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.     

Determinants of sustainability in solid waste management - The Gianyar Waste Recovery Project in Indonesia

According to most experts, integrated and sustainable solid waste management should not only be given top priority, but must go beyond technical aspects to include various key elements of sustainability to ensure success of any solid waste project. Aside from project sustainable impacts, the overall enabling environment is the key feature determining performance and success of an integrated and affordable solid waste system. This paper describes a project-specific approach to assess typical success or failure factors. A questionnaire-based assessment method covers issues of: (i) social mobilisation and acceptance (social element), (ii) stakeholder, legal and institutional arrangements comprising roles, responsibilities and management functions (institutional element); (iii) financial and operational requirements, as well as cost recovery mechanisms (economic element). The Gianyar Waste Recovery Project in Bali, Indonesia was analysed using this integrated assessment method. The results clearly identified chief characteristics, key factors to consider when planning country wide replication but also major barriers and obstacles which must be overcome to ensure project sustainability. The Gianyar project consists of a composting unit processing 60tons of municipal waste per day from 500,000 inhabitants, including manual waste segregation and subsequent composting of the biodegradable organic fraction.     

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.     

Metrics for integrating sustainability evaluations into remediation projects

The US Sustainable Remediation Forum (SURF) created a compilation of metrics (Metrics Toolbox) in response to a need for a broad set of metrics that could be used to assess and monitor the effectiveness of remedies in achieving sustainability goals. Metrics are the key impacts, outcomes, or burdens that are to be assessed or balanced to determine the influences and impacts of a remedial action. Metrics can reflect any of the three aspects of sustainability (i.e., environmental, social, or economic) or a combination of these aspects. Regardless, metrics represent the most critical sustainable outcomes from the perspective of the key stakeholders. The Metrics Toolbox is hosted online at www.sustainableremediation.org/library/guidance‐tools‐and‐other‐resources . By selecting metrics from the Metrics Toolbox as a starting point and considering a potentially wider suite of metrics in remedial program decisions, appropriate assessments can be made. Qualitative and quantitative metrics are tabulated for each remedial phase: remedial investigation, remedy selection, remedial design, remedial construction, operation and maintenance, and closure. Attributes for each metric are described so that remediation practitioners and key stakeholders can view the universe of metrics available and select the most relevant, site‐specific metrics for a particular site. For this reason, SURF recommends that remediation practitioners consider the metrics compiled in the Metrics Toolbox as a companion to the sustainable remediation framework published elsewhere in this journal and other sustainability evaluations. © 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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

There Are More Than Three Reasons to Consider Sustainable Remediation,a Dutch Perspective

This article provides an overview of the developments concerning sustainable remediation (SR) from the authors’ perspective. A short history of policy development is outlined, in which the focus mainly lies on the Netherlands since this is the homeland of the majority of the authors. The Netherlands is a densely populated country with high pressure on land and was in the forefront of developments in soil policy. The authors plead for simplicity in approaches, as history has proven that the simpler theory more often is true, and above all will better be understood by stakeholders and, thus, will more easily lead to consensus. Implicitly the authors make clear that SR not only has benefits from a societal, economic, and environmental point of view, but if the methodologies are implemented correctly, it leads to more robust and supported decision making. Moreover, it opens the road to flexible and integral remedial objectives that enable innovative and creative solutions for soil and groundwater contamination. The proposed methodologies and creative innovations are illustrated with full‐scale operational cases. ©2017 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.     

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.

What are the best methods of measuring the social and economic benefits of a sustainable remediation project? Are there ways to develop quantitative metrics or are qualitative metrics the best alternative for measuring the social and economic benefits of sustainable remediation? © 2010 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.     

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 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.     

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.     

Environmental Assessments in the Oil and Gas Industry

The general public, government regulators, and environmental organizations are increasingly demanding industries to reduce their environmental impacts and report progress. This in turn resulted in numerous requirements for reporting environmental data. Environmental assessments are a useful tool in gathering and documenting this data. The assessments also assist decision makers to quantify impacts of their activities and plan for appropriate mitigation measures. There are different types of environmental assessments, each having specific purpose(s) and addressing specific audience(s). This paper gives an overview of common environmental concerns associated with oil and gas industry and shares insights on types of environmental assessments that are widely used. It discusses general methodologies to define the scope, approach, measurement standards, and reporting. Potential challenges encountered in conducting these assessments in an international arena and under a wide variety of regulatory requirements are addressed. Practical approach in execution of these assessments is described here, and strategy in dealing with the challenges is presented.     

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.