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.     

石油污染土壤的微生物修复技术

介绍了石油污染土壤微生物修复技术的影响因素;概述了生物刺激、生物强化、固定化微生物、植物-微生物联合修复以及电动-微生物联合修复石油污染土壤的技术原理,分析了现阶段土壤修复过程中面临的难题,预测了微生物修复技术的研究方向。指出优化微生物的环境条件、培育新型高效的基因工程菌和开发经济高效的新型修复技术等将是未来微生物修复技术的发展趋势。     

1,2,4-三氯苯环境污染修复技术研究进展

综述了物理修复、化学修复、微生物修复及联合修复等几种主要的1,2,4-三氯苯(1,2,4-TCB)环境污染修复技术的研究进展。阐述了各种修复方法的反应原理、修复条件和效果,对比了各种修复方法的优缺点。提出今后的研究方向:解决物理吸附法修复1,2,4-TCB污染后的吸附剂的后续处理问题;优化化学降解1,2,4-TCB的工艺条件,避免二次污染,进行现场试验,实现工程应用;分离、培育1,2,4-TCB的优势降解菌种;深入研究联合修复技术的降解机理,实现1,2,4-TCB的高效、彻底降解。     

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.     

Understanding technology trends for remediation projects

Success of future environmental remediation projects depends on applying knowledge gained from completed projects. This article examines the trends in technology implementation, quantifies the impact of different remediation technologies on project costs and execution risks, and quantifies the economies of scale experienced by remediation projects. Actual project data from remediation projects conducted by the private sector and government organizations form the basis of the analysis.     

Injecting remediation compounds—How you inject is equally as important as what you inject

The injection of remediation compounds has rapidly become a widely accepted approach for addressing contaminated sites. One of the most fundamental questions surrounding the use of in situ remediation has been “What compound are you injecting at your site?” With the advances in the industry's understanding and acceptance of the in situ remediation process remediation professionals are now asking a follow‐up question that has become equally important to the success of a project: “How are you injecting a compound at your site?” This article discusses advances in field applications for in situ remediation and injecting remediation compounds. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

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.     

火炸药生产废水污染土壤修复的研究进展

总结了国内外化学修复法和生物修复法修复火炸药生产废水污染土壤的研究进展。比较了各种方法的优缺点,提出了未来火炸药生产废水污染土壤修复技术的研究方向。指出:应将物理修复法、化学修复法及生物修复法相结合,将修复定位于综合化、彻底化及可利用化,以期达到火炸药生产废水污染土壤的无害化治理。     

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.     

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.     

A Cost Comparison of Organic versus Inorganic Ion Exchange Resin for Remediation of High-Level Waste

Ion exchange (IX) can be used to aid in the remediation of underground storage tank (UST) radioactive waste at the U.S. Department of Energy's Hanford site in the state of Washington. In particular, IX can be used to concentrate the radionuclides in liquid-based waste prior to immobilization for final disposal. Concentration of the radionuclides can significantly reduce the final immobilized high-level waste volume and consequent overall remediation cost. Organic and inorganic IX resins each have unique advantages and disadvantages regarding the remediation process. This study presents a comparison of the remediation cost for UST waste at Hanford for a phenol-formaldehyde type organic resin versus crystalline silico-titanate inorganic resin. It was determined that with optimum processing conditions such as waste blending and sludge washing, remediation with the inorganic resin would be less expensive than the organic resin. Assuming baseline remediation conditions, the use of inorganic rather than organic IX resin for UST remediation at Hanford can save approximately $383 million. A limited sensitivity analysis was performed as pan of this study and is reported in the following. © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.     

Towards an international standard: The ISO/DIS 18504 standard on sustainable remediation

Sustainable remediation is the elimination and/or control of unacceptable risks in a safe and timely manner while optimizing the environmental, social, and economic value of the work. Forthcoming International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Standard on Sustainable Remediation will allow countries without the capacity to develop their own guidance to benefit from work done over the past decade by various groups around the world. The ISO standard has progressed through the committee draft (ISO/CD 18504) and draft international standard (ISO/DIS 18504) stages. The risk‐based approach to managing the legacy of historically contaminated soil and groundwater has been incorporated into policy, legislation, and practice around the world. It helps determine the need for remediation and the end point of such remediation. Remediation begins with an options appraisal that short lists strategies that could deliver the required reduction in risk. A remediation strategy comprises one or more remediation technologies that will deliver the safe and timely elimination and/or control of unacceptable risks. The ISO standard will help assessors identify the most sustainable among the shortlisted, valid alternative remediation strategies. Practitioners presenting case studies claiming to constitute sustainable remediation should now report how they have aligned their work with the new standard. Indicators are used to compare alternative remediation strategies. The simplest metric that allows a characteristic to act as an indicator should be chosen. Weightings indicators can become a contested exercise and should only be undertaken where there is a clear desire for it by stakeholders and a clear need for it in identifying a preferred strategy. The simplest means of ranking alternative remediation strategies should be adopted.     

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.     

石油烃污染地下水原位修复技术研究进展

概述了石油烃污染地下水原位修复技术的进展，包括原位化学氧化、原位电动修复、渗透反应格栅、冲洗、土壤气抽出、地下水曝气、生物修复，并对今后的研究发展趋势进行了展望。     

Electrical resistance heating of volatile organic compounds in Sedimentary rock

Electrical resistance heating (ERH) has become a common method of remediation for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in unconsolidated soils, both above and below the water table. Recently, use of ERH has expanded to include treatment of contaminated sedimentary bedrock. This article describes the implementation issues for rock remediation and provides case studies of three sites remediated by ERH in Maryland, New Jersey, and Indiana. With proper design, remediation of bedrock can be as effectively completed as remediation of overburden materials. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Utility of risk-time curves in selecting remediation alternatives

The basis for risk-time curves associated with remediation of hazardous waste sites is developed. The utility of the risk-time curves as a part of a methodology for selecting between alternative remediation schemes is demonstrated when the time-frames for remediation are different for different alternatives. The potential for inclusion of uncertainty aspects in risk-time curves is considered.     

Environmental Effects Monitoring in Sydney Harbor During Remediation of One of Canada's Most Polluted Sites: A Review and Lessons Learned

This article reviews a comprehensive marine environmental effects monitoring program (MEEMP) comprised of components capable of detecting changes in the marine environment over short or extended temporal scales during remediation of one of Canada's most polluted sites at the Sydney Tar Ponds. The monitoring components included: water and sediment quality, amphipod toxicity testing, mussel tissue, crab hepatopancreas tissue, and benthic community assessments. The MEEMP was designed to verify the impact predictions for the remediation project (i.e., no immediate damage to the marine ecosystem through remediation activities). Some components were capable of providing conclusive data (e.g., sediment and water quality), while others only yielded data that were inconclusive or difficult to attribute to remediation activities (e.g., intertidal community assessments and amphipod toxicity testing). Components that provided only inconclusive results or were difficult to attribute to remediation activities were discontinued, resulting in substantial cost savings during the project, but without compromising the overall objectives of the program, which was to monitor for potential adverse environmental effects of remediation on the marine environment in Sydney Harbor and to verify environmental effects predictions made in the Environmental Impact Statement for the project. The rationale for discontinuing certain MEEMP components and discussion of conclusive results are incorporated into “lessons learned” for environmental remediation practitioners and regulators working on similar large‐scale multiyear remediation projects. © 2014 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.     

土壤氰化物污染生物修复技术研究进展

综述了植物修复、微生物修复和生物联合修复等土壤氰化物污染生物修复技术的降解机理、降解途径及降解影响因素的研究进展,探讨了氰化物生物修复技术的发展趋势和应用前景。指出基于提高修复时效和针对土壤复合污染类型的多技术融合研究、基于提高微生物耐受性和降解效率的菌株固定化及菌根真菌-植物联合技术研究以及基于工程化应用为导向的现场试验研究是未来研究的重点领域,为土壤氰化物污染的综合治理和修复提出了新思路。     

Comparing PFAS to other groundwater contaminants: Implications for remediation

Established groundwater contaminants such as chlorinated solvents and hydrocarbons have impacted groundwater at hundreds of thousands of sites around the United States and have been responsible for multibillion dollar remediation expenditures. An important question is whether groundwater remediation for the emerging contaminant class comprised of per‐ and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) will be a smaller, similar, or a larger‐scale problem than the established groundwater contaminants. A two‐pronged approach was used to evaluate this question in this paper. First, nine quantitative scale‐of‐remediation metrics were used to compare PFAS to four established contaminants: chlorinated solvents, benzene, 1,4‐dioxane, and methyl tert‐butyl ether. These metrics reflected the prevalence of the contaminants in the U.S., attenuation potential, remediation difficulty, and research intensity. Second, several key challenges identified with PFAS remediation were evaluated to see similar situations (qualitative analogs) that have been addressed by the remediation field in the past. The results of the analysis show that four out of nine of the evaluated quantitative metrics (production, number of potential sites, detection frequency, required destruction/removal efficiency) indicate that the scale of PFAS groundwater remediation may be smaller compared to the current scale of remediation for conventional groundwater contaminants. One attenuation metric, median plume length, suggests that overall PFAS remediation could pose a greater challenge compared to hydrocarbon sites, but only slightly larger than chlorinated volatile organic compounds sites. The second attenuation metric, hydrophobic sorption, was not definitive regarding the potential scale of PFAS remediation. The final three metrics (regulatory criteria, in‐situ remediation capability, and research intensity) all indicate that PFAS remediation might end up being a larger scale problem than the established contaminants. An assessment of the evolution of groundwater remediation capabilities for established contaminants identified five qualitative analogs for key PFAS groundwater remediation issues: (a) low‐level detection analytical capabilities; (b) methods to assess the risk of complex chemical mixtures; (c) nonaqueous phase dissolution as an analog for partitioning, precursors, and back diffusion at PFAS sites; (d) predictions of long plume lengths for emerging contaminants; and (e) monitored natural attenuation protocols for other non‐degrading groundwater contaminants. Overall the evaluation of these five analogs provided some comfort that, while remediating the potential universe of PFAS sites will be extremely challenging, the groundwater community has relevant past experience that may prove useful. The quantitative metrics and the qualitative analogs suggest a different combination of remediation approaches may be needed to deal with PFAS sites and may include source control, natural attenuation, in‐situ sequestration, containment, and point‐of‐use treatment. However, as with many chlorinated solvent sites, while complete restoration of PFAS sites may be uncommon, it should be possible to prevent excessive exposure of PFAS to human and ecological receptors.