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.     

Progress in Sustainable Remediation

In the past decade or so, 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” (i.e., achieves suitability for beneficial uses). 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 achieving risk‐reduction goals alone. This article provides a global roundup of progress by these initiatives and their key documentation. It reviews common themes and points of divergence. The information is based on a literature review and surveying the various networks involved, with a particular focus on recent developments in the United Kingdom. The global roundup updates a previous global roundup presented in Europe in 2013 at Aquaconsoil 2013 (Bardos et al., 2013a, 2013b). © 2014 Paul Bardos     

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.     

A Slice of Guidance Provides Some Insight to Addressing Contaminated Sediments

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued guidance to improve cleanup risk management decisions at sites involving contaminated sediments. The guidance is titled Principles for Managing Contaminated Sediment Risks at Hazardous Waste Sites and is important because sediment cleanup decisions are often very technical and complex. While the guidance is not a step‐by‐step “how to” document, it does provide the framework for risk‐based decision making and national consistency. Although it does not answer the more technical questions associated with remediation, it will likely provide site managers with greater certainty related to their decisions and help determine what questions need to be asked for many complex issues. Additional and forthcoming EPA reports, seminars, and products will be useful in building upon this framework. This article provides an overview of the risk management principles presented in the guidance. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Comparing the Adoption of Contaminated Land Remediation Technologies in the United States,United Kingdom,and China

In many locations across the world, land contamination poses a serious threat to human health and the wider environment. For instance, a report published on April 17, 2014, revealed that China now has 16.1 percent of its land contaminated by various organic and inorganic contaminants, posing a range of challenges from human health risk to food security. The innovation and adoption of suitable remediation technologies is critical for solving land contamination issues. However, little is known about the pattern of remediation technology adoption, as well as its determining factors. This study uses a questionnaire survey in the United States, United Kingdom, and China to examine the spatial variation of remediation technology adoption. It further explores the temporal trend of remediation technology adoption using secondary data from the U.S. Superfund program. The study identified significant differences in remediation technology adoption among these countries, which are attributed to the different environmental, social, economic, and regulatory contexts. It is argued that the full implications of remediation technology adoption to sustainable development should be further studied, and policy instruments should be designed accordingly to promote those remediation technologies that align the best with long‐term sustainability. Technology developers may also use these implications to adjust their research and development priorities. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Application of the operating window concept to remediation‐option selection

An Erratum has been published for this article in Remediation 14(4) 2004, 141. The selection of remediation options for the management of unacceptable risks at contaminated sites is hindered by insufficient information on their performance under different site conditions. Therefore, there is a need to define “operating windows” for individual remediation options to summarize their performance under a variety of site conditions. The concept of the “operating window” has been applied as both a performance optimization tool and decision support tool in a number of different industries. Remediation‐option operating windows could be used as decision support tools during the “options appraisal” stage of the Model Procedures (CLR 11), proposed by the Environment Agency (EA) for England and Wales, to enhance the identification of “feasible remediation options” for “relevant pollutant linkages.” The development of remediation‐option operating windows involves: 1) the determination of relationships between site conditions (“critical variables”) and option performance parameters (e.g., contaminant degradation or removal rates) and 2) the identification of upper‐ and lower‐limit values (“operational limits”) for these variables that define the ranges of site conditions over which option performance is likely to be sufficient (the “operating window”) and insufficient (the “operating wall”) for managing risk. Some research has used case study data to determine relationships between critical variables and subsurface natural attenuation (NA) process rates. Despite the various challenges associated with the approach, these studies suggest that available case study data can be used to develop operating windows for monitored natural attenuation (MNA) and, indeed, other remediation options. It is envisaged that the development of remediation‐option operating windows will encourage the application of more innovative remediation options as opposed to excavation and disposal to landfill and/or on‐site containment, which remain the most commonly employed options in many countries. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Managing contaminated sites and the role of domestic and international forums

Domestic and international cooperation in the field of contaminated‐site management has increased dramatically in the past decade. The expected benefits of this cooperation include the reduction of duplication in remediation efforts, the coordination of contaminated‐site research, improved synergy between various stakeholders, enhanced policy development, and better information dissemination and technology transfer. This article identifies and briefly discusses key domestic and international collaborations, partnerships, and networks relating to contaminated‐site management and remediation. Also provided is information on how the forums can be accessed. Common themes identified across the forums discussed in this article include (1) the development and demonstration of innovative technologies, (2) the use of risk assessment, (3) the use of toxicology, bioavailability, and ecotoxicity testing, and (4) the increasing need to find holistic approaches for managing contaminated sites, such as guaranteed remediation programs and transfer of environment liability, and the need for understanding implications of remediation financing mechanisms. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, 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.     

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.     

Approaches for assessing hazards and risks to workers and the public from contaminated land

Many public agencies and private entities are faced with assessing the risks to humans from contamination on their lands. The United States Department of Energy (US DOE) and Department of Defense are responsible for large holdings of contaminated land and face a long‐term and costly challenge to assure sustainable protectiveness. With increasing interest in the conversion of brownfields to productive uses, many former industrial properties must also be assessed to determine compatible future land uses. In the United States, many cleanup plans or actions are based on the Comprehensive Environmental Responsibility, Compensation, and Liability Act, which provides important but incomplete coverage of these issues, although many applications have tried to involve stakeholders at multiple steps. Where there is the potential for exposure to workers, the public, and the environment from either cleanup or leaving residual contamination in place, there is a need for a more comprehensive approach to evaluate and balance the present and future risk(s) from existing contamination, from remediation actions, as well as from postremediation residual contamination. This article focuses on the US DOE, the agency with the largest hazardous waste remediation task in the world. Presented is a framework extending from preliminary assessment, risk assessment and balancing, epidemiology, monitoring, communication, and stakeholder involvement useful for assessing risk to workers and site neighbors. Provided are examples of those who eat fish, meat, or fruit from contaminated habitats. The US DOE's contaminated sites are unique in a number of ways: (1) huge physical footprint size, (2) types of waste (mixed radiation/chemical), and (3) quantities of waste. Proposed future land uses provide goals for remediation, but since some contamination is of a type or magnitude that cannot be cleaned up with existing technology, this in turn constrains future land use options, requiring an iterative approach. The risk approaches must fit a range of future land uses and end‐states from leave‐in‐place to complete cleanup. This will include not only traditional risk methodologies, but also the assessment and surveillance necessary for stewards for long‐term monitoring of risk from historic and future exposure to maintain sustainable protectiveness. Because of the distinctiveness of DOE sites, application of the methodologies developed here to other waste site situations requires site‐specific evaluation © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Injecting remediation compounds—How you inject is equally as important as what you inject

The injection of remediation compounds has rapidly become a widely accepted approach for addressing contaminated sites. One of the most fundamental questions surrounding the use of in situ remediation has been “What compound are you injecting at your site?” With the advances in the industry's understanding and acceptance of the in situ remediation process remediation professionals are now asking a follow‐up question that has become equally important to the success of a project: “How are you injecting a compound at your site?” This article discusses advances in field applications for in situ remediation and injecting remediation compounds. © 2003 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.     

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.     

Crop‐based systems for sustainable risk‐based land management for economically marginal damaged land

The increasing need for biomass for energy and feedstocks, along with the need to divert organic methane generating wastes from landfills, may provide the economic leverage necessary to return this type of marginal land to functional and economic use and is strongly supported by policy at the European Union (EU) level. The use of land to produce biomass for energy production or feedstocks for manufacturing processes (such as plastics and biofuels) has, however, become increasingly contentious, with a number of environmental, economic, and social concerns raised. The REJUVENATE project has developed a decision support framework to help land managers and other decision makers identify potential concerns related to sustainability and what types of biomass reuse for marginal land might be possible, given their particular circumstances. The decision‐making framework takes a holistic approach to decision making rather than viewing biomass production simply as an adjunct of a planned phytoremediation project. The framework is serviceable in Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. These countries have substantive differences in their land and biomass reuse circumstances. However, all can make use of the set of common principles of crop, site, value, and project risk management set out by REJUVENATE. This implies that the framework should have wider applicability across the EU. This article introduces the decision support framework. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

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.     

Incorporating Bioavailability Considerations Into the Evaluation of Contaminated Sediment Sites

In March 2011, the Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC) Contaminated Sediments Team published a web‐based Technical and Regulatory Guidance on the concepts, processes, and uses of bioavailability in a risk decision‐making framework at a contaminated sediment site. Bioavailability processes, as defined by the National Research Council (NRC; 2003), are the “individual physical, chemical, and biological interactions that determine the exposure of plants and animals to chemicals associated with soils and sediments.” Bioavailability assessment tools aid in the assessment of human and ecological exposure and development of site‐specific remedial objectives. The guidance provides information on the processes that may affect contaminant bioavailability within sediments to understand exposure within ecological and human receptors; supports the development of conceptual site models (CSMs); and describes available tools (biological, chemical, and physical) and models that are used to measure and characterize the fate and transport and potential bioavailability of contaminants. Case studies, referenced throughout the document, demonstrate the practical application of bioavailability measures. The guidance will describe the proper application of traditional and emerging sediment remediation technologies to support the selection of a remedy that is protective of human health and the environment. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Advanced site diagnostic tool 3D‐CSIA for in situ remediation

In situ remediation is inherently considered “green remediation.” The mechanisms of destruction by in situ technologies, however, are often unseen and not well understood. Further, physical effects of amendment application affect concentration data in an identical manner as the desired reactive mechanism. These uncertainties have led to the weight‐of‐evidence approach when proving viability: multiple rounds of data collection, bench studies, pilot studies, and so on. Skipping these steps has resulted in many failed in situ applications. Traditional assessment data are often tangential to the desired information (e.g., “Is contaminant being destroyed or just being pushed around and diluted?” and “What is the mechanism of the destruction and can it be monitored directly?”). An advanced site diagnostic tool, “Three‐Dimensional Compound Specific Stable Isotope Analysis” (3D‐CSIA), can assess the viability of in situ technologies by providing definitive data on contaminant destruction that are not concentration‐related. The 3D‐CSIA tool can also locate source zones and apportion remediation cost by identifying plumes of different isotope signatures and fractionation trends. Further, use of the 3D‐CSIA tool allows remediation professionals to evaluate effectiveness of treatment and make better decisions to expedite site closure and minimize costs. This article outlines the fundamentals of advanced site diagnostic tool 3D‐CSIA in detail, and its benefit is highlighted through a series of case studies at chlorinated solvent–contaminated sites. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Quantitative Environmental Footprints and Sustainability Evaluation of Contaminated Land Remediation Alternatives for Two Case Studies

Since the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) launched its “green remediation” program and EU member states began to reassess their national regulations for environmental remediation in order to reach a Europe‐wide consensus on policy and standards, the need and interest for sustainable remediation of contaminants from brownfields has grown considerably. Concomitantly, the ability to calculate and assess the suitability as well as the environmental footprints and associated risks of a growing number of remediation techniques has become a priority. The authors quantitatively evaluate the differences between various remediation techniques, and for this purpose, a number of ex situ and in situ remediation techniques are adapted to model 21 remediation scenarios for two contaminated sites in the Gothenburg region of Sweden: the Bohus Varv site on the Göta älv river bank and the Hexion site in Mölndal. A wide range of quantitative results for these models are presented, compared, and analyzed. Based on the results from both projects, it is concluded that: (1) remediation techniques requiring long distance residual transportation have significant footprints, except the transportation of contaminated residuals by train due to Swedish energy production conditions; (2) residual transportation by ship results in much higher SO_x, NO_x, and particle releases compared to the other alternatives; and (3) residual transporation by truck results in high accident risks. Finally, activities powered by electricity result in a reduced footprint compared to activities powered by fossil fuels, considering Swedish energy production conditions. The authors conducted a cross‐benefit analysis of SiteWise^TM applications which recognizes its potential as a tool for presenting life cycle assessment analyses with appropriate system boundary definitions and an easy inventory analysis process. Results from this tool provide valuable support to decision makers aiming at more sustainable remediation. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Trends In Regulatory Acceptance Of Risk-Based Cleanup Goals And Natural Attenuation For Site Closure

Since 1994, there has been a significant regulatory shift toward risk-based cleanup standards based on the site-specific risk of the more toxic and mobile compounds; namely, benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, and xylene (BTEX). This regulatory shift has been accompanied by a growing acceptance of natural attenuation as an important component of petroleum site remediation. This article briefly reviews regulatory progress toward risk-based remediation and describes the successful application of risk-based corrective actions (RBCAs) at two fuel contaminated sites on Air Force installations. By developing site-specific cleanup goals, and combining natural attenuation, source reduction, and land use controls, innovative risk-based closure plans have been implemented on these sites.     

Remediation,land use,and risk at Hanford

U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE) remediation responsibilities include the Hanford site in Washington State. Cleanup is governed by the Tri‐Party Agreement (TPA) between the US DOE as the responsible party and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Washington State Department of Ecology as joint regulators. In 2003, the US DOE desired to implement a “Risk‐Based End State” (RBES) policy at Hanford, with remediation measures driven by acceptable risk standards using exposure scenarios based on the 1999 Hanford Comprehensive Land‐Use Plan. Facing resistance from regulators and stakeholders, the US DOE solicited public input on its policy. This led to a Hanford Site End State Vision in 2005 and a commitment that the TPA would continue to control remediation. This article describes how regulator and public participation modified RBES to an end‐state vision. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.