Green and Sustainable Remediation of Contaminated Sites

1. Green and Sustainable Remediation of Contaminated Sites Presented by: Christopher Hurst, PE, CHMM AMEC Atlanta, GA 30144

2. Topics • Background on “Green” and “Sustainable” • How Sustainable Principles Apply to Remediation • Life Cycle Analysis Tool for Sustainable Remediation • Examples of Sustainable Decisions • The Future of Sustainable Remediation After this presentation you will know the difference between Green and Sustainable

3. Birth of Remediation Industry • Began in 1970s in response to environmental contamination (e.g. Love Canal) • Laws were created, regulatory agencies grew and an industry emerged (RCRA, CERCLA) • Remediation focused on rapid response and often involving energy-intensive remedies (incineration) • But remedies didn’t meet cleanup levels due to technical limitations • Long-term operations, such as pump-and-treat and SVE were commonly used after initial remediation • Long term O&M was the norm

4. Next Came Remediation Optimization • Remedial Optimization (RPO, RSO) looked at improving implemented remedies • Evaluation of current conditions with respect to remedial objective and goals • Provided a process to improve effectiveness and efficiency • Focused on: • Understanding the site • Developing an exit strategy • Driving a site to reduce O&M cost and to closure

5. Along Came Going Green and Living Sustainably • Awareness of global climate change led to concern about greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions • Energy-intensive remedies contribute large amounts of GHGs • DuPont (2008) estimated that the difference between two remedies in NJ could be 2 percent of the annual GHG emissions for the State • “Sustainability” came into vogue • Society wants to reduce or avoid negative environmental impacts to allow human activity to be more sustainable • Most developed countries are rethinking how behavior, reliance on technology, and consumption of energy impact the environment • U.S. Government is requiring (EO 13514 for GHG, Water, Energy, and Waste)

6. Green and Sustainable What Are They? • Green: Minimizing environmental footprint including GHG and other air emissions, waste, energy, water, materials, land and ecological impacts. Includes the use of biodegradable and ecologically friendly materials. One leg of sustainability. • Sustainable: Meeting the needs of present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs (Brandtland Commission, 1987)

7. EPA View of Green Remediation (2010) • Goals: • 100% renewable energy (Including REC) • Use green remediation factors in remedy optimization • Reduce natural resource and energy use • Integrate clean, renewable, and innovative energy sources • On and off-site reuse of materials • Specify that contractors use green remediation practices • Help communities establish networks and training programs for green cleanups • EPA Region 9 is evaluating off-site and on-site impacts (holistic evaluation)

8. Sustainability and the Triple Bottom Line (more than Green) • Goals: • Holistic Approach • Balances • Economic Considerations • Environmental Impacts • Social Benefits

9. Green and Sustainable Remediation • Green Remediation • The practice of considering environmental impacts of remedyimplementation and incorporating options to minimize the environmental footprint • Current focus by EPA is more on minimizing post-remedy selection impacts • Is the primary focus of most regulatory initiatives • EPA recognizes that green is only part of sustainable • EPA Region 9 is looking at off-site impacts as well as on-site (laboratory, transportation) • EPA’s desire is to look at impacts as part of remedy selection process • Sustainable Remediation • Selection and implementation of a remedy whose net benefit on human health and the environment is maximized through the judicious use of limited resources • Encourages evaluation of impacts of a remedy during the remedy selection process • Embraces the “Triple Bottom Line” – environmental, economic and social benefits • Organizations such as ASTM, ITRC, and SuRF are tackling the broader issue of sustainable remediation

10. How Does Green Support Sustainable Remediation? • Green technologies and practices contribute to sustainability • Sustainable remediation can equate to green remediation • Reduced energy consumption reduces GHG emissions • Lower cost normally means less environmental impact • Social acceptability can come from green practices • Educating public and regulators on sustainability can bring green and sustainable practices closer together

11. What is Sustainable Remediation? • Improving traditional remediation through adoption of a thoughtful remediation plan that incorporates the following: • Actions that decrease the environmental footprint • A cost-effective yet still protective approach • A remedial approach that take into account timliness • Minimal transfer of the problem from one medium to another • An increase in community benefits • A consideration of safety associated with the action • These elements are consistent with USEPA policy and seek to take Green Remediation a step further

12. A Tool for Sustainable Remediation LCA • Life Cycle Analysis (LCA): Quantifies environmental impacts of a remedial action • Provides a standardized, well documented approach • Can include economic and social parameters • LCA is covered under ISO 14040 and 14044 as part of an environmental management program • Can span from cradle to cradle (including operation and land reuse) • Goes well beyond life cycle cost analysis

13. Life Cycle Analysis for Sustainable Remediation • Parameters included in impact analysis: • Air (SOx, NOx, PM, CO2, VOCs, GHG) • Energy (can be renewable or not) • Economics/Cost • Safety to Workers and Community • Software Tools: • Site Wise (free software developed by Battelle for the Army and Navy) • SRT (free software developed by the Air Force) • SimaPro and GaBi (professional assessment tools--$$$$$) • Other proprietary and directed-use tools • Software uses an inventory relevant to parameters evaluated (air emissions per kilowatt, etc). • Quality of data used affects quality of results

14. How is LCA Applied • Defines the environmental footprint of project • Can be applied to: • Comparing a range of alternatives (i.e. feasibility study) • Determining the effect of changing an alternative (optimization study) • Can be applied through out the life of a project as part of the decision making process • On the surface it is a simple concept. Implementation can be a complex process. • Software’s inventory of data simplifies the process • Industry and regulators not universally familiar with concepts (understand carbon foot-print which is related) • LCA can lead to more risk based remedial action • Regulators may view this as “Green Washing” remediation

15. LCA Tool Output (for the project lifecycle) • Air Emissions (Tons) • Energy Consumption (KW, MW or GW) • Project Cost (NPV or total) • Reduction of Waste Generation • Safety/accident risk compared to environmental risk Can compare to emissions from cars, energy consumption by household, etc.

16. Key Contributors to Environmental Footprint Romic East Palo Alto – Pump & Treat CO2e Emitted (lbs) wastewater treatment at POTW carbon regeneration electricity production Information courtesy of EPA Region 9

17. Sustainable Remediation: Soil Excavation • Former Gun Club: RCRA Corrective Action • Goals • Reduce, Reuse & Recycle Wastes & Raw Materials  • Reduce Transportation Related ImpactsImplementation (Required Significant Pre-Planning) • Waste disposal profiling (lead & PAHs) of each location conducted in advance of excavation • Excavation depth minimized through constant field oversight of each excavation cell • Separated soil during removal as either non hazardous or hazardous • Location 1 -- 29,000 tons (39% total) of non-haz soil was recycled for use as Portland Cement. • Location 2 -- 5,500 tons (96% total) of non-haz soil was recycled for use as Portland Cement Green: reuse of material instead of disposal

18. Sustainable Remediation: Former MGP Site • Achieved successful risk-based closure by evaluating site-specific toxicity and exposure • Managed removal of 2000+ gallons of coal tar and MGP residuals • Constructed 2 impermeable barrier and 2 permeable barrier landfills (9+ acres total) in lieu of excavation and offsite disposal • Installed in situ lining in sanitary and storm sewer to eliminate groundwater infiltration/migration • Incorporated significant landscape improvements to ensure community acceptance and satisfaction Green: Xeriscape landscaping to reduce water demand

19. Sustainable Remediation: Landfill Cap a “Brightfield” Redevelopment • Landfill Cap redeveloped into a renewable (solar) energy facility • 1,395 solar modules • 450 kw of electricity • Provides in annual reduction of 300 tons of CO2 • Environmental and solar energy education center were incorporated into the new facility • All community concerns were incorporated into the cleanup and redevelopment plans • Supports the communities economic development strategy Green: Provides Alternative Energy Source

20. Sustainable Remediation Project Example • Background • Contaminated Site in East Point, GA: acetone, TCE, Benzene • Initially pump and treat used for remediation • Sustainable remedy • Turn off pump and treat • Bio-sparge to treat Acetone/Benzene in soil and groundwater • No-purge sampling to monitor performance • Added lactate to TCE well • No net increase in annual cost (treatment cost < P&T cost) • Achieved NFA from EPA within 24 months • In retrospect: • Environmental Protection: closed site with no further action • Economic Consideration: No increase in present cost, no future cost • Social: Allowed unrestricted use of blighted property (light industrial)

21. Sustainable Remediation: Former Manufacturing Facility • Closed RCRA Landfill • Neighbor wanted property • Candidate for Brownfield Program (if not RCRA) • Off-site plume • Excavated shallow soil and treated with chemical oxidants ( 20 tons permanganate) • Proceeds from property sale covered remediation cost • Blighted property became useful parking lot and tennis courts • Improved appearance and community acceptance of area Green: Increased society’s perception of property value

22. Future of Sustainable Remediation • DoD facilities are adding Sustainable Remediation to Feasibility Study evaluation criteria • Sustainable Remediation Standards are under development • SuRF Guidance Document 2011 • ASTM Standard expected in 2012-2013 • ITRC Guidance expected in 2012-2013 • Ongoing Meetings with state and federal regulators to discuss benefits of Sustainable Remediation (ITRC, SuRF) • Industries adding Sustainable Remediation to evaluation criteria • In many cases, Sustainable Remediation has attractive economic payback and improves public image

23. Tough Questions to Consider • How do you weigh the need for site remediation against the resources utilized? • How to determine unintended consequences resulting from remediation? • Do you evaluate sustainability metrics be before or after remedy selection? • Weighting of short-term significant environmental footprint (e.g. excavation, thermal treatment) against a longer period (e.g. SVE, pump and treat)? • Weighing environmental protection against environmental harm (emissions), economic impact, and social benefits?

24. Tenets of Green and Sustainable Remediation • Implement remediation projects in an environmentally responsible manner (Green) • Recognize that some metrics have limited role on time-critical remediation projects (i.e. imminent risk) • Protection of human health and the environment are baseline requirements • All relevant stakeholders should have a say in the decision-making and by default the remedy selection • Goals include reduced consumption of energy, water and other natural resources; maximization of reuse/recycling; and minimization of carbon footprint, GHGs, and any other deleterious effect of remediation • We can make better remediation decisions by accounting for economic and social metrics • Make Sustainable Remediation part of Good Business

25. What is sustainable about moving a Lighthouse? • Environmental • Completed with minimal environmental impact. • Preservation in place would have resulted in collapse, protection against collapse would have had negative environmental impacts • Economic • Tourist draw to area • Jobs and tourist related income • Social • National Historic Site • Provides educational and recreational opportunities for visitors • Preserves our national heritage • 5,000 ton structure moved 2,900 feet at a cost of $10 million

26. Thank You Questions?