The sustainable remediation forum

Regulators seem to currently be focusing on green remediation and not sustainable remediation. How can the industry change this perception so that a more holistic approach is followed?     

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.     

Sustainable remediation panel—Measuring the social and economic benefits of a sustainable remediation project

Remediation developed a Sustainable Remediation Panel in the Summer 2009 issue, which featured the Sustainable Remediation Forum White Paper. The panel is composed of leaders in the field of sustainable remediation who have volunteered to provide their opinions on difficult subjects related to the topic of how to integrate sustainability principles into the remediation practice. The panel's opinions are provided in a question‐and‐answer format, whereby selected experts provide an answer to a question. This issue's question is provided below, followed by opinions from five experts in the remediation field.

相似文献   

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.     

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.     

The challenge of remediation technology development

A huge commercial environmental industry, currently estimated at some $130 billion in size in the United States alone, has sprung up to manage and remediate environmental problems. Hundreds of innovative remediation technologies are being developed under EPA's SITE program, which has provided R&D funding for more than 100 new treatment technologies. Despite the obvious demand, numerous regulatory, marketing, technical, and financial barriers have impeded progress in the field of remediation technology development. Developers of remediation technologies are faced with a significant challenge to overcome these barriers and successfully bring a technology to market. This article examines the barriers to technology development and offers strategic planning alternatives for long-term economic success and commercial viability of remediation technologies.     

Incorporating green and sustainable remediation analysis in coal combustion residuals (CCR) surface impoundment closure decision making

In response to new coal combustion residuals (CCR) disposal regulations, many coal‐fired utilities have closed existing unlined surface impoundments (SIs) that were traditionally used for disposal of CCR. The two primary closure options are closure‐in‐place (CIP), which involves dewatering and capping, and closure‐by‐removal (CBR), which includes excavation, transportation, and disposal of the CCR into a lined landfill. This article provides a methodology and a case study of how green and sustainable remediation concepts, including accounting for the life cycle environmental footprints and the physical risks to workers and community members, can be incorporated into the closure decision‐making process. The environmental impacts, occupational risks, and traffic‐related fatalities and injuries to workers and community members were calculated and compared for closure alternatives at a hypothetical site. The results demonstrated that the adverse impacts of the CBR option were significantly greater than those of the CIP option with respect to the analyzed impact pathways.     

Monitored natural attenuation forum: The case for abiotic MNA

The environmental fate and transport of chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs) is controlled by the physical and chemical properties of the compound and the nature of the subsurface media through which the compound is migrating. Several processes (advection, dispersion, diffusion, biodegradation, and abiotic degradation, to name a few) result in a reduction in concentration and/or mass of contaminants in groundwater. Of these processes, biodegradation is often considered the dominant destructive attenuation mechanism for chlorinated VOCs. However, chlorinated VOCs can also degrade through abiotic processes and, in some cases, may be the primary or only destructive process occurring. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Pseudomonas sp. (Strain 10–1B): A potential inoculum candidate for green and sustainable remediation

Soil pollution caused by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) is a consequence of various industrial processes which destabilizes the ecosystem. Bioremediation by bacteria is a cost‐effective and environmentally safe solution for reducing or eliminating pollutants in soils. In the present study, we artificially polluted agricultural soil with used automobile engine oil with a high PAH content and then isolated bacteria from the soil after 10 weeks. Pseudomonas sp. strain 10–1B was isolated from the bacterial community that endured this artificial pollution. We sequenced its genomic DNA on Illumina MiSeq sequencer and evaluated its ability to solubilize phosphate, fix atmospheric nitrogen, and produce indoleacetic acid, in vitro, to ascertain its potential for contribution to soil fertility. Its genome annotation predicted several dioxygenases, reductases, ferredoxin, and Rieske proteins important in the ring hydroxylation initiating PAH degradation. The strain was positive for the soil fertility attributes evaluated. Such combination of attributes is important for any potential bacterium partaking in sustainable bioremediation of PAH‐polluted soil.     

Comparing groundwater remediation options

Although many conventional physical remediation methods are viewed as proven, they often only relocate wastes to other sites or into the air. How do the emerging biological and chemical in situ methods perform in the same applications? This article reviews their results (much of it in the laboratory) as well as their promise of more complete neutralization of hazardous wastes, lower capital costs, and longer-duration cleanup processes. The optimal method may be a combination of chemical and biological in situ techniques with physical pump-and-treat methods.     

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

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