to implement the tenets of sustainable remediation on many more projects and explore new frontiers to help improve the communication, integration, and derived benefits from implementing sustainable remediation into future remediation projects.     

Resilience: A New Consideration for Environmental Remediation in an Era of Climate Change

There has been a growing movement within the environmental industry to develop more sustainable approaches in environmental remediation. These have generally included carbon footprint analysis, life cycle assessment, and best management practices to reduce the overall net environmental, social, and economic impacts of investigation and remediation activities. One of the foundational reasons net environmental impacts are currently evaluated is to identify and, subsequently, reduce contributions to climate change, primarily greenhouse gas emissions. While this trend toward sustainability and reduction in impact to the global environment is both important and admirable, the approach to remediation design and long‐term planning now needs to evolve further to better incorporate climate resilience into sustainable remediation design and implementation: designing remediation solutions that account for the projected impacts of climate change, as well as have the capacity to adapt to changing conditions. As a global population, we are now beyond the point of being able to prevent climate change and instead need to plan for adapting to it. In remediation, the effects of climate change create both risks and opportunities which should be considered during remedial design and long‐term planning. Responsible parties may see the push for—and management of—these considerations through their internal corporate risk management. The authors of this paper propose a simple framework for climate adaptation and resilience evaluations and plan development for remediation projects. ©2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Off‐gas treatment carbon footprint calculator: Form and function

The quantification of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can be a powerful sustainability measurement indicator for assessing environmental impacts of various operations, which can include remediation of chemically impacted media or construction projects. A carbon footprint calculator was developed and is presented in this article as one tool for applying sustainable practices to environmental remediation—specifically to assess the GHG footprint for remediation projects. The calculator is constructed from a compilation of published metrics and “standards.” © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Sustainable remediation panel—Measuring the social and economic benefits of a sustainable remediation project

Remediation developed a Sustainable Remediation Panel in the Summer 2009 issue, which featured the Sustainable Remediation Forum White Paper. The panel is composed of leaders in the field of sustainable remediation who have volunteered to provide their opinions on difficult subjects related to the topic of how to integrate sustainability principles into the remediation practice. The panel's opinions are provided in a question‐and‐answer format, whereby selected experts provide an answer to a question. This issue's question is provided below, followed by opinions from five experts in the remediation field.

相似文献   

Developing Effective Decision Support for the Application of “Gentle” Remediation Options: The GREENLAND Project

Gentle remediation options (GRO) are risk management strategies/technologies that result in a net gain (or at least no gross reduction) in soil function as well as risk management. They encompass a number of technologies, including the use of plant (phyto‐), fungi (myco‐), and/or bacteria‐based methods, with or without chemical soil additives or amendments, for reducing contaminant transfer to local receptors by in situ stabilization, or extraction, transformation, or degradation of contaminants. Despite offering strong benefits in terms of risk management, deployment costs, and sustainability for a range of site problems, the application of GRO as practical on‐site remedial solutions is still in its relative infancy, particularly for metal(loid)‐contaminated sites. A key barrier to wider adoption of GRO relates to general uncertainties and lack of stakeholder confidence in (and indeed knowledge of) the feasibility or reliability of GRO as practical risk management solutions. The GREENLAND project has therefore developed a simple and transparent decision support framework for promoting the appropriate use of gentle remediation options and encouraging participation of stakeholders, supplemented by a set of specific design aids for use when GRO appear to be a viable option. The framework is presented as a three phased model or Decision Support Tool (DST), in the form of a Microsoft Excel‐based workbook, designed to inform decision‐making and options appraisal during the selection of remedial approaches for contaminated sites. The DST acts as a simple decision support and stakeholder engagement tool for the application of GRO, providing a context for GRO application (particularly where soft end‐use of remediated land is envisaged), quick reference tables (including an economic cost calculator), and supporting information and technical guidance drawing on practical examples of effective GRO application at trace metal(loid) contaminated sites across Europe. This article introduces the decision support framework. ©2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Sustainable Remediation and Decision Analysis Practices at an Onshore Gas Well Site

Strategies for remediation of drilling mud wastes at a typical deep sour gas well site in the foothills of Alberta were assessed in terms of financial and social costs and benefits, in alignment with established sustainable remediation and decision analysis principles. Managers of contaminated sites containing historical drilling wastes are challenged with managing liability through several regulatory changes over time. Excavation and disposal of the contaminated soil from the site was the only means of securing regulatory release, with the nearest landfill located 150 km away. A perception exists that in many cases excavation and disposal inflicts unnecessary levels of site intrusiveness and public disturbance when other options achieving a similar risk end point may do so for lower social cost. The study tested this hypothesis to ascertain whether the currently accepted solution is the best option when the wider costs and benefits to society and the environment are included. Eight remedial strategies were assessed using cost–benefit analysis, including using environmental economics techniques to quantify social and environmental impacts. The economic model showed that methods such as capping in‐place or engineered encapsulation were superior to full excavation and disposal from financial and sustainability perspectives. Quantified external costs and benefits such as road damage, greenhouse gas emissions, public nuisance and safety, and community amenity value were influential in identifying superior options. It was demonstrated that $0.2 million of societal costs could be avoided by choosing capping over landfill disposal. This represents substantial implications when viewed in the context of this and other operators’ portfolios of hundreds of abandoned wells in the area. ©2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Applying sustainable development principles to contaminated land management using the SuRF‐UK framework

In the past decade, management of historically contaminated land has largely been based on prevention of unacceptable risks to human health and the environment, to ensure a site is “fit for use.” More recently, interest has been shown in including sustainability as a decision‐making criterion. Sustainability concerns include the environmental, social, and economic consequences of risk management activities themselves, and also the opportunities for wider benefit beyond achievement of risk‐reduction goals alone. In the United Kingdom, this interest has led to the formation of a multistakeholder initiative, the UK Sustainable Remediation Forum (SuRF‐UK). This article presents a framework for assessing “sustainable remediation”; describes how it links with the relevant regulatory guidance; reviews the factors considered in sustainability; and looks at the appraisal tools that have been applied to evaluate the wider benefits and impacts of land remediation. The article also describes how the framework relates to recent international developments, including emerging European Union legislation and policy. A large part of this debate has taken place in the “grey” literature, which we review. It is proposed that a practical approach to integrating sustainability within risk‐based contaminated land management offers the possibility of a substantial step forward for the remediation industry, and a new opportunity for international consensus. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Environmental impacts associated with manufacturing of solar and wind power alternative energy systems

The Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment (AFCEE) is performing Environmental Restoration Program Optimization (E‐RPO) at various United States Air Force (USAF) installations to evaluate existing remediation strategies and recommend actions to advance issues impacting the remediation program. As sustainability practices (including green and sustainable remediation [GSR]) increase at Air Force facilities and throughout the environmental industry, the use of alternative energy‐collection sources (i.e., solar photovoltaics [PV] and wind turbines) is likely to increase dramatically. Although PV and wind power systems exhibit a low environmental footprint during their use, there are potential human health and environmental impacts from the manufacturing and recycling processes. This article presents a summary of available information regarding the environmental impacts associated with life‐cycle assessments that include raw material extraction and refinement, product manufacturing, use, and postuse disposal for PV and wind turbines (i.e., cradle‐to‐grave impacts). © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Cover design for radioactive and AMD-producing mine waste in the Ronneburg area, eastern Thuringia

At the former uranium mining site of Ronneburg, large scale underground and open pit mining for nearly 40 years resulted in a production of about 113,000 tonnes of uranium and about 200 million cubic metres of mine waste. In their present state, these materials cause risks to human health and strong environmental impacts and therefore demand remedial action. The remediation options available are relocation of mine spoil into the open pit and on site remediation by landscaping/contouring, placement of a cover and revegetation. A suitable vegetated cover system combined with a surface water drainage system provides long-term stability against erosion and reduces acid generation thereby meeting the main remediation objectives which are long-term reduction of radiological exposure and contaminant emissions and recultivation. The design of the cover system includes the evaluation of geotechnical, radiological, hydrological, geochemical and ecological criteria and models. The optimized overall model for the cover system has to comply with general conditions as, e.g. economic efficiency, public acceptance and sustainability. Most critical elements for the long-term performance of the cover system designed for the Beerwalde dump are the barrier system and its long-term integrity and a largely self-sustainable vegetation.     

Green Remediation or Sustainable Remediation: Moving From Dialogue to Common Practice

Different points of view have emerged concerning how to best consider and address the largely unexamined ancillary environmental impacts, and more particularly the social and economic impacts, of remediation activities. These views are generally categorized as “green remediation” and “sustainable remediation.” This article dissects the commonalities and differences between “green” and “sustainable” remediation approaches. Several key obstacles to the broader implementation of sustainable remediation practices are identified. Similarities identified among the two concepts offer a common ground and areas of collaboration. The objective of this article is to support maturation of the remediation industry by addressing the opposition to and supporting the implementation of sustainable remediation practices, including offering recommendations for a path forward. ©2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.