Actuarial Risk Analysis to Promote National Contingency Plan (NCP)‐Consistent Remediation

This article provides a case study of how green and sustainable remediation (GSR) concepts (including, but not limited to, worker risk) can be incorporated into the existing National Contingency Plan (NCP)/Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) remedy selection framework. The occupational risks of worker fatalities and injuries associated with two site remediation alternatives were calculated and compared. The results demonstrated that the increased worker risks associated with one of the remedy alternatives rendered it inferior based on the NCP “Balancing Criteria” of short‐term effectiveness. This type of approach is implementable at many sites by leveraging readily available information at the remedy selection stage using published methods and data sources. © 2014 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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Addressing soil gas vapor intrusion using sustainable building solutions

Soil gas vapor intrusion (VI) emerged in the 1990s as one of the most important problems in the investigation and cleanup of thousands of sites across the United States. A common practice for sites where VI has been determined to be a significant pathway is to implement interim building engineering controls to mitigate exposure of building occupants to VI while the source of contamination in underlying soil and groundwater is assessed and remediated. Engineering controls may include passive barriers, passive or active venting, subslab depressurization, building pressurization, and sealing the building envelope. Another recent trend is the emphasis on “green” building practices, which coincidentally incorporate some of these same engineering controls, as well as other measures such as increased ventilation and building commissioning for energy conservation and indoor air quality. These green building practices can also be used as components of VI solutions. This article evaluates the sustainability of engineering controls in solving VI problems, both in terms of long‐term effectiveness and “green” attributes. Long‐term effectiveness is inferred from extensive experience using similar engineering controls to mitigate intrusion of radon, moisture, mold, and methane into structures. Studies are needed to confirm that engineering controls to prevent VI can have similar long‐term effectiveness. This article demonstrates that using engineering controls to prevent VI is “green” in accelerating redevelopment of contaminated sites, improving indoor air quality, and minimizing material use, energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and waste generation. It is anticipated that engineering controls can be used successfully as sustainable solutions to VI problems at some sites, such as those deemed technically impracticable to clean up, where remediation of underlying soil or groundwater contamination will not be completed in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, green buildings to be developed in areas of potential soil or groundwater contamination may be designed to incorporate engineering controls to prevent VI. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Expect Déjà vu all over again

It is difficult to define “property damage,” but one knows it when one sees it. Groundwater and soil impacts are readily discernible. However, owners of property that has been adversely affected by environmental conditions caused by others have recently sought recovery for the stigma which may attach to property which has in the past been affected by hazardous substances, even after remediation. These cases are particularly interesting in light of the traditional causes of action for negligence, trespass, and nuisance, and the statutes of limitations which may affect both rights to sue and damages. This article addresses “stigma” as an emerging area and an element of damages in environmental cases.     

Remediation and review: Developing groundwater strategy at the hanford site

The U.S. Department of Energy's (US DOE's) environmental challenges include remediation of the Hanford Site in Washington State. The site's legacy from nuclear weapons “production” activities includes approximately 80 square miles of contaminated groundwater, containing radioactive and other hazardous substances at levels above drinking water standards. In 1998, the U.S. General Accounting Office (US GAO), the auditing arm of Congress, concluded that groundwater remediation at Hanford should be integrated with a comprehensive understanding of the “vadose zone,” the soil region between the ground surface and groundwater. The US DOE's Richland Operations Office adjusted its program in response, and groundwater/vadose‐zone efforts at Hanford have continued to develop since that time. Hanford provides an example of how a federal remediation program can be influenced by reviews from the US GAO and other organizations, including the US DOE itself. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

NYSDEC's DER‐31/Green Remediation Policy Influences Tool Development and Global Program

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Division of Environmental Remediation (DER) issued a program policy focused on the overall sustainability of hazardous waste site cleanups on August 11, 2010. This DER‐31/Green Remediation program policy (DER‐31) was issued in accordance with 6 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) Part 375 Environmental Remediation Programs. DER‐31 represents one of the first government‐issued green and sustainable remediation (GSR) policies in the United States. Consistent with other DER policies, DER‐31's provisions are broadly considered to be an expectation/requirement. GSR experts from within AECOM's Remediation Services (RS) Practice Area developed and implemented a GSR program designed to comply with DER‐31 provisions and have now broadly incorporated GSR into our New York remediation projects. Lessons learned from this experience in New York have influenced AECOM's global GSR program and implementation procedures and prompted the development of a new GSR tool (GSRx^TM) for identifying and assessing GSR best management practices (BMPs), which has also been employed globally. © 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.     

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.     

Determination of the remediability score for remediation liability allocation among polluters

When a pollution incident occurs, there can be impact liability and/or remediation liability on the polluter. The impact liability pays for the loss of life and property due to pollution. The remediation liability is to pay for remediating the environment in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. If there is only one polluter in a pollution incident, the entire liability can be placed on the sole polluter. However, liability allocation becomes complex when there are multiple polluters. To allocate the fractional remediation liability among multiple polluters, it is important to identify the factors that determine the cost of remediation so that a just distribution of liability can be made based on the contribution of each polluting party to the factors identified. Along with factors such as “quantity of the chemical released by the polluter,” “distribution of the chemical in the environmental medium,” “persistence of the chemical in the environmental medium,” and so forth, the ease with which the chemical pollutant can be separated from the contaminated medium, which we name as “remediability,” is important in deciding the remediation liability. The “remediability” of a chemical is critical in selecting the remediation technologies to be adopted and, consequently, in deciding the cost of remediation. Determination of a remediability score (RS) for each “chemical–environment medium” pair will help in quantifying the ease with which the site can be remediated. The score is envisaged on a 0–100 scale. The higher the score, the more difficult it is to remediate the chemical in the environmental medium under consideration. The score is estimated based on a set of predetermined factors that are characteristic to the technologies available for remediation. The factors are then subjected to a Delphi process to arrive at the weights. The overall RS is determined by determining the weighted impact of the identified factors after the normalization of the magnitudes of factors.     

Environmental Effects Monitoring in Sydney Harbor During Remediation of One of Canada's Most Polluted Sites: A Review and Lessons Learned

This article reviews a comprehensive marine environmental effects monitoring program (MEEMP) comprised of components capable of detecting changes in the marine environment over short or extended temporal scales during remediation of one of Canada's most polluted sites at the Sydney Tar Ponds. The monitoring components included: water and sediment quality, amphipod toxicity testing, mussel tissue, crab hepatopancreas tissue, and benthic community assessments. The MEEMP was designed to verify the impact predictions for the remediation project (i.e., no immediate damage to the marine ecosystem through remediation activities). Some components were capable of providing conclusive data (e.g., sediment and water quality), while others only yielded data that were inconclusive or difficult to attribute to remediation activities (e.g., intertidal community assessments and amphipod toxicity testing). Components that provided only inconclusive results or were difficult to attribute to remediation activities were discontinued, resulting in substantial cost savings during the project, but without compromising the overall objectives of the program, which was to monitor for potential adverse environmental effects of remediation on the marine environment in Sydney Harbor and to verify environmental effects predictions made in the Environmental Impact Statement for the project. The rationale for discontinuing certain MEEMP components and discussion of conclusive results are incorporated into “lessons learned” for environmental remediation practitioners and regulators working on similar large‐scale multiyear remediation projects. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.