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.     

Combined thermal and zero‐valent iron In Situ soil mixing remediation technology

Thermal remediation of contaminated soils and groundwater by injection of hot air and steam using large‐diameter auger in situ soil mixing effectively remediates volatile and semivolatile organic compounds. This technology removes large amounts of contamination during the early treatment stages, but extended treatment times are needed to achieve high removal percentages. Combining thermal treatment with another technology that can be injected and mixed into the soil, and that continues to operate after removal of the drilling equipment, improves removal efficiency, and reduces cost. Using field‐determined pseudo first‐order removal rates, the cost of the combined remediation of chlorinated volatile organic compounds (CVOCs) by thermal treatment followed by reductive dechlorination by iron powder has been estimated as 57 percent of the cost of thermal treatment alone. This analysis was applied to a case‐study remediation of 48,455 cubic yards, which confirmed the cost estimate of the combined approach and showed over 99.8 percent removal of trichloroethene and other chlorinated VOCs. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Treatment technology for remediation of wood preserving sites: Overview

This is the first in a series of five articles describing the applicability, performance, and cost of technologies for the remediation of contaminated soil and water at wood preserving sites. Site‐specific treatability studies conducted under the supervision of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL), from 1995 through 1997 constitute much of the basis for the evaluations presented, although data from other treatability studies, literature sources, and actual site remediations have also been included to provide a more comprehensive evaluation of remediation technologies. This article provides an overview of the wood preserving sites studied, including contaminant levels, and a summary of the performance of the technologies evaluated. The subsequent articles discuss the performance of each technology in more detail. Three articles discuss technologies for the treatment of soils, including solidification/stabilization, biological treatment, solvent extraction and soil washing. One article discusses technologies for the treatment of liquids, water and nonaqueous phase liquids (NAPLS), including biological treatment, carbon adsorption, photolytic oxidation, and hydraulic containment. The reader should be aware that other technologies including, but not limited to, incineration, thermal desorption, and base catalyzed dehalogenation, also have application for treating contaminants on wood preserving sites. They are not discussed in these five articles since the focus was to evaluate lesser known and hopefully lower cost approaches. However, the reader should include consideration of these other technologies as part of any evaluation or screening of technologies applicable to remediation of wood preserving sites.     

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.     

A study of treatment options to remediate explosives and perchlorate in soils and groundwater at Camp Edwards,Massachusetts

The Army National Guard initiated an Innovative Technology Evaluation (ITE) Program in March 2000 to study potential remedial technologies for the cleanup of explosives‐contaminated soil and groundwater at the Camp Edwards site on the Massachusetts Military Reservation. The soil technologies chosen for the ITE program were: soil washing, chemical oxidation, chemical reduction, thermal desorption/destruction (LTTD), bioslurry, composting, and solid phase bioremediation. The technologies were evaluated based on their ability to treat both washed and untreated soil. A major factor considered was the ability to degrade explosives, such as RDX, found in particulate form in the soils. The heterogeneous nature of explosives in soils dictates that the preferred technology must be able to treat explosives in all forms, including the particulate form. Groundwater remediation technologies considered include: in situ cometabolic reduction, two forms of in situ chemical oxidation, Fenton‐like oxidation and potassium permanganate. This article presents the results of each of the remedial technologies evaluated and discusses which technologies met the established ITE performance goals. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

SITE Demonstration of Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation of Chlorinated and Nonchlorinated Organic Compounds in Fractured Bedrock

A field demonstration of an enhanced in-situ bioremediation technology was conducted between March 1998 and August 1999 at the ITT Industries Night Vision (ITTNV) Division plant in Roanoke, Virginia. The bioremediation process was evaluated for its effectiveness in treating both chlorinated and nonchlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in groundwater located in fractured bedrock. Chlorinated compounds, such as trichloroethene (TCE), in fractured bedrock pose a challenging remediation problem. Not only are chlorinated compounds resistant to normal biological degradation, but the fractured bedrock presents difficulties to traditional techniques used for recovery of contaminants and for delivery of amendments or reagents for in-situ remediation. The demonstration was conducted under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program. The SITE program was established to promote the development, demonstration, and use of innovative treatment technologies for the cleanup of Superfund and other hazardous waste sites. This article presents selected results of the demonstration and focuses on understanding the data in light of the fractured bedrock formation. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Cost Evaluation for Selected Remediation Technologies

Relatively little data are available to document the historical cost for using common remediation technologies, and site managers often must rely on information from technology vendors and predictive models, which may not accurately reflect the experiences of previous technology users. To help address these concerns, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted an evaluation of data on historical costs of common remediation technologies. Cost curves were developed for four technologies, showing the relationship between cost for remediation and quantity of material treated. Although costs are known to be highly site‐specific and affected by many factors, the curves are useful in illustrating the variability of historical costs and the economies of scale for treating relatively large quantities of material. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Developing Effective Decision Support for the Application of “Gentle” Remediation Options: The GREENLAND Project

Gentle remediation options (GRO) are risk management strategies/technologies that result in a net gain (or at least no gross reduction) in soil function as well as risk management. They encompass a number of technologies, including the use of plant (phyto‐), fungi (myco‐), and/or bacteria‐based methods, with or without chemical soil additives or amendments, for reducing contaminant transfer to local receptors by in situ stabilization, or extraction, transformation, or degradation of contaminants. Despite offering strong benefits in terms of risk management, deployment costs, and sustainability for a range of site problems, the application of GRO as practical on‐site remedial solutions is still in its relative infancy, particularly for metal(loid)‐contaminated sites. A key barrier to wider adoption of GRO relates to general uncertainties and lack of stakeholder confidence in (and indeed knowledge of) the feasibility or reliability of GRO as practical risk management solutions. The GREENLAND project has therefore developed a simple and transparent decision support framework for promoting the appropriate use of gentle remediation options and encouraging participation of stakeholders, supplemented by a set of specific design aids for use when GRO appear to be a viable option. The framework is presented as a three phased model or Decision Support Tool (DST), in the form of a Microsoft Excel‐based workbook, designed to inform decision‐making and options appraisal during the selection of remedial approaches for contaminated sites. The DST acts as a simple decision support and stakeholder engagement tool for the application of GRO, providing a context for GRO application (particularly where soft end‐use of remediated land is envisaged), quick reference tables (including an economic cost calculator), and supporting information and technical guidance drawing on practical examples of effective GRO application at trace metal(loid) contaminated sites across Europe. This article introduces the decision support framework. ©2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

A review of emerging technologies for remediation of PFASs

The need for remediation of poly‐ and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) is growing as a result of more regulatory attention to this new class of contaminants with diminishing water quality standards being promulgated, commonly in the parts per trillion range. PFASs comprise >3,000 individual compounds, but the focus of analyses and regulations has generally been PFASs termed perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs), which are all extremely persistent, can be highly mobile, and are increasingly being reported to bioaccumulate, with understanding of their toxicology evolving. However, there are thousands of polyfluorinated “PFAA precursors”, which can transform in the environment and in higher organisms to create PFAAs as persistent daughter products. Some PFASs can travel miles from their point of release, as they are mobile and persistent, potentially creating large plumes. The use of a conceptual site model (CSM) to define risks posed by specific PFASs to potential receptors is considered essential. Granular activated carbon (GAC) is commonly used as part of interim remedial measures to treat PFASs present in water. Many alternative treatment technologies are being adapted for PFASs or ingenious solutions developed. The diversity of PFASs commonly associated with use of multiple PFASs in commercial products is not commonly assessed. Remedial technologies, which are adsorptive or destructive, are considered for both soils and waters with challenges to their commercial application outlined. Biological approaches to treat PFASs report biotransformation which creates persistent PFAAs, no PFASs can biodegrade. Water treatment technologies applied ex situ could be used in a treatment train approach, for example, to concentrate PFASs and then destroy them on‐site. Dynamic groundwater recirculation can greatly enhance contaminant mass removal via groundwater pumping. This review of technologies for remediation of PFASs describes that:

• GAC may be effective for removal of long‐chain PFAAs, but does not perform well on short‐chain PFAAs and its use for removal of precursors is reported to be less effective;
• Anion‐exchange resins can remove a wider array of long‐ and short‐chain PFAAs, but struggle to treat the shortest chain PFAAs and removal of most PFAA precursors has not been evaluated;
• Ozofractionation has been applied for PFASs at full scale and shown to be effective for removal of total PFASs;
• Chemical oxidation has been demonstrated to be potentially applicable for some PFAAs, but when applied in situ there is concern over the formation of shorter chain PFAAs and ongoing rebound from sorbed precursors;
• Electrochemical oxidation is evolving as a destructive technology for many PFASs, but can create undesirable by‐products such as perchlorate and bromate;
• Sonolysis has been demonstrated as a potential destructive technology in the laboratory but there are significant challenges when considering scale up;
• Soils stabilization approaches are evolving and have been used at full scale but performance need to be assessed using appropriate testing regimes;
• Thermal technologies to treat PFAS‐impacted soils show promise but elevated temperatures (potentially >500 °C) may be required for treatment.

There are a plethora of technologies evolving to manage PFASs but development is in its early stage, so there are opportunities for much ingenuity.     

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.     

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

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Division of Environmental Remediation (DER) issued a program policy focused on the overall sustainability of hazardous waste site cleanups on August 11, 2010. This DER‐31/Green Remediation program policy (DER‐31) was issued in accordance with 6 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) Part 375 Environmental Remediation Programs. DER‐31 represents one of the first government‐issued green and sustainable remediation (GSR) policies in the United States. Consistent with other DER policies, DER‐31's provisions are broadly considered to be an expectation/requirement. GSR experts from within AECOM's Remediation Services (RS) Practice Area developed and implemented a GSR program designed to comply with DER‐31 provisions and have now broadly incorporated GSR into our New York remediation projects. Lessons learned from this experience in New York have influenced AECOM's global GSR program and implementation procedures and prompted the development of a new GSR tool (GSRx^TM) for identifying and assessing GSR best management practices (BMPs), which has also been employed globally. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Effective low-temperature thermal aeration of soils

Low-temperature thermal aeration (LTTA) is a remedial technology developed by Canonie Environmental Services Corp. (Canonie) for use on soils containing nonchlorinated hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), chlorinated pesticides, and low levels of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The LTTA system separates these hazardous constituents from excavated soils and allows the treated soils to be redeposited on-site without restriction. This article describes the various components and operation of LTTA systems for the remediation of soils contaminated with chlorinated and nonchlorinated constituents. The article also details the results of projects completed to date, principally for soil impacted with chlorinated hydrocarbons, and discusses the general characteristics and results of systems used for soils contaminated with nonchlorinated hydrocarbons (gasoline, etc.).     

Synthetic Media: A Promising New Treatment Technology for 1,4‐Dioxane

1,4‐Dioxane (14DX) is classified as a probable human carcinogen by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and it has toxic effects on the kidney and liver. EPA's Health Advisory Level (HAL) for 14DX is 0.35 micrograms per liter (μg/L). Accordingly, several states have lowered their drinking water advisory levels and site cleanup levels. The widespread occurrence of 14DX in contaminated groundwater has contributed to a growing demand for remediation services. Treating 14DX is a challenge due to its very low Henry's law constant, low sorption potential, and strong ether linkages. The primary solution for 14DX remediation has been various forms of advanced oxidation processes (AOP), namely pump and treat followed by ex situ treatment with catalyzed ultraviolet light oxidation or ozone‐peroxidation. Many of the available advanced oxidation systems are complex, requiring careful monitoring and maintenance to adjust for variable source water and operating conditions. Synthetic media is a relatively new 14DX treatment technology that overcomes many of the operating challenges faced by existing technologies. AMBERSORB? 560 (AMBERSORB) has recently demonstrated the effective removal of 14DX over a wide range of concentrations and operating conditions, including those created by in situ thermal remediation. Consistent and reliable treatment down to sub‐0.3 μg/L levels differentiates synthetic media technology from other 14DX treatment technologies. AMBERSORB provides a solution to the problem of “stranded capital” by offering a 14DX treatment system capable of meeting regulatory standards today and in the foreseeable future. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Progress toward remediation of the Sydney Tar Ponds: A major Canadian PCB/PAH “superfund” site

The Muggah Creek estuary in Sydney, Nova Scotia, received liquid and solid wastes from a steel mill and its associated coke ovens for approximately 100 years. This resulted in pollution of soils and sediments with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), heavy metals, and other pollutants, including those in untreated domestic wastewaters. The Canadian federal and Nova Scotia provincial governments organized the Sydney Tar Ponds Agency (STPA) to develop a remediation approach for the Coke Ovens site soils and Sydney Tar Ponds sediments. The STPA developed a remediation approach for the Sydney Tar Ponds sediments, involving solidification/stabilization (S/S) through mixing cement and other materials into the sediments, and then capping them as a waste pile. High‐density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic sheeting vertical barriers are proposed to be used to divert groundwater and surface water from entering into the S/S‐treated sediments and to collect any water and associated pollutants released from the S/S‐treated sediments. The Coke Ovens site soils are proposed to be landfarmed to reduce some of the PAHs and other pollutants and then capped with a layer of soil. This remediation program is estimated to cost on the order of $400 million (CAN). This article presents a review of the significant potential problems with the STPA proposed remediation strategy of the Sydney Tar Ponds sediments and Coke Ovens site soils. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Estimating Remediation and Contaminant Respiration Emissions for Alternatives Comparisons at Petroleum Spill Sites

Greenhouse gas emissions assessments for site cleanups typically quantify emissions associated with remediation and not those from contaminant biodegradation. Yet, at petroleum spill sites, these emissions can be significant, and some remedial actions can decrease this additional component of the environmental footprint. This article demonstrates an emissions assessment for a hypothetical site, using the following technologies as examples: excavation with disposal to a landfill, light nonaqueous‐phase liquid (LNAPL) recovery with and without recovered product recycling, passive bioventing, and monitored natural attenuation (MNA). While the emissions associated with remediation for LNAPL recovery are greater than the other considered alternatives, this technology is comparable to excavation when a credit associated with product recycling is counted. Passive bioventing, a green remedial alternative, has greater remedial emissions than MNA, but unlike MNA can decrease contaminant‐related emissions by converting subsurface methane to carbon dioxide. For the presented example, passive bioventing has the lowest total emissions of all technologies considered. This illustrates the value in estimating both remediation and contaminant respiration emissions for petroleum spill sites, so that the benefit of green remedial approaches can be quantified at the remedial alternatives selection stage rather than simply as best management practices. ©2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Augmenting in-situ remediation by soil vapor extraction with six-phase soil heating

The use and performance of soil vapor extraction (SVE) as an in-situ remedial technology has been limited at numerous sites because of both geologic and chemical factors. SVE systems are not well suited to sites containing low permeability soils or sites contaminated with recalcitrant compounds. Six-phase soil heating (SPSH) has been developed by the Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories (Battelle) to enhance SVE systems. The technology utilizes resistive soil heating to increase the vapor pressure of subsurface contaminants and to generate an in-situ source of steam. The steam strips contaminants sorbed onto soil surfaces and acts as a carrier gas, providing an enhanced mechanism by which the contaminants can reach an extraction well. Full-scale applications of SPSH have been performed at the U.S. Department of Energy's Savannah River Site in Aiken, South Carolina; at a former fire training site in Niagara Falls, New York; and at Fort Richardson near Anchorage, Alaska. At each site, chlorinated solvents were present in low permeability soils and SPSH was applied in conjunction with SVE. The results of the three applications showed that SPSH is a cost-effective technology that can reduce the time required to remediate a site using only conventional SVE.     

Successful UV/oxidation of VOC-contaminated groundwater

Ultraviolet light/oxidation has proven its effectiveness in destroying volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) found in groundwater during a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) field study. Under the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program, PRC Environmental Management, Inc., and EPA monitored the performance of a system employing advanced oxidation techniques at the Lorentz Barrel & Drum (LB&D) Superfund site in San Jose, California. The firm of Ultrox International (Santa Ana, CA) demonstrated its technology for combining ultraviolet light, hydrogen peroxide and ozone to oxidize toxic organic chemicals found in water. All evaluation criteria were successfully met in the study's results. Greater than 90% of the VOCs were removed. The applicable discharge standards (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) were attained, and there were no emissions.     

Soil vapor extraction system design: A case study comparing vacuum and pore‐gas velocity cutoff criteria

Soil vapor extraction (SVE) systems are typically designed based on the results of a vadose‐zone pumping test (transient or steady‐state) using a pressure criterion to establish the zone of influence (ZOI). A common problem associated with pressure‐based SVE design is overestimating the ZOI of the extraction well. As a result, design strategies based upon critical pore‐ gas velocity (CPGV) have become more common. Field tests were conducted at the Savannah River Site (SRS) to determine the influence of a vapor extraction well based upon both a pressure and pore‐ gas velocity design criterion. The results from these tests show that an SVE system designed based upon a CPGV is more robust and will have shorter cleanup times due to increased flow throughout the treatment zone. Pressure‐based SVE design may be appropriate in applications where soil gas containment is the primary objective; however, in cases where the capture and removal of contaminated soil gas is the primary objective, CPGV is a better design criterion. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

In situ thermal remediation of DNAPL and LNAPL using electrical resistance heating

Electrical resistance heating (ERH) is an in situ treatment for soil and groundwater remediation that can reduce the time to clean up volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from years to months. The technology is now mature enough to provide site owners with both performance and financial certainty in their site‐closure process. The ability of the technology to remediate soil and groundwater impacted by chlorinated solvents and petroleum hydrocarbons regardless of lithology proves to be beneficial over conventional in situ technologies that are dependent on advective flow. These conventional technologies include: soil vapor recovery, air sparging, and pumpand‐treat, or the delivery of fluids to the subsurface such as chemical oxidization and bioremediation. The technology is very tolerant of subsurface heterogeneities and actually performs as well in low‐permeability silts and clay as in higher‐ permeability sands and gravels. ERH is often implemented around and under buildings and public access areas without upsetting normal business operations. ERH may also be combined with other treatment technologies to optimize and enhance their performance. This article describes how the technology was developed, how it works, and provides two case studies where ERH was used to remediate complex lithologies. © 2005 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.