Guidance for performing footprint analyses and life‐cycle assessments for the remediation industry

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.

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

McAlexander¹,

Tuggle²

2015

“…Therefore, SURF has developed a flexible nine-step process that is transparent and reproducible for conducting and documenting footprint analysis and LCA during remediation sustainability evaluations (Favara et al, 2011). This process can be applied to Tier 2 and 3 evaluations where quantitation is used.…”

Section: Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Framework for integrating sustainability into remediation projects

Holland¹,

Lewis

Tipton

et al. 2011

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. O

“…Although various methods can be used to assess the metrics, "Guidance for Performing Footprint Analyses and Life-Cycle Assessments for the Remediation Industry" (Favara et al, 2011) promotes a consistent and repeatable process in which all pertinent information is provided in a transparent manner. The Metrics Toolbox is designed to complement both the sustainable remediation framework (Holland et al, 2011) and this guidance (Favara et al, 2011).…”

Section: Metrics Toolbox Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Metrics Toolbox is designed to complement both the sustainable remediation framework (Holland et al, 2011) and this guidance (Favara et al, 2011).…”

Section: Metrics Toolbox Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metrics for integrating sustainability evaluations into remediation projects

Butler

Larsen-Hallock²,

Lewis

et al. 2011

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.