Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite their true exposure, individuals with Comparative Optimism consider themselves less prone to the adverse health effects of pollution. Since individuals' response to a given environmental risk is affected by their appraisal of the risk, those with Comparative Optimism may be less likely to engage in prescribed behaviors or to do so at the urgency required of the given risk. Such limited or delayed response can amplify the risk instead of reducing it. Thus, there is a need to understand if Comparative Optimism applies to pollutants with irreversible adverse health effects as it would impose a higher burden. There is also a need to know which segments of the population are prone to Comparative Optimism and how it manifests in terms of activities that can enhance exposure. Doing so will allow public health professionals address gaps in risk communication and management efforts and help improve environmental health outcomes. Using survey data, we assess the presence, behavioral and socioeconomic predictors, and implications of Comparative Optimism for communicating and managing lead exposure risk in an urban setting. Our results indicate that a large share of the population has Comparative Optimism for lead exposure, despite living in a city that has a relatively higher lead poisoning burden. We also found that ethnicity, income, length of stay at residence, among others, predict Comparative Optimism, suggesting that Comparative Optimism may predict elevated blood lead level. Highlights: Despite their city's high lead poisoning burden, many underrate their relative risk. Underrating relative risk associates with exposure-enhancing activities. Profiling such individuals could help in targeted risk communication and management. Risk communication efforts should include exposure levels of a reference group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent devastating hurricanes demonstrated that extreme weather and climate change can jeopardize contaminated land remediation and harm public health and the environment. Since early 2016, the Sustainable Remediation Forum (SURF) has led research and organized knowledge exchanges to examine (1) the impacts of climate change and extreme weather events on hazardous waste sites, and (2) how we can mitigate these impacts and create value for communities. The SURF team found that climate change and extreme weather events can undermine the effectiveness of the approved site remediation, and can also affect contaminant toxicity, exposure, organism sensitivity, fate and transport, long‐term operations, management, and stewardship of remediation sites. Further, failure to consider social vulnerability to climate change could compromise remediation and adaptation strategies. SURF's recommendations for resilient remediation build on resources and drivers from state, national, and international sources, and marry the practices of sustainable remediation and climate change adaptation. They outline both general principles and site‐specific protocols and provide global examples of mitigation and adaptation strategies. Opportunities for synergy include vulnerability assessments that benefit and build on established hazardous waste management law, policy, and practices. SURF's recommendations can guide owners and project managers in developing a site resiliency strategy. Resilient remediation can help expedite cleanup and redevelopment, decrease public health risks, and create jobs, parks, wetlands, and resilient energy sources. Resilient remediation and redevelopment can also positively contribute to achieving international goals for sustainable land management, climate action, clean energy, and sustainable cities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Environmental remediation activities often require the management of large volumes of water and the consumption of significant amounts of local natural resources, including energy and fossil fuels. Traditionally, proposed remedial approaches for a specific cleanup scenario are evaluated by overall project implementation cost, time frame of the cleanup, and effectiveness to meet cleanup goals. A new paradigm shift, referred to as sustainable remediation, has influenced the remediation industry to consider environmental, social, and economic impacts from cleanup activities. An environmental footprint analysis is the most common method to evaluate environmental implications of cleanup approaches. Presently, these footprint tools do not associate the environmental implications with global impacts. In this article, the method has been extended to integrate the social cost of carbon emissions to quantify global impacts. The case study site is a former aircraft parts manufacturing facility that caused chlorinated solvent contamination in soil and groundwater beneath the building. A groundwater pump-and-treat system was initially installed, followed by its gradual phase-out with concurrent phase in of in situ bioremediation. The case study evaluates the monetized societal benefits from quantifying carbon emission impacts of the proposed cleanup approaches and alternative scenarios. Our results suggest that societal impacts based on monetized carbon emissions can be reduced by 27% by optimizing the remediation processes. The sensitivity analysis results elucidate how variation in carbon prices and social discount rates can influence cleanup decisions for remediation projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Groundwater remediation projects generally involve extraction and treatment of contaminated groundwater. The current state of the practice does not include an emphasis on conservation and reuse of groundwater. Consequently treated groundwater is typically disposed in sanitary or storm sewers. Longstanding water conservation and reuse practices in the municipal wastewater industry provide a body of experience available to the remediation industry. Case studies of conservation and reuse options for groundwater at remediation sites have been found across a broad range of geographic settings and regulatory jurisdictions. The intent of this article is to stimulate a more holistic view of the groundwater associated with remediation projects and to promote conservation and beneficial reuse of a vital natural resource. © 2014 US Sustainable Remediation Forum [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]