Off‐gas treatment carbon footprint calculator: Form and function

Kessel, Lowell; Holland, Karin; Squire, Jeremy A.

doi:10.1002/rem.20190

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Though there is good evidence that qualitative assessments can be a robust basis for decision-making (Gill et al, 2016;Smith & Kerrison, 2013), many clients, consultants, and researchers prefer at least a semiquantitative or sometimes a quantitative approach. On this basis, SuRF-UK suggests a tiered approach to sustainability assessment (CL:AIRE, 2010), with the entry-level being qualitative assessment (Tier 1), and progression to semiquantitative Quantitative methods based on footprint or LCA methodologies have been used to compare remediation options (e.g., Cappuyns & Kessen, 2013;Hou et al, 2014Hou et al, , 2015ITRC, 2011;Kessel et al, 2008;Visentin et al, 2019), in particular in the case of GR (US EPA, 2008).…”

Section: Measuring and Comparingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Quantitative methods based on footprint or LCA methodologies have been used to compare remediation options (e.g., Cappuyns & Kessen, 2013; Hou et al, 2014, 2015; ITRC, 2011; Kessel et al, 2008; Visentin et al, 2019), in particular in the case of GR (US EPA, 2008). However, though these assessments are useful in their own terms, the authors' opinion is that they rarely represent a holistic coverage of sustainability considerations (Table 1).…”

Section: Use and Critique Of Surf‐uk Guidancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sustainability assessment framework and indicators developed by SuRF‐UK for land remediation option appraisal

Bardos

Thomas

Smith

et al. 2020

Remediation Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The scale of land-contamination problems, and of the responses to them, makes achieving sustainability in contaminated land remediation an important objective. The Sustainable Remediation Forum in the UK (SuRF-UK) was established in 2007 to support more sustainable remediation practices in the UK. The prevailing international consensus is that risk assessment is the most rational approach for determining remediation needs and urgency. Sustainability in this context is related to the effective delivery of whatever risk management is necessary to protect human health or the wider environment. SuRF-UK suggests that decisions made at the project planning stage, and also in the choice of remediation approach used to reach particular objectives decided upon, are both opportunities for sustainability gain. In 2011, SuRF-UK issued a set of wide-ranging indicators to support sustainability assessments made during project planning and remediation option appraisal. This advice was reviewed over 2018-2020 and new guidance on process and indicators has been released. Within this guidance, SuRF-UK has provided a checklist of possible sustainability indicators/criteria that can be used to benchmark the scope of sustainability assessment for remediation projects. These indicators are divided into 15 overarching ("headline") categories, divided in a balanced way across the three elements of sustainability: environmental (emissions to air, soil and ground conditions, groundwater and surface water, ecology, and natural resources and waste); social (human health and safety, ethics and equity, neighborhoods and locality, communities and community involvement, and uncertainty and evidence); and economic (direct economic costs and benefits, indirect economic costs and benefits, employment and employment capital, induced economic costs and benefits, and project lifespan and flexibility). The majority of this study explains these categories and their various considerations in more depth and provides the supporting rationale that led to their inclusion in the revised SuRF-UK guidance.

show abstract

Section: Measuring and Comparingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Use and Critique Of Surf‐uk Guidancementioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainability assessment framework and indicators developed by SuRF‐UK for land remediation option appraisal

Bardos

Thomas

Smith

et al. 2020

Remediation Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This would be useful if compared to alternative vapor treatment technologies as was done by Kessel et al (2008aKessel et al ( , 2008b. Other groups have developed tools like the AFCEE SRT; however, not all commercially available remediation technologies are available for consideration in such tools at this time, thus requiring more skilled and careful analysis by practitioners.…”

Section: Refrigerated Condensation System Design (C3 Technology)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainable remediation panel—Projects that demonstrate the value of sustainable remediation

Woodward

Abrams²,

Geckeler³

et al. 2011

Remediation Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Remediation developed a Sustainable Remediation Panel in the Summer 2009 issue, which featured the Sustainable Remediation Forum White Paper. The panel is composed of leaders in the field of sustainable remediation who have volunteered to provide their opinions on difficult subjects related to the topic of how to integrate sustainability principles into the remediation practice. The panel's opinions are provided in a question-and-answer format, whereby selected experts provide an answer to a question. This issue's question is provided below, followed by opinions from four experts in the remediation field.Many members of the remediation community who are intrigued by sustainable remediation are asking how to demonstrate the value of such a project. In this issue, the Sustainable Remediation Panel provides examples of sustainable remediation projects demonstrating project values. This is a unique discussion from some of the most accomplished experts in sustainable remediation. The experts' discussions answer the following types of questions pertaining to their sustainable remediation project experience:What made the project interesting?Was there a special use of a technology that minimized the environmental footprint of the remedy? Did the project result in a special economic or social impact?What about the project strategy, such as the incorporation of community involvement, was unique? DAVID S. WOODWARD Green and Sustainable Remediation of the Bridal Veil Open Space, Valentine-Clark Superfund Site, Minneapolis, MinnesotaDemonstrating the value of green and sustainable remediation is typically a site-specific consideration that is very dependent upon the objectives of the responsible party for the remediation and the desires of other stakeholders that have a say in or may be impacted by the remedy. The Bridal Veil Open Space is part of the Valentine-Clark Superfund site where soil, sediments, groundwater, and surface water were contaminated with wood-preserving chemicals and wastes. The site is located in a heavily industrialized area

show abstract

Carbon footprint evaluation at industrial park level: A hybrid life cycle assessment approach

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Off‐gas treatment carbon footprint calculator: Form and function

Abstract: The quantification of greenhouse gas (GHG)

Cited by 4 publications

References 4 publications

Sustainability assessment framework and indicators developed by SuRF‐UK for land remediation option appraisal

Sustainability assessment framework and indicators developed by SuRF‐UK for land remediation option appraisal

Sustainable remediation panel—Projects that demonstrate the value of sustainable remediation

Carbon footprint evaluation at industrial park level: A hybrid life cycle assessment approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About