VIEWPOINT pubs.acs.org/est
A Framework for Sustainable Remediation Karin S. Holland* Haley & Aldrich, Inc., 9040 Friars Road, Suite 220, San Diego, California 92108, United States
E
nvironmental remediation reduces or manages risks to humans and the environment and returns blighted land into productive use by removing or controlling pollutants in soil, sediments, groundwater, and surface water. The environmental remediation field has advanced over time through the development of more sophisticated remedial technologies. However, after more than 30 years of experience with remediation projects, it is now clear that remedial actions are frequently energy intensive, may produce their own pollutant emissions, and may disturb and cause controversy in neighboring communities.1 Furthermore, these actions often require many years for implementation and long-term monitoring,2 potentially leading to enduring impacts. It is therefore necessary for remediation to be practiced in a more environmentally, socially and economically sustainable manner. Regulators, industry, and communities recognize that sustainability principles must be integrated into remediation activities, and various sustainable remediation guidance documents have been developed.3,4 While each publication has contributed to raising awareness about sustainable remediation, none provide the robust methodology needed for practitioners across the United States to include sustainability principles consistently in their remediation projects. Furthermore, regulations controlling contaminated sites are complex and disconnected, with varying requirements across different states and agencies. Given this complexity, many practitioners are apprehensive about integrating sustainability into their remediation projects, since it is still ambiguous how sustainability components tie in with existing regulatory requirements. Other practitioners have started incorporating sustainability into remediation projects, but their efforts are currently ad hoc and uncoordinated. There is a need for a universal and yet flexible framework for incorporating sustainability principles into the remediation decision-making process, regardless of the remediation program, the type and extent of impacts or where the site is located. The Sustainable Remediation Forum (SURF), a group of remediation r 2011 American Chemical Society
professionals from industry, government, and academia, has attempted to address this need by developing such a framework.5 The framework provides guidance to practitioners to identify, evaluate and implement the most appropriate sustainable practices that will yield the greatest sustainability benefits, based on unique site characteristics. It also seeks to help regulatory agency personnel integrate and validate sustainability principles as part of their decision making. The framework lays out an approach in which sustainability is incorporated systematically and iteratively throughout the project lifecycle (Figure 1). Remediation practitioners can look backward to previous project phases to include sustainable learnings already achieved, as well as forward to future phases to identify and implement opportunities for sustainability improvements as the project progresses. For example, the results of a site investigation may influence the location of new buildings at the site to prevent vapor intrusion risks to future occupants and/or the need for vapor barriers. The framework’s integrated approach is more likely to draw attention to additional sustainability opportunities than one that is more silo-ed. Another framework attribute is the concept of beginning with the ultimate project objectives in mind. Determining the enduse(s) of a site early in the remediation project helps practitioners form a disciplined planning strategy thereby avoiding activities that can influence the environmental, economic, or social profile of a project negatively. For example, renovating existing site buildings on contaminated sites for the next site use prevents unnecessary demolishing and construction activities, saving money and avoiding disturbance to the surrounding community and wildlife. An iterative approach that begins with definition of project objectives and maintains focus on those objectives will provide cumulative sustainability benefits. Recognizing that constructive engagement permits stakeholder buy in and consensus-building, the framework promotes stakeholder collaboration from the project outset. Obtaining the unique perspectives of different stakeholder groups during decision-making is likely to prevent potential conflict and instead lead to a remediation project with a positive environmental and social profile. The framework also highlights a sustainability evaluation methodology. This evaluation includes site pollutants but extends to many other sustainability considerations, from natural resource consumption to waste production, and from ecosystem disturbance to local job creation. This more holistic approach helps a practitioner understand the scope of sustainability impacts Received: July 27, 2011 Accepted: July 27, 2011 Published: August 11, 2011 7116
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es202595w | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 7116–7117
Environmental Science & Technology
VIEWPOINT
for Sustainable Systems), Benjamin Chandler (Haley & Aldrich, Inc.), Stephanie Fiorenza, PhD (BP America), and Paul Favara (CH2MHill) for their careful review and critical feedback of the Viewpoint.
’ REFERENCES
Figure 1. The nautilus represents the systematic and iterative integration of sustainability throughout the project life cycle and the opportunity to learn from previous steps and plan for future steps. The spokes represent the direction of the remediation project life cycle, moving clockwise.
caused not only by site contaminants but also by remediation activities, and ascertain the most relevant environmental, social, and economic factors for a particular site. The evaluation results can be built into the decision making process to ensure that potential risks to humans and the environment caused by site impacts are balanced with those instigated by remediation activities. The evaluation may thus reveal that a preliminary remediation strategy, for example excavation and off-site disposal, has a negative sustainability profile and that an alternative strategy such as on-site treatment, may present a strategy with a more desirable sustainability profile. The framework therefore ensures that a broad range of sustainability considerations are taken into account during remediation. The SURF framework for sustainable remediation provides an iterative, collaborative, life-cycle methodology for evaluating and balancing sustainability impacts caused by contaminants and by remediation activities. A holistic approach such as the one incorporated in the framework is needed so that pertinent sustainability principles are addressed during all stages of a remediation project. The sustainability framework will lead to environmental remediation projects with improved environmental, economic, and social performance characteristics, that is, that are more sustainable and viable for generations to come.
(1) Wolfe, A. K.; Bjornstad, D. J.; Kerchner, N. D. Making decisions about hazardous waste remediation when even considering a remediation technology is controversial. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37 (8), 1485–1492. (2) Mackay, M.; Cherry, J. Groundwater contamination: pump-andtreat remediation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1989, 23 (6), 630–636. (3) Sustainable Remediation Forum. Integrating sustainable principles, practices, and metrics into remediation projects. Remediation, 2009, 19(3), 5 114. Editors P. Hadley and D. Ellis. (4) Sparrevik, M.; Saloranta, T.; Cornelissen, G.; Eek, E.; Magerholm Fet, A.; Breedveld, G. D.; Linkov, I. Use of life cycle assessments to evaluate the environmental footprint of contaminated sediment remediation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45 (10), 4235–4241. (5) Holland, K., Lewis, R., Tipton, K., Karnis, S., Dona, C., Petrovskis, E., Bull, L, Taege, D., Hook, C. Framework for Integrating sustainability into remediation projects. Remediation, 2011, 21(3), 7 38, www.sustainableremediation.org.
’ AUTHOR INFORMATION Corresponding Author
*Phone: 619-285-7133; email:
[email protected].
’ ACKNOWLEDGMENT I am indebted to the co-authors of the SURF framework for sustainable remediation, including Raymond Lewis (Sunpro, Inc.), Karina Tipton (Brown and Caldwell), Stella Karnis (CN), Carol Dona, PhD (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), Erik Petrovskis, PhD (Geosyntec Consultants), Louis Bull (Waste Management), Deborah Taege (The Boeing Company), and Christopher Hook (Tetra Tech NUS). I also acknowledge the editorial guidance from ES&T associate editor David Dzombak, PhD. Finally, I thank Susan L. Harris, PhD (Leadership & Strategy 7117
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es202595w |Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 7116–7117
