An analysis of UK waste minimization clubs: key requirements for future cost effective developments

The UK waste strategy is based upon use of the best practicable environmental option (BPEO), by those making waste management decisions. BPEO is supported by the use of the waste hierarchy, with its range of preferable options for dealing with waste, and the proximity principle, where waste is treated/disposed of as close to its point of origin as possible. The national waste strategy emphasizes the key role of waste minimization and encourages industry, commerce and the public to move towards sustainable waste management practice for economic and environmental reasons. Waste minimization clubs have been used, since the early 1990s, to demonstrate to industry/commerce that reducing waste production can lead to significant financial savings. There have been around 75 such clubs in the UK and they receive support from a wide range of agencies, including the Environmental Technology Best Practice Program. The early Demonstration Clubs had significant savings to cost ratios, e.g. Aire and Calder at 8.4, but had very high costs, e.g. Aire and Calder at 400,000 pounds. It is acknowledged that the number of clubs will have to be approximately doubled in the next few years so as to have an adequate coverage of the UK. There are at present, marked regional variations in club development and cognizance needs to be taken, by facilitators, of the need for extensive coverage of the UK. Future clubs will probably have to operate in a financially constrained climate and they need to be designed to deliver significant savings and waste reduction at low cost. To aid future club design, final reports of all projects should report in a standard manner so that cost benefit analysis can be used to inform facilitators about the most effective club type. rights reserved.     

Cost estimating of the closure/post-closure phase

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is beginning major environmental restoration projects of both active and inactive sites throughout the United States. The problems at the sites include contaminated soils, groundwater and surface waters, structures, and old waste disposal areas. IT Corporation, under the direction of the Office of Independent Cost Estimating (OICE) for DOE, developed a list of environmental problems at the sites and probable cleanup technologies and techniques that could be used. Estimated unit costs were then developed for these cleanup technologies, using available data and references. Some procedures developed were common to many or all cleanup projects. These included site characterization, remedial investigation (RI), feasibility studies (FS), and the closure/post-closure phase. The article will focus on cost estimating of the closure/post-closure phase of a cleanup project. The cost data provided are for budget level or check estimates. Site-specific conditions as well as items peculiar to the environmental industry, such as governmental regulations and community relations, can influence both the cost and duration of a cleanup project.     

Optimizing data usability in the remedial process

Large quantities of data are collected and evaluated throughout every stage of the remedial process. The usability of these data is often a function of the perceived “quality” of the data, with good data considered usable and bad data considered unusable. The assessment of data quality and usability has traditionally focused on analytical and other direct measurement errors and uncertainty. However, problems with the data that are measurement-related are usually a relatively minor portion of the total error and uncertainty. Error and uncertainty are introduced throughout every aspect of any remedial process, including planning errors, measurement errors, and interpretation errors. Although each error component is important, the errors and uncertainty associated with the design, collection, and interpretation of data are often much greater than measurement-related errors. Nevertheless, there is typically a disproportionate level of effort expended addressing the minor types of measurement errors when compared to other more important error components in the remedial process. However, the key to obtaining optimum data use requires the general redirection of Data Quality Assurance (DQA) activities from measurement-related errors/uncertainty to other important planning and interpretation elements. The elements considered essential for developing an effective approach for maximizing data usability include: focused project planning activities stressing a rigorous data quality objective process and a geostatistical approach to the design of the data collection program; the development of sensible and appropriate data validation/review objectives; and the development of realistic error and uncertainty limits for measurement/analytical activities.     

Perspective and trends in the environmental remediation industry

The approach to management and execution of remediation projects has changed drastically over the past decade, as remedial project managers have begun to understand and accept the numerous environmental regulations developed in the mid-1980s. For example, the adversarial relationship that once existed between regulators and owners has become more cooperative. This article documents trends over time in remediation project practices and quantifies the impact these trends have had on the cost and schedule performance of projects. Proven successful practices are highlighted, and those with the potential for improving project performance further are also discussed.     

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.     

Risk communication as a key component of a successful remediation project

Decisions made during the course of investigating and remediating a contaminated site, as well as the technology used, are most often driven exclusively by physical, technical, and health-based concerns. Additionally, in both determining and managing the potential risks posed by a remediation project, the focus tends to be placed primarily on health risks. However, a contaminated site and its remediation are neither static over time nor do they exist in a vacuum. Other elements of risk associated with the site and remedial activities include continuing regulatory oversight and compliance, public and agency relations, remedial technology costs, current and future land-use issues, and future technological/regulatory risks. Agencies, consultants, contractors, and facility management must consider these other non-health-related elements of risk. Additionally, efforts made to communicate a project's decisions, technologies, and risks are often made in a defensive or reactive posture, resulting in ineffective communication and an alienated, angry, or distrustful public. Proactive risk communication, as well as public involvement in the remedial process, are critical to the success of any remedial activity.     

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.     

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.     

Designing and implementing an urban river remediation

In 2017, Consumers Energy completed a sediment response action in the Flint River to address manufactured gas plant‐related impacts in sediments and at the groundwater‐surface water interface. The project site is located in an urban, channelized, developed reach of the river. Multiple property owners and site constraints presented unique challenges for the remedial design, including the presence of Hamilton Dam at the downstream edge of the site which was considered a high‐hazard dam in “very poor condition.” An additional consideration was the City of Flint water crisis which was initially exposed in 2014. The sediment response action was not related to the water crisis because the site is located approximately two miles downstream of the City's water intake, but design, permitting, and construction began after 2014, so the timing added a heightened sense of awareness from the public stakeholders. The successful completion of the sediment response action was the result of deliberate planning, iterative engineering, and open communication with stakeholders that enabled a careful balancing of objectives with sometimes competing interests.     

Techniques for successfully implementing in-situ remediation systems

As the remediation industry rapidly matures, a greater emphasis is placed on providing on-site remedies involving in-situ soil and groundwater technologies. Selecting and implementing cost-effective technologies requires a defined working process focused on integrating the relationship between the design engineer/scientist and the remedial contractor. This article briefly explores various contractual vehicles and their effect on the designer/contractor relationship and identifies preconstruction documents needed to initiate a remedial construction program. A detailed discussion is presented that describes the transition from remedial design to remedial construction and offers practical application of preconstruction, construction, and postconstruction techniques. Preconstruction techniques involve communication processes and procedures designed to reduce installation uncertainty, address constructability issues, promote value engineering alternatives, and reaffirm the project objectives. Construction techniques focus on effective ways to communicate and document problems and solutions encountered during construction activities. Postconstruction techniques describe ways to provide useful information that may have a continued effect on system performance or used to document the achievement of project goals.     

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.     

Accelerating environmental cleanup at DOE sites: Monitored natural attenuation/enhanced attenuation—A basis for a new paradigm

The U.S. Department of Energy is conducting a project to accelerate remediation through the use of monitored natural attenuation and enhanced attenuation for chlorinated ethenes in soils and groundwater. Better monitoring practices, improved scientific understanding, and an advanced regulatory framework are being sought through a team effort that engages technology developers from academia, private industry, and government laboratories; site cleanup managers; stakeholders; and federal and state regulators. The team works collaboratively toward the common goals of reducing risk, accelerating cleanup, reducing cost, and minimizing environmental disruption. Cutting‐edge scientific advances are being combined with experience and sound environmental engineering in a broadly integrated and comprehensive approach that exemplifies socalled “third‐generation R&D.” The project is potentially a model for other cleanup activities. © 2004 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.     

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.     

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.     

Case study: Conducting an accelerated cleanup at a superfund site in a mixed residential and industrial area

This article presents a case study of an accelerated cleanup conducted by EPA at the Adams Plating Company (APC) Superfund site near Lansing, Michigan. The APC site remediation was a Superfund EPA-lead project under the remedial program in Region 5. An accelerated cleanup was possible at the APC site by consistently identifying, evaluating, and implementing opportunities to streamline the remedial investigation (RI) and remedial design (RD) process. Streamlining opportunities were discovered and implemented in both the technical and administrative aspects of the project. Streamlining components used to accelerate the remedial process included: (1) extensive use of field screening techniques during the Phase II RI; (2) a focused feasibility study (FS) that evaluated only practical alternatives; (3) maintaining project momentum by initiating the RD concurrent with the issuance of the Record of Decision (ROD); (4) a highly accelerated RD with limited predesign work; (5) elimination of the transition period between RD and remedial action (RA) project phases; (6) frequent and effective communication, coordination, and cooperation between all parties involved (EPA, Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), technical contractor, PRC Environmental Management, Inc. (PRC), and the public); (7) maintaining a consistent project team throughout project duration; and (8) the setting of aggressive project goals.     

On-site analytical support: A cost-effective alternative to fixed laboratory services

Two recent projects involving soils remediation at Superfund sites in southern New Jersey and northeastern Pennsylvania exemplify the power of “real time” field analytical support in reducing time and expense during a project's remedial phase. The remediation efforts at both of these CERCLA sites were supported by ERM-FAST on-site analytical facilities which, in a “real-time” scenario, achieved all data quality objectives (DQOs), met all regulatory agency requirements, and satisfied the client's needs. Both of these sites offer illustrations of the effectiveness of field analysis for vastly differing site contaminants. The client benefited from substantial savings on analytical cost as well as the savings realized through efficient and effective process and schedule management.     

Using community relations to reduce costs during remediation projects

Almost everyone who has been involved in a site remediation project has seen schedules slip and costs escalate due to political pressure from the public or the press. While focusing on remediation technologies and containment techniques to control costs, many organizations have neglected a major cost driver—public opinion. This article examines community relations from the perspective of an organization trying to control costs during a site remediation project. It details the strong correlation between the cost of a site cleanup and the level of public dissatisfaction and provides an organization with specific strategies on how to use proven communications techniques to lower costs. Examination of several case studies is provided, including a study involving a site in which community representatives actively worked to reduce project costs. It is clear that any responsible cleanup must be protective of public health and the environment. But it is becoming increasingly apparent that wise allocation of available resources has a profound effect on the program's ability to ensure public and environmental safety. In many cases, it has been proven that some costly cleanups—for example, involving excavation—sometimes actually increase risk by creating an exposure pathway where none existed before. In turn, such cleanups waste resources that are needed elsewhere. The challenge in dealing with this complicated issue is to help stakeholders understand the true ramifications of the choices that are faced at each site. If these stakeholders feel uninformed, powerless, or excluded from the process, it is likely that they will be unable to enter a productive discussion. The community relations programs outlined in documents such as a Superfund guidance can be helpful in familiarizing the community with site-related issues and with gathering public input. These activities act as a baseline for the programs discussed in this article. However, existing programs are not focused on providing a strategic advantage in reaching cleanup solutions and balancing health and environmental considerations with economic considerations.     

The waste reduction (WAR) algorithm: environmental impacts, energy consumption, and engineering economics

A general theory known as the waste reduction (WAR) algorithm has been developed to describe the flow and the generation of potential environmental impact through a chemical process. The theory defines indexes that characterize the generation and the output of potential environmental impact from a process. The existing theory has been extended to include the potential environmental impact of the energy consumed in a chemical process. Energy will have both an environmental impact as well as an economic impact on process design and analysis. Including energy into the analysis of environmental impact is done by re-writing the system boundaries to include the power plant which supplies the energy being consumed by the process and incorporating the environmental effects of the power plant into the analysis. The effect of this addition on the original potential impact indexes will be discussed. An extensive engineering economic evaluation has been included in the process analysis which inherently contains the cost of the consumed energy as an operating cost. A case study is presented which includes a base process design and two modifications to the base design. Each design is analyzed from an economic perspective and an environmental impact perspective. The environmental impact analysis is partitioned into the impacts of the non-product streams and the impacts of the energy generation/consumption process. The comparisons of these analysis procedures illustrate the consequences for decision making in the design of environmentally friendly processes.     

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.