Climate-influenced hydrobiogeochemistry and groundwater remedy design: A review

The process of designing a remedy for contaminated groundwater historically has not commonly included climate-future, hydrologic, and biogeochemical aquifer characteristics. From experience, the remedy design process also has not consistently nor directly integrated or projected future hydrologic and biogeochemical effects of the human-induced or developed environment—aka the anthropogenic influence—on potential remedy performance. The apparent practice of (1) not regularly assessing anthro-influenced hydrological (termed here as anthrohydrology) or biogeochemical characteristics (collectively hydrobiogeochemistry) of a site and (2) rarely accounting for future climatic shifts as design factors in remedy design may be due, in part, to the general practice-level view that groundwater remediation systems (whether in situ or ex situ) have seldom been anticipated to last more than a few years (or one or two decades at the most). Second, methods to reliably and quantitatively estimate site-specific, climate-future shifts in groundwater conditions using global and/or regional climate models and the resultant impacts on contaminant plume characteristics have not been readily available. The authors here suggest that while the concept of remedy design resilience and durability, within an envelope of climate change and anthropogenic influence, has been discussed in some technical circles as a component of “sustainable remediation,” we have found that direct application of these technical concepts in quantifiable terms remains rare. By incorporating the potential influence of future hydrobiogeochemical scenarios into remedy design, however, the design process could account for reasonable climate-induced influence on the groundwater system for a given site. These scenarios could then be applied within the remedy selection process to assess performance durability under potentially changing hydrologic, biological, and chemical conditions.     

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.     

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.     

Incorporating ecology and ecological risk into long‐term stewardship on contaminated sites

The long‐term management of environmental contamination will be a major activity at many sites in the foreseeable future. While human health issues often drive decisions about cleanup, restoration, and long‐term stewardship, ecological considerations are also major driving forces and are of paramount importance to the public. Incorporation of ecological considerations into decisions about environmental protection, both short term and long term, requires (1) understanding public perceptions of ecological values, including aesthetics and existence values, (2) understanding contamination issues within a context of the structure and functioning of ecosystems, (3) developing bioindicators of ecological health (including human), (4) developing indicators of ecosystem functioning, and (5) developing and implementing a biomonitoring plan before, during, and after remediation so that adverse effects can be ascertained before they become irreversible. Both remediation/restoration and long‐term stewardship goals must be informed by public policy mandates that include public participation and healthy human and ecological systems. This article examines these issues as they relate to cost‐effective, long‐term protection of human and ecological health on contaminated lands. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Managing environmental problems during transitions: The department of energy as a case study

Many federal, state, and private agencies deal with long‐term environmental problems within a transition framework where political administrations, funds, regulators, regulatory requirements, environmental conditions, and tribal and stakeholder concerns change. In this article, we examine the types of transitions, as well as important stabilities, that agencies face, the interactions with stakeholders that are vulnerable to disruption or failure, and some of the problems that develop as a result of these conditions, using the U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE's) Office of Environmental Management (EM) as a case study. Transitions, or instabilities, include changes in administrations at the federal, state, and local level; public perceptions and concerns; political climate; available funds; environmental conditions (e.g., global climate change, global contaminant transport, local and regional contamination); international and national business conditions; and site conditions (physical, chemical, biological). Governmental agencies operate under several different kinds of uncertainties, including scientific, fiscal‐year economic, technological, and societal. Not all information can be known, and the outcomes from scientific issues or technologies cannot always be predicted. The authors believe that transitions from one set of conditions to another can be more effectively integrated with the long‐term stability of environmental laws and regulations, and with the stability of the treaty rights and concerns of tribal nations, as well as the shorter‐term stability of career personnel and established programs. A sense of stability for government agencies allowing maintenance of ongoing environmental management programs can also be achieved through processes and programs, such as establishing long‐term contracts (for remediation or restoration work), schedule and scope documents, future land‐use documents, National Environmental Research Parks (which obligate lands to study and conservation), and other programs that set the direction of work and activities for many years. Further, two other factors are essential for success within any agency facing transitions: (1) expectations should be both forward‐looking and realistic, and (2) there must be flexibility in both programs and processes. The authors conclude that several features are essential to addressing some of the problems created by transitions, including information, integration, iteration, interaction, and inclusion. © 2009 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.     

Environmental evaluation of municipal waste prevention

Waste prevention has been addressed in the literature in terms of the social and behavioural aspects, but very little quantitative assessment exists of the environmental benefits. Our study evaluates the environmental consequences of waste prevention on waste management systems and on the wider society, using life-cycle thinking. The partial prevention of unsolicited mail, beverage packaging and food waste is tested for a "High-tech" waste management system relying on high energy and material recovery and for a "Low-tech" waste management system with less recycling and relying on landfilling. Prevention of 13% of the waste mass entering the waste management system generates a reduction of loads and savings in the waste management system for the different impacts categories; 45% net reduction for nutrient enrichment and 12% reduction for global warming potential. When expanding our system and including avoided production incurred by the prevention measures, large savings are observed (15-fold improvement for nutrient enrichment and 2-fold for global warming potential). Prevention of food waste has the highest environmental impact saving. Prevention generates relatively higher overall relative benefit for "Low-tech" systems depending on landfilling. The paper provides clear evidence of the environmental benefits of waste prevention and has specific relevance in climate change mitigation.     

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.     

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.     

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

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

Framework for integrating sustainability into remediation projects

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

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.     

Evaluating the Triple Bottom Line Using Sustainable Return on Investment

A sustainable return on investment (sROI) analysis is a quantitative approach that captures the economic, environmental, and social impacts of an investment strategy in monetary terms—today and into the future. By providing a broader accounting of the benefits and costs, sROI provides a framework for optimal decision making. sROI is a nonproprietary methodology based on economic principles and includes an uncertainty analysis to demonstrate the likelihood of realizing costs and benefits. This approach provides a more comprehensive picture of projects and supports the selection of investment strategies that are defensible and transparent. sROI can provide the framework and metrics for the evaluation and selection of remediation projects. A demonstration study of a DuPont remediation project illustrates the process and outcome of an sROI analysis. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Environmental biotechnology: A bioremediation perspective

The term environmental biotechnology has a certain air of modernity when in fact it has a long history of use, if one considers the underlying principles and not the appellation. However, as part of its complex meaning, there is a dynamic new definition and purpose in this discipline with regard to bioremediation. The ability to probe the environment at the molecular level with exquisite methods, to create a new awareness of fundamental biological processes therein, has created an important new paradigm in remediation engineering design and management. Further, biological lines of evidence made extremely robust through the merger of biotechnology and environmental science are poised to be incorporated into the very fabric of site evaluation and disposition at the regulatory level. At the operational level, the field of environmental biotechnology is driven by the “omics,” the common suffix for disciplines like genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics. An introduction to these elements of the process is followed by a review of how they are being used right now in a commercial framework, with the understanding that the entire process is still in the formative stages of its vast potential. © 2005 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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Co-benefit as an approach to align climate change concerns with national development objectives: solid waste management

Impinging local environmental problems on the one hand and constantly persuasive climate change concerns on the other put developing Asian cities in a dilemma as to which direction they should channel their efforts. While local matters are their immediate mandate, increasing awareness of climate change vulnerabilities adds weight to global problems. In this context, the concepts of co-benefits and ancillary benefits play an important role in aligning climate change concerns into sector-specific developmental goals. This article presents the conceptual aspects of co-benefits and the integration of climate concerns into sustainable development goals. The possible synergies between these two different but very important strategic pathways are examined along with possible ways to align them. The bottlenecks that can occur during such integration are also highlighted.