anintroductionto greenandsustainable# …...abriefhistoryofgsr •...

AN INTRODUCTION TO

GREEN AND SUSTAINABLE REMEDIATION

WHAT, WHO, WHY, AND HOW

1

WEBINAR PURPOSE

To simplify and to provide an overview of Green and Sustainable Remedia8on (GSR) and offer answers to a number of commonly asked ques8ons:

•  What is GSR?

•  Who is doing GSR?

•  Why do GSR?

•  How can I implement GSR at my site?

2

GREEN AND SUSTAINABLE REMEDIATION (GSR) WORKGROUP

This training was prepared coopera8vely by agency staff of the Federal Remedia8on Technology Roundtable (FRTR) GSR & Op8miza8on Workgroup

The intended audience includes: managers, decision-‐makers, regulators, and scien8fic and engineering support staff

Much of the content derives from the FRTR mee8ng in the Fall of 2014 (www.frtr.gov)

3

1. WHAT IS GREEN AND SUSTAINABLE REMEDIATION?

4

A BRIEF HISTORY OF GSR

•  1998 – Life-‐cycle framework developed for remedia8on for the Ontario Ministry of the Environment

•  2006 – Sustainable Remedia8on Forum (SURF) formed; SURF formally integrates sustainable principles, prac8ces, and metrics into remedia8on projects and works to foster SR on a na8onal and interna8onal basis

•  2007 – Associa8on of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) creates Green Cleanups Task Force which advocates for what are referred to as “greener cleanups”

•  2008 – EPA first developed the Green Remedia+on Technical Primer and formed the EPA/State Greener Cleanup Working Groups

•  2011 – Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC) publishes Green and Sustainable Remedia+on Technology Overview (GSR-‐1) and GSR Technical/Regulatory Guidance (GSR-‐2)

•  2013 – American Society of Tes8ng and Materials (ASTM) publishes two standard guides: Greener Cleanups (E2893), Integra+ng Sustainable Objec+ves into Cleanup (E2876), a PDF-‐writable Technical Summary (E2893), and Best Management Table in Excel format

5

DIFFERENT NAMES

•  Sustainability concepts have been incorporated into environmental remedia8on by different prac88oners ⁻  Green Remedia8on (GR)

⁻  Green and Sustainable Remedia8on (GSR)

⁻  Green or Greener Cleanups

⁻  Sustainable Remedia8on (SR)

•  For the purposes of this training, different names across this spectrum will be presented under the general category as Green and Sustainable Remedia8on or “GSR”

6

DEFINITIONS

•  There are many defini8ons for GSR, GR, SR used by different organiza8ons: ⁻  Environmental Protec8on Agency

⁻  American Society of Tes8ng and Materials

⁻  Naval Facili8es Engineering Command

⁻  Sustainable Remedia8on Forum

⁻  Interstate Technology Regulatory Council

•  For the purposes of this webinar, we will use the ITRC 2011 published defini8on of GSR:

–  “The site-‐specific employment of products, processes, technologies, and procedures that mi+gate contaminant risk to receptors [during cleanup ac+vi+es] while making decisions that are cognizant of balancing community goals, economic impacts, and environmental effects.“

.

7

2. WHO IS DOING GSR?

8

FEDERAL AND STATE PRACTITIONERS

•  Federal Agencies: ⁻  EPA Headquarters and Regions ⁻  DOE Cross Programma8c Work Group

⁻  Department of Defense (DoD)

!  US Army Corps of Engineers

!  Naval Facili8es Engineering Command

!  Air Force !  Army

•  State programs, for example: ⁻  California ⁻  Massachusees ⁻  Minnesota

9

OTHER PRACTITIONERS

•  Na8onal and Interna8onal ⁻  SURF members include both na8onal and interna8onal chapters ⁻  ITRC ⁻  Numerous corpora8ons, such as Boeing, DuPont, Shell, Exxon, etc. ⁻  Numerous cleanup consul8ng firms

•  The presenta8on today will focus primarily on Federal Agencies

10

3. WHY DO GSR?

11

SUSTAINABILITY DRIVERS FOR FEDERAL AGENCIES

•  Federal Execu8ve Orders (EOs) on incorpora8ng sustainability principles and prac8ces for all Federal Agencies: –  EO 13693 (March 19, 2015): Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade,

incorporated the following: •  EO 13123 (June 3, 1999): Greening the Government through Efficient Energy Management

•  EO 13514 (October 5, 2009): Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance

–  Strategic Sustainability Performance Plans (SSPPs)

–  EO 13653 (November 1, 2013): Climate Change Adapta+on

•  Agency-‐specific ac8ons (for example): –  DOE Order 436.1: Departmental Sustainability

–  The Army Strategy for the Environment: Sustain the Mission, Secure the Future

12

GSR POLICY AND GUIDANCE DEVELOPED BY FEDERAL AGENCIES

•  Department of Defense policy: Considera+on of GSR prac+ces in the Defense Environmental Restora+on Program (August 2009), updated in: Defense Environmental Restora+on Program Management Manual 4715.20 (March 9, 2012)

•  US Navy: Guidance on Green Sustainable Remedia+on, UG-‐2093-‐ENV, Rev 1 (5 April 2012)

•  USACE: Decision Framework for Incorpora+on of Green and Sustainable Prac+ces into Environmental Remedia+on Projects, (March 5, 2010), updated in: Detailed Approach for Performing Green and Sustainable Remedia+on (GSR) Evalua+ons in Army Environmental Remedia+on (August 2012)

•  US Air Force adop8on of GSR approaches including Performance Based Contrac8ng

•  DOE GSR contrac8ng policy for cleanups

•  EPA: Encouraging Greener Cleanup Prac+ces through Use of ASTM Interna+onal' s Standard Guide for Greener Cleanups (December 2013)

•  EPA Regions 1 to 10: Region-‐specific Green Remedia8on policies

13

GSR POLICY AND GUIDANCE DEVELOPED BY STATE, PUBLIC-‐PRIVATE, AND STANDARD-‐SETTING ORGANIZATIONS

•  California – Interim Advisory for Green Remedia+on (December 2009)

•  Illinois – Greener Cleanups Matrix (February 2008)

•  Minnesota – Green and Sustainable Remedia+on, Petroleum Remedia+on Program (August 2012)

•  New York – Policy for Green Remedia+on (August 2010)

•  Oregon – Green Remedia+on Policy Drae (June 2011)

•  Wisconsin – Green and Sustainable Remedia+on Manual (January 2012)

•  ASTSWMO– Incorpora+ng Green and Sustainable Remedia+on at Federal Facili+es (August 2010)

•  ITRC – A prac+cal GSR framework for Federal Agencies and States (November 2011)

•  ASTM ⁻  Standard Guide for Integra+ng Sustainable Objec+ves into Cleanup (E2876) (June 2013) ⁻  Standard Guide for Greener Cleanups (E2893) (November 2013)

14

GSR IMPLEMENTATION HAS ITS BENEFITS

•  Reduces energy consump8on •  Contributes toward mee8ng our greenhouse gas reduc8on goals •  Reduces toxic air emissions •  Reduces waste genera8on •  Conserves water and natural resources •  Reduces ecological impact •  Reflects good environmental stewardship •  Helps gain public acceptance and confidence building •  Demonstrates performance in achieving environmental sustainability goals •  Reduces costs

15

GSR BENEFITS OF THE TRIPLE-‐BOTTOM LINE: ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC, AND SOCIAL

•  GSR helps achieve remedy protec8veness with a lower environmental footprint

•  GSR builds on exis8ng guidance to engage communi\es in decision making

•  GSR has the poten8al for improved economic outcome from site clean and reuse

16

QUESTIONS?

17

4. HOW CAN I IMPLEMENT GSR AT MY SITE?

18

IDENTIFY THE GSR APPROACH

•  Several overall approaches have been developed by prac88oners for implemen8ng GSR within environmental remedia8on projects

•  The different overall approaches can be simplified to the following: –  Approach 1 involves iden8fying and implemen8ng common-‐sense GSR BMPs

–  Approach 2 involves a quan8ta8ve assessment and evalua8on of GSR metrics associated with the footprint reduc8ons from the BMPs selected

•  Using one Approach does not preclude using the other

•  For example, ASTM Standard Guide, Standard Guide for Greener Cleanups (E2893) provides a framework to iden8fy and incorporate BMPs into site cleanup with the op8on to perform quan8ta8ve measurements of BMPs during the cleanup process

•  For more insights see ASTM’s 2014 webinar at hep://www.clu-‐in.org/conf/8o/gcsg_042514/

19

APPROACH OVERVIEW

Approach 1 Use of BMPs

Approach 2 Footprint Quantitative Evaluation

Description Enhance the remedial project by incorporating sustainable methods – this involves implementing BMPs

A quantitative decision takes a holistic view of the remedy or a portion of the remedy. Using specially designed GSR software, this approach considers the project design, metric evaluation, and life-‐cycle cost in selecting the preferred alternative

Time Commitmenta

2-‐24 hrs 40-‐60 hrs -‐ BMPs with footprint evaluation, 80-‐100 hrs -‐ BMPs with a full life cycle assessment (LCA)

Costb $1K – $5K $10 -‐$15K

When to Intervene Anytime during the cleanup or closure process Most often during the Feasibility Study, Remedy Design, Construction, and Remedy Operation. Less likely in Investigations

Example Can be as simple as replacing diesel fuel with low-‐sulfur diesel or biodiesel blend for trucks and heavy equipment

Using quantitative analysis to determine that the use of in situ remediation technique instead of pump and treat reduces energy requirements, GHGs, and enables achievement of cleanup metrics in a shorter amount of time with less cost

20

a Information from C.F. Silver, D.R. Goldblum, and J.A. Simon, “The Growing Impact of ASTM's New Standard Guide for Greener Cleanups”, presented at the Third International Symposium on Bioremediation and Sustainable Environmental Technologies, Miami, FL, 20 May 2015, does not include GR implementation and documentation. b From the 2012 Army GSR Study http://www.fedcenter.gov/Documents/index.cfm?id=22322&pge_prg_id=27392 -‐ these costs will vary depending on the complexity of the site.

GSR OPPORTUNITIES ACROSS THE CERCLA REMEDIAL LIFE CYCLE

•  An Example: the Navy Approach

–  Op8miza8on reviews which are required by Navy policy are opportune 8mes to evaluate sustainability

–  Remedy footprint analyses, including use of SiteWiseTM during remedy evalua8on, are conducted to iden8fy poten8al areas for footprint reduc8on

–  GSR opportuni8es are evaluated across the phases of the CERCLA remedial process and implemented where they make sense

21

GSR OFTEN STARTS WITH CONTRACT LANGUAGE

•  Specify in the statement of work that the contractor commit to using a GSR approach during all phases of the project, with GSR implementa8on to the maximum extent feasible and prac8cal

•  Require the contractor to prepare a characteriza8on, remedia8on, monitoring, or waste management plan that includes the GSR ac8vi8es to be implemented, with a report that documents the GSR ac8vi8es that were implemented

•  Require the contractor to update and document to the project team the progress of GR implementa8on, allowing for project team input to the GR implementa8on process

•  Incen8vize your federal and contractor team to use GSR prac8ces and measurable goals to achieve results and cost benefits: “Count it, and it counts!”

22

RESOURCES FOR CONTRACTING & INCENTIVES

•  DOE GSR Contract and Incen8ve Language: DOE memo Green and Sustainable Remedia+on Contract Language distributed to DOE field sites 31 December 2013 direc8ng use of including GSR contract language

•  Army GSR Study Contract language examples (Report, Appendix A, Aeachment A-‐2) hep://www.fedcenter.gov/Documents/index.cfm?id=22322&pge_prg_id=27392

•  EPA Greener Remedia8on Contrac8ng Toolkit, heps://clu-‐in.org/greenremedia8on/docs/Greener_Cleanups_Contrac8ng_and_Administra8ve_Toolkit.pdf.

•  Air Force Instruc8on (AFI) 32-‐7020, Final, 7 November 2014, hep://sta8c.e-‐publishing.af.mil/produc8on/1/af_a4/publica8on/afi32-‐7020/afi32-‐7020.pdf, Air Force Instruc+on (AFI) 32-‐7001, hfp://www.denix.osd.mil/swr/upload/afi32-‐7001.pdf, and Drae Op+mized Exit Strategy (OES) Compendium for Performance-‐Based Remedia+on, 15 January 2013

23

EXAMPLE: CONTRACT LANGUAGE – EPA REGION 10 SUPERFUND SITE

24

Carol Lee Dona presenting for Maleena Lemiere US Army Corps of Engineers

Commencement Bay-‐South Tacoma Channel Superfund Site


•  EPA Region 10 Fund-‐Led Site with USACE Seaele District technical and contract support

•  Municipal water supply well became contaminated from site-‐related industrial prac8ces, which included oil recycling and solvent processing

•  Original ROD signed in 1983; amended in 2009

•  Excava8on of contaminated soil took place August 2011 – March 2012

•  Informa8on from the case study presented at the Fall 2014 FRTR mee8ng by Maleena Lemiere, Seaele District

25


Contract Language reflected EPA Region 10 Clean & Green Policy

•  Applies to all EPA Fund-‐led Superfund cleanups in Region 10 •  Goal: to enhance the environmental benefits of federal cleanup programs by promo8ng technologies and prac8ces that are sustainable

•  Lists 11 green remedia8on technologies/prac8ces to be implemented unless a site-‐specific evalua8on demonstrates imprac8cability or favors an alterna8ve approach

26

27

Contract language required: •  Specifica8on of Green Remedia8on (GR) BMPs

⁻  Use of recycled concrete for fill material

⁻  Minimiza8on of the amount of waste disposed in landfills

•  Contract Submieals ⁻  GR Plan

⁻  Final GR Report

•  GR discussions during pre-‐construc8on and progress mee8ngs •  Tracking and repor8ng of GR ac8ons in progress mee8ng minutes

Contract language specified what GR was to be implemented and the process through which the GR was to be implemented and documented


APPROACH 1: USE OF BMPS

ASTM Flow Chart

(from Standard Guide for Greener Cleanups [E2893-‐13])

28

RESOURCES FOR IDENTIFYING BMPS

•  EPA Technology-‐Specific BMPs hfp://www.cluin.org/greenremedia+on/

•  ASTM Standard Guide BMP lists contained in ⁻  Greener Cleanups (E2893-‐13) ⁻  Integra+ng Sustainable Objec+ves into Cleanups (E2876-‐13) ⁻  For a nominal fee, writable versions of the BMP Excel tables from ASTM can be obtained

and used in a similar fashion to show the iden8fica8on, selec8on, implementa8on, and documenta8on process.

⁻  PDF-‐Writable Technical Summary

•  DoD agency BMP lists ⁻  U.S Army Corps of Engineers, Evalua+on of Considera+ons and Incorpora+on of Green

and Sustainable Remedia+on (GSR) Prac+ces in Army Environmental Remedia+on, which includes BMPs and Checklists hep://www.fedcenter.gov/Documents/index.cfm?id=22322&pge_prg_id=27392

⁻  Navy Phase-‐Specific Footprint Reduc8on Methods Checklists in the Navy GSR Guidance found at www.navfac.navy.mil/go/erb

29

CASE STUDY – USE OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS)

30

Carol Lee Dona US Army Corps of Engineers

Environmental and Munitions Center of Expertise

BMP Case Study: In-‐Situ Treatment of Groundwater at Site XY

BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR BMP CASE STUDY

•  Site Characteris8cs –  A Federal agency site with groundwater contaminated with chlorinated solvents

⁻  ROD specifies use of an in-‐situ groundwater injec8on technology with monitored natural aeenua8on for polishing ater injec8ons have sufficiently lower chlorinated solvent concentra8ons

⁻  Soil contamina8on below screening levels and does not require remedia8on

•  Approach –  Use of ASTM Greener Cleanup Standard Guide process

–  A documenta8on method that records the results of each step of the process

31

STEP 5: BMP DOCUMENTATION STEPS 1-‐4

Best Management Practice

Step 1 Applicable or Rationale if

Not Applicable

Step 2

Priority

Step 3 Selected or Rationale if Not Selected

Step 4 Implemented or Rationale if

Not Implemented

BMP 1 – Buy carbon offset credits Low Policy did not allow N/A

BMP 2 – Reclaim uncontaminated soil for reuse No soil remediation N/A N/A N/A

BMP 3 -‐ Use by-‐products/waste/less rehined materials from local sources Med Substitute

substrate BMP 4 – Switch to a less energy-‐intensive technology for remediation polishing High Decision

deferred

BMP 5 – Use regenerated GAC in carbon beds No extracted groundwater N/A N/A N/A

BMP 6 – Use local staff to minimize resource use Low Implemented

BMP 7 – Conduct pilot tracer tests to optimize hydraulic delivery of reagents High Implemented

STEP 1: OPPORTUNITY ASSESSMENT

Best Management Practice Applicable or Rationale if Not Applicable

BMP 1 – Buy carbon offset credits

BMP 2 – Reclaim uncontaminated soil for reuse No remediation of soil BMP 3 -‐ Use by-‐products/waste/less rehined materials from local sources in place of rehined chemicals or materials BMP 4 – Switch to a less energy-‐intensive technology for remediation polishing when possible BMP 5 – Use regenerated granulated activated carbon (GAC) for use in carbon beds No extracted groundwater

BMP 6 – Use local staff to minimize resource use

BMP 7 Conduct pilot tracer tests to optimize reagent hydraulic delivery

Iden8fy BMPs applicable to site-‐specific considera8ons, and include the ra8onale for excluding BMPs if not applicable

STEP 2: BMP PRIORITIZATION

Best Management Practice Applicable Ranking

BMP 1 – Buy carbon offset credits Low BMP 3 -‐ Use by-‐products/waste/less rehined materials from local sources in place of rehined chemicals or materials Medium

BMP 4 – Switch to a less energy-‐intensive technology for remediation polishing when possible High

BMP 6 – Use local staff to minimize resource use Low

BMP 7 Conduct pilot tracer tests to optimize reagent hydraulic delivery High

Rank BMPs based upon poten8al for footprint reduc8on

STEP 3: BMP SELECTION

Best Management Practice Priority Selected or Rationale for Not Selected

BMP 4 – Switch to a less energy-‐intensive technology for remediation polishing when possible High


BMP 3 -‐ Use by-‐products/waste/less rehined materials from local sources in place of rehined chemicals or materials

Med

BMP 1 – Buy carbon offset credits Low Policy does not allow


Select BMPs to be applied, or provide ra8onale for those not selected.

STEP 4: BMP IMPLEMENTATION

Best Management Practice Priority Implemented or Rationale for Not Implemented

BMP 4 – Switch to a less energy-‐intensive technology for remediation polishing when possible

High

Need to monitor plume concentrations to determine if concentrations are low enough for MNA – decision deferred


BMP 3 -‐ Use by-‐products/waste/less rehined materials from local sources in place of rehined chemicals or materials

Med Material shortage, substituted a more rehined substrate


X

Implement selected BMPs and document those not implemented due to changing condi8ons (e.g. new informa8on or field condi8ons).

STEP 5: BMP DOCUMENTATION STEPS 1-‐4

Best Management Practice

Step 1 Applicable or Rationale if

Not Applicable

Step 2

Priority

Step 3 Selected or Rationale if Not Selected

Step 4 Implemented or Rationale if

Not Implemented

BMP 1 – Buy carbon offset credits Low Policy did not allow N/A

BMP 2 – Reclaim uncontaminated soil for reuse No soil remediation N/A N/A N/A

BMP 3 -‐ Use by-‐products/waste/less rehined materials from local sources Med Substitute

substrate BMP 4 – Switch to a less energy-‐intensive technology for remediation polishing High Decision

deferred

BMP 5 – Use regenerated GAC in carbon beds No extracted groundwater N/A N/A N/A

BMP 6 – Use local staff to minimize resource use Low Implemented

BMP 7 – Conduct pilot tracer tests to optimize hydraulic delivery of reagents High Implemented

BMP CASE STUDY -‐ CONCLUSIONS

•  Evalua8on of the list of BMPs for applicability, priority, and prac8cality determines BMPs to be implemented

•  Use of a list of BMPs increases the poten8al of GSR implementa8on and footprint reduc8on

–  ASTM BMP lists, Navy and Army GSR Approaches available – each Approach allows addi8onal BMPs from other lists. Project team BMPs can also be added

•  Considera8on and implementa8on of BMPs can extend over several remedial phases

–  ROD inclusion allows transi8on to the less energy-‐intensive technology of MNA if site condi8ons are appropriate

–  Monitoring necessary ater ac8ve remedia8on to determine if condi8ons appropriate for polishing

•  The unexpected happens -‐ some BMPs aren’t implemented because of unforeseen circumstances

38

QUESTIONS?

39

APPROACH 2: QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION

ASTM Flow Chart (Standard Guide for Integra+ng Sustainable Objec+ves into Cleanup, E2876-‐13)

40

STEP 5: TOOLS FOR QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION

•  Public-‐domain sustainable evalua8on sotware tools (free)

⁻  SiteWise™ hep://www.sustainableremedia8on.org/tools/

⁻  Spreadsheet for Environmental Footprint Analysis (SEFA) (developed by EPA)hep://www.sustainableremedia8on.org/tools/

•  Private-‐domain sustainable evalua8on tools (fee-‐based or restricted access)

⁻  SimaPro Life Cycle Analysis tools

⁻  Envision tools (designed and endorsed by ASCE and Harvard)

⁻  Require a license to operate, maintain, and update with contractor support

41

APPROACH 2 NAVY CASE STUDY

42

Amy Hawkins Naval Facili\es Engineering Command

Using BMPs and Footprint Evalua\on Using SiteWiseTM

43

CASE STUDY: APPROACH 2, QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION

Site 5, Naval Air Sta8on Patuxent River

•  10 acre disposal area for waste and debris

•  In opera8on from 1957 to 1965

•  GSR assessment was part of evalua8on of BMPs for the Interim Removal Ac8on (IRA)

44

CASE STUDY: FOOTPRINT EVALUATION

•  IRA consisted of: –  Excava8ng surface debris and subsurface waste/soil –  Mechanically screening and separa8ng waste streams

–  Confirma8on inspec8on/sampling and site grading

•  Best Management Prac8ces were iden8fied for the IRA

•  SiteWiseTM Version 2.0 applied for footprint evalua8on of two alterna8ves:

–  IRA with footprint reduc8on methods

–  IRA with no footprint reduc8on methods

•  Results documented in a technical memorandum

CASE STUDY – USING BMP AND FOOTPRINT EVALUATION WITH SITEWISETM Example Input Sheet

CASE STUDY – USING BMP AND FOOTPRINT EVALUATION WITH SITEWISETM

SiteWiseTM Example Output Plots

CASE STUDY -‐ BMP AND FOOTPRINT EVALUATION RESULTED IN LOWER IMPACTS

Footprint Reduc8on " Lower Impacts

Addi8onal metrics included criteria air pollutants, injury/fatality risk, and water impacts

CASE STUDY -‐ BMP AND FOOTPRINT EVALUATION RESULTED IN LOWER COSTS

Footprint Reduc8on BMPs " Cost Avoidance

CASE STUDY –BMP AND FOOTPRINT EVALUATION ADDRESSED ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC, AND SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

•  Conclusions –  SiteWiseTM quan8fied GSR metrics for IRA alterna8ves

–  BMPs resulted in:

•  Footprint reduc8on

•  Cost reduc8on

–  Stakeholders agreed with the findings

5. SUMMARY

51

WHAT DID THIS TRAINING COVER?

This training provided an overview of GSR, and offered answers to these commonly asked ques8ons:

–  What is GSR?

–  Who is doing GSR?

–  Why do GSR?

–  How do you implement GSR at your site?

52

APPROACH OVERVIEW

Approach 1 Use of BMPs

Approach 2 Footprint Quantitative Evaluation

Description Enhance the remedial project by incorporating sustainable methods – this involves implementing BMPs.

A quantitative decision takes a holistic view of the remedy or a portion of the remedy. Using specially designed GSR software, this approach considers the project design, metric evaluation, and life-‐cycle cost in selecting the preferred alternative.

Time Commitmenta

2-‐24 hrs 40-‐60 hrs -‐ BMPs with footprint evaluation, 80-‐100 hrs -‐ BMPs with a full life cycle assessment (LCA)

Costb $1K – $5K $10 -‐$15K

When to Intervene Anytime during the cleanup or closure process.

Most often during the Feasibility Study, Remedy Design, Construction, and Remedy Operation. Less likely in Investigations.

Example Can be as simple as replacing diesel fuel with low-‐sulfur diesel or biodiesel blend for trucks and heavy equipment.

Using quantitative analysis to determine that the use of in situ remediation technique instead of pump and treat reduces energy requirements, GHGs, and enables achievement of cleanup metrics in a shorter amount of time with less cost.

53

a Information from C.F. Silver, D.R. Goldblum, and J.A. Simon, “The Growing Impact of ASTM's New Standard Guide for Greener Cleanups”, presented at the Third International Symposium on Bioremediation and Sustainable Environmental Technologies, Miami, FL, 20 May 2015, does not include GR implementation and documentation. b From the 2012 Army GSR Study http://www.fedcenter.gov/Documents/index.cfm?id=22322&pge_prg_id=27392 -‐ these costs will vary depending on the complexity of the site.

BENEFITS OF GSR

•  Reduces energy consump8on •  Contributes toward mee8ng our greenhouse gas reduc8on goals •  Reduces toxic air emissions •  Reduces pollu8ng waste water discharges •  Reduces waste genera8on •  Conserves water and natural resources •  Reduces ecological impact •  Reflects BMPs and good environmental stewardship •  Helps gain public acceptance and confidence building •  Demonstrates performance in achieving environmental sustainability goals •  Reduces costs

54

6. RESOURCES

55

RESOURCES Organization Resource

American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM)

ASTM Standard Guide for Greener Cleanups http://www.astm.org/Standards/E2893.htm ASTM Standard Guide for Integrating Sustainable Objectives into Cleanup http://www.astm.org/Standards/E2876.htm

Department of the Army (DA) Final Study Report, Evaluation of Consideration and Incorporation of Green and Sustainable Remediation (GSR) Practices in Army Environmental Remediation, performed for the Department of Army by the USACE Environmental and Munitions Center of Expertise, 27 August, 2012 and Appendix A of the same, Detailed Approach for Performing Green and Sustainable Remediation Evaluations in Army Environmental Remediation http://www.fedcenter.gov/Documents/index.cfm?id=22322&pge_prg_id=27392

Department of Defense (DOD) Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) Manual, revised 9 March 2012, No. 4715.20 http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/471520m.pdf

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

General

CLU-‐IN Green Remediation Website http://www.clu-‐in.org/greenremediation/ Superfund & Green Remediation Website http://www.epa.gov/superfund/greenremediation/

Clean Fuel and Emission Technologies for Site Cleanup http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/remed/clean-‐fuel-‐emis-‐gr-‐fact-‐sheet.pdf

EPA

Methodology

Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint, http://www.cluin.org/greenremediation/methodology/

!  Methodology & Spreadsheets for Environmental Footprint Analysis (SEFA) !  EPA Technology-‐Specihic GR Best Management Practice lists, www.cluin.org/greenremediation

EPA

Best Management Practices

A set of sheets of best management practices for frequently used cleanup remedies, various hield stages, and other aspects posing signihicant opportunities to reduce the environmental footprint of site cleanup, see http://www.clu-‐in.org/greenremediation/docs/GR_factsheet_topics.pdf. Examples are: Integrating Renewable Energy into Site Cleanup http://www.clu-‐in.org/greenremediation/docs/integrating_re_into_site_cleanup_factsheet.pdf Pump and Treat Technologies http://www.clu-‐in.org/greenremediation/docs/GR_Fact_Sheet_P&T_12-‐31-‐2009.pdf

56

RESOURCES (CONT.)

Organization Resource Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC)

ITRC Green and Sustainable Remediation Technology Overview Green and Sustainable Remediation: State of the Science and Practice http://www.itrcweb.org/Documents/GSR-‐1.pdf ITRC Green and Sustainable Remediation Technology/Regulatory Guidance Green and Sustainable: A Practical Framework http://www.itrcweb.org/Documents/GSR-‐2.pdf ITRC Green and Sustainable Remediation Website http://www.itrcweb.org/teampublic_GSR.asp ITRC Enhanced Attenuation Guidance http://www.itrcweb.org/Team/Public?teamID=31

Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC)

DON Guidance on Green Sustainable Remediation, UG-‐2093-‐ENV, Rev1 (5 April 2012), http://www.navfac.navy.mil/navfac_worldwide/specialty_centers/exwc/products_and_services/ev/erb/gsr.html#pol_guidin.org/greenremediation/

Navy, Air Force, and USACE

SiteWise (Version 3) http://www.sustainableremediation.org/news/2013/10/24/sitewise-‐version-‐3-‐now-‐available.html

Sustainable Remediation Forum (SURF)

SURF Sustainable Remediation White Paper http://www.sustainableremediation.org/library/issue-‐papers/SURF%20White%20Paper.pdf SURF Website http://www.sustainableremediation.org/ SiteWise (Version 3) http://www.sustainableremediation.org/news/2013/10/24/sitewise-‐version-‐3-‐now-‐available.html

Illinois Greener Cleanup Matrix http://www.epa.illinois.gov/topics/cleanup-‐programs/greener-‐cleanups/index

Minnesota Toolkit for Greener Prac8ces http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/topics/preventing-‐waste-‐and-‐pollution/sustainability/greener-‐practices-‐toolkit/toolkit-‐for-‐greener-‐practices-‐showcase-‐of-‐ideas.html

57

RESOURCES (CONT.) Organization Resource

Tools Quantitative Footprinting Tools !  Public tools (free)

o  SiteWise™ GSR Tool http://www.sustainableremediation.org/tools/

o  Spreadsheet for Environmental Footprint Analysis (SEFA) (developed by EPA) http://www.sustainableremediation.org/tools/ !  Private tools (fee or restricted access)

o  SimaPro Life Cycle Analysis tools, http://simapro.com/ o  Envision Tools [email protected]

58

QUESTIONS?

59

CONTACT INFORMATION

•  DOE: Jerry DiCerbo – [email protected]; Beth Moore – [email protected]; Albes Gaona – [email protected]

•  USACE: Carol Dona -‐ [email protected]; Maleena Lemiere -‐ [email protected]

•  Army: Kevin Roughgarden -‐ [email protected]

•  Navy: Amy Hawkins – [email protected]

•  Air Force: Kent Glover – [email protected]

•  EPA: Carlos Pachon -‐ [email protected]

60