Expediting sustainable brownfields redevelopment by applying Triad using the membrane interface probe

Redevelopment and reuse plans are often based upon an expedited delineation and remediation life cycle, since delayed reuse usually has economic consequences. It has also become increasingly important to utilize sustainable practices to achieve investigation and remediation goals. In this article, the Triad approach is used to expedite the delineation of a source area within a municipal landfill to complete the remedial effort prior to construction of an urban civic center. The Triad approach uses the three elements of systematic project planning, dynamic work strategy, and real‐time measurement to expedite site characterization (Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council, 2003). In this article, the Triad sampling strategy consisted of two phases. The first phase included in situ screening of soil and groundwater using the membrane interface probe (MIP), and the second phase included confirmatory sampling via vertical profiles in the soil and groundwater. This study found that, using the MIP in a dynamic sampling strategy, a critical element of the Triad approach, combined with the proper placement of confirmatory samples, significantly reduced overall project cost and will expedite the site redevelopment. The use of the Triad approach also contributed to the integration of green and sustainable practices into the project. © 2010 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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

An ecologically oriented database to guide remediation and reuse of contaminated sites

This article presents a database developed to determine the potential reuse of contaminated sites for primarily ecologically and culturally based activities. The database consists of 172 quantitative and qualitative measures of on‐site land suitability, ecological, cultural, and recreational value, and off‐site suitability, economic, and demographic information. Using sites owned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) as a case study, the article evaluates the quality of available data and suggests ways of using it for planning ecologically sensitive remediation activities and future land use. This type of database can be developed and used by anyone who needs to select, review, or evaluate site remediation and future land use options. Also discussed are the challenges associated with compiling and using data that has been generated by many sources over several years. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Developing Life‐Cycle Environmental Response Costs for Leaking Underground Storage Systems at Service Station Sites

Leaking underground storage tank systems at service stations have resulted in tens of thousands of petroleum releases and associated groundwater chemical plumes often extending hundreds of feet off‐site. Technical and engineering approaches to assess and clean up releases from underground tanks, product lines, and dispensers using technologies such as soil vapor extraction, air sparging, biostimulation, and monitored natural attenuation are well understood and widely published throughout the literature. This article summarizes life‐cycle environmental response costs typically encountered using site‐specific cost estimation or metric‐based cost categories considering the overall complexity of site conditions: (1) simple sites where response actions require smaller scale assessments and/or remediation and have limited or no off‐site impacts; (2) average sites where response actions require larger scale assessments and/or remediation typical of petroleum releases; (3) complex sites where response actions require greater on‐site and/or off‐site remediation efforts; and (4) mega sites where petroleum plumes have impacted public or private water supplies or where petroleum vapors have migrated into occupied buildings. Associated cleanup cost estimates rely upon appropriate combinations of individual work elements and the duration of operation, maintenance, and monitoring activities. These cost estimates can be offset by state reimbursement funds, coverage in purchase agreements, and insurance policies. A case study involving a large service station site portfolio illustrates the range of site complexity and life‐cycle environmental response costs. © 2014 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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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 Groundwater Conservation and Reuse into Remediation Projects

Groundwater remediation projects generally involve extraction and treatment of contaminated groundwater. The current state of the practice does not include an emphasis on conservation and reuse of groundwater. Consequently treated groundwater is typically disposed in sanitary or storm sewers. Longstanding water conservation and reuse practices in the municipal wastewater industry provide a body of experience available to the remediation industry. Case studies of conservation and reuse options for groundwater at remediation sites have been found across a broad range of geographic settings and regulatory jurisdictions. The intent of this article is to stimulate a more holistic view of the groundwater associated with remediation projects and to promote conservation and beneficial reuse of a vital natural resource. © 2014 US Sustainable Remediation Forum     

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.     

Using risk assessment to achieve cost-effective property transfers and site closures for former UST sites

Risk assessment has been increasingly applied as a tool in making risk management decisions that affect cleanup of contaminated sites, property transactions, and liability issues. As a site-specific evaluation, risk assessment takes into account the unique characteristics and intended future uses for site property in evaluating chemical concentrations which may remain in place without risk to public health and the environment. The results of a risk assessment can be used to determine reuse options for a property, facilitate site closure, and reduce liabilities (Copeland and Robles, 1994; Copeland et al., 1993a). This article describes the risk assessment process, the role of risk assessment in determining the need for remedial action and identifying site-specific cleanup goals, and the cost effectiveness of applying risk assessment in remedial decisions. Because of the prevalence of former UST sites throughout the United States, this article focuses on risk assessment and remediation of UST sites. However, the process can be applied at sites where other chemicals have been released. Three case studies are presented to illustrate the application of risk assessment in achieving cost-effective site closure at sites containing leaking underground storage tanks.     

The trade-off between assessment and cleanup phases of remediation projects

Based on actual project experiences over the past decade, execution strategies for remediation projects have varied significantly. For example, the overlap between the assessment and cleanup phases can range from none (for projects that complete assessment activities before starting the cleanup) to almost half of the assessment duration (for projects that may be under pressure to show progress at the site). This article quantifies the relationship between remediation project execution strategies, project definition components, and remediation project cost and schedule performance. By relating project outcomes to indicators that can be monitored early in the project cycle, project teams may be able to correct problems before they affect the ultimate performance of the remediation project.     

Life‐cycle assessment of in situ thermal remediation

A detailed cradle‐to‐grave life‐cycle assessment (LCA) of an in situ thermal treatment remedy for a chlorinated‐solvent‐contaminated site was performed using process LCA. The major materials and activities necessary to install, operate, monitor, and deconstruct the remedy were included in the analysis. The analysis was based on an actual site remedy design and implementation to determine the potential environmental impacts, pinpoint major contributors to impacts, and identify opportunities for improvements during future implementation. The Electro‐Thermal Dynamic Stripping Process (ET‐DSP?) in situ thermal technology coupled with a dual‐phase extraction and treatment system was evaluated for the remediation of 4,400 yd³ of tetrachloroethene‐ and trichloroethene‐impacted soil, groundwater, and bedrock. The analysis was based on an actual site with an estimated source mass of 2,200 lbs of chlorinated solvents. The remedy was separated into four stages: remedy installation, remedy operation, monitoring, and remedy deconstruction. Environmental impacts were assessed using Sima Pro software, the ecoinvent database, and the ReCiPe midpoint and endpoint methods. The operation stage of the remedy dominated the environmental impacts across all categories due to the large amount of electricity required by the thermal treatment technology. Alternate sources of electricity could significantly reduce the environmental impacts of the remedy across all impact categories. Other large impacts were observed in the installation stage resulting from the large amount of diesel fuel, steel, activated carbon, and asphalt materials required to implement the technology. These impacts suggest where opportunities for footprint reductions can be found through best management practices such as increased materials reuse, increased recycled‐content materials use, and clean fuels and emission control technologies. Smaller impacts were observed in the monitoring and deconstruction stages. Normalized results show the largest environmental burdens to fossil depletion, human toxicity, particulate matter formation, and climate‐change categories resulting from activities associated with mining of fossil fuels for use in electricity production. In situ thermal treatment can reliably remediate contaminated source areas with contaminants located in low‐permeability zones, providing complete destruction of contaminants in a short amount of time, quick return of the site to productive use, and minimized quantities of hazardous materials stored in landfills for future generations to remediate. However, this remediation strategy can also result in significant emissions over a short period of time. It is difficult to quantify the overall value of short‐term cleanups with intense treatment emissions against longer‐term cleanups with lower treatment emissions because of the environmental, social, and economic trade‐offs that need to be considered and understood. LCA is a robust, quantitative tool to help inform stakeholder discussions related to the remedy selection process, trade‐off considerations, and environmental footprint‐reduction opportunities, and to complement a broader toolbox for the evaluation of sustainable remediation strategies. © 2012 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.