comparison of the secondary environmental impacts of three remediation alternatives for a...

This article was downloaded by: [Pennsylvania State University]On: 17 December 2014, At: 10:18Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Soil and Sediment Contamination: AnInternational JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/bssc20

Comparison of the SecondaryEnvironmental Impacts of ThreeRemediation Alternatives for a Diesel-contaminated Site in Northern CanadaDavid Sanscartier a , Manuele Margni b , Ken Reimer a & BarbaraZeeb aa Environmental Sciences Group, Dept. Chemistry and ChemicalEngineering, Royal Military College of Canada , Station Forces ,Kingston, ON, Canadab Interuniversity Research Centre for the Life Cycle of Products,Processes and Services, École Polytechnique de Montréal ,Département de génie chimique , Montréal, CanadaPublished online: 23 Apr 2010.

To cite this article: David Sanscartier , Manuele Margni , Ken Reimer & Barbara Zeeb (2010)Comparison of the Secondary Environmental Impacts of Three Remediation Alternatives for a Diesel-contaminated Site in Northern Canada, Soil and Sediment Contamination: An International Journal,19:3, 338-355

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15320381003695256

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/bssc20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15320381003695256

systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

18 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Soil and Sediment Contamination, 19:338–355, 2010Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1532-0383 print / 1549-7887 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15320381003695256

Comparison of the Secondary EnvironmentalImpacts of Three Remediation Alternatives fora Diesel-contaminated Site in Northern Canada

DAVID SANSCARTIER,1 MANUELE MARGNI,2

KEN REIMER,1 AND BARBARA ZEEB1

1Environmental Sciences Group, Dept. Chemistry and Chemical Engineering,Royal Military College of Canada, Station Forces, Kingston, ON, Canada2Interuniversity Research Centre for the Life Cycle of Products, Processes andServices, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Departement de genie chimique,Montreal, Canada

Remediation of contaminated sites has obvious environmental benefits, but the remedi-ation itself can cause environmental impacts. Impacts differ among technologies, andare likely to be greater at remote sites than in more populated areas due to trans-port over long distances. These impacts are seldom considered by the site-remediationindustry. Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) can quantify the overall environ-mental burdens of treatment systems, and help in selecting the most environmentallyefficient approach. In this study, the environmental performance of three treatment op-tions was compared, using LCA, for remediation of a remote diesel-contaminated site.The study focused on the secondary impacts of remediation (i.e. those associated withthe remedial activities); the primary impacts (i.e. those associated with the changes inthe site environmental quality) were handled through risk assessment. On-site ex-situbioremediation in a temporary facility, followed by disposal in an unlined landfill, wasfound to have environmental impacts similar to in-situ treatment, but far less than thosefor off-site treatment. Transportation was the main contributor to overall pollution.Combining risk assessment with LCA may allow for more holistic management of con-taminated sites, combining the benefits of a site-specific assessment and avoid shiftingof the environmental burden.

Keywords life cycle analysis, LCA, environmental impacts, contaminated soil, siteremediation, petroleum hydrocarbons

List of Acronyms

CC — Climate change damage categoryCF — Characterisation factorEQ — Ecosystem quality damage categoryHC — HydrocarbonHDPE — High-density polyethylene

Address correspondence to David Sanscartier, Environmental Sciences Group, Dept. Chemistryand Chemical Engineering, Royal Military College of Canada, P.O. Box 17000, Station Forces,Kingston, ON, K7K 7B4, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]

338

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

18 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

Secondary Environmental Impacts of Remediation 339

HH — Human health damage categoryLCA — Life-cycle assessmentLCI — Life-cycle inventoryLCIA — Life-cycle impact assessmentPVC — polyvinyl chlorideR — Resource damage categoryRA — Risk assessment

1. Introduction

Petroleum hydrocarbon (HC) spills are recognized as a concern in cold regions aroundthe world (AMAP, 1998; Snape et al., 2003). In Canada alone, including northern Canada,hydrocarbons are present at approximately 60 percent of contaminated sites (CCME, 2001).Although remediation of contaminated sites has the obvious environmental benefits of min-imizing local risks from contaminants, it has been recognized that remediation activitiescan also create secondary environmental impacts (Diamond et al., 1999; Suer et al., 2004).Depending on the remediation technology, problem shifting can be observed from oneenvironmental medium to another (e.g. emission from soil to water), from the local envi-ronment to regional and global environments, and/or from one impact category to another(e.g. human toxicity to climate change). Both environmental impacts and economic costof remedial activities are likely to be more important at remote sites because of the longdistances that material, soil, and personnel must be transported. It is therefore crucial, then,to find environmentally sound and cost-effective remediation technologies.

Bioremediation is a widely accepted form of treatment for HC-contaminated soil intemperate regions (Dobson et al., 2004), and is being recognized as an attractive approachfor cold regions (Aislabie et al., 2006). It tends to be more cost-effective for the treatmentof hydrocarbon-contaminated soil than technologies such as incineration and disposal inlandfill (FRTR, 2002). During bioremediation, contaminants are biodegraded by native soilmicrobes and may volatilize and leach out of the soil (Sanscartier et al., 2009). Bioremedia-tion can be carried out ex-situ (e.g. biopile) or in-situ (e.g. bioventing). Although the formeris more resource-intensive because of the soil excavation, it is easier to control conditionslimiting bioremediation (e.g. soil moisture, aeration, etc.) ex-situ than in-situ.

Limiting environmental impacts has been identified as an important criterion for theselection of a remediation approach by various stakeholders (e.g. governments, investors,general public) (Bezama et al., 2007). However, minimization of local risks, and financialand technical considerations often take precedence at the expenses of a more holisticevaluation (Diamond et al., 1999). Because the goal of remedial activity is to improvethe quality of the environment, the impacts of such activities should be considered. Thesite remediation industry has started considering the overall environmental burdens of itsactivities and taking actions to reduce it by minimizing transport, and carefully selectingand designing remediation technologies (Pouliot et al., 2007).

Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is a holistic environmental assessment tool allowing thecompilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs, and potential environmental impacts ofa product or service throughout its life cycle (i.e. from resource extraction to final disposal,including production and use stages). LCA is comprehensive because it includes withinits scope: i) all relevant technical processes related to the system under study; ii) a widerange of potential environmental impacts linked to the inputs from the environment (e.g.resource extraction); and iii) outputs to the environment from the system (e.g. emissionsto air, water, or soil). This helps avoid problem shifting when trying to minimize the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

18 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

340 D. Sanscartier et al.

environmental impacts of a system. Note that it only addresses issues that are specifiedin the study rather than all possible environmental issues of the system under study. Itis gaining widespread acceptance for supporting environmental decision-making (Blancet al., 2004).

The evaluation of the environmental effectiveness of a remediation technology withLCA is relatively new, and case studies have been published (Diamond et al., 1999; Pageet al., 1999; Volkwein et al., 1999; Suer et al., 2004; Blanc et al., 2004; Toffoletto et al.,2005; Cadotte et al., 2007). They all showed that the LCA approach was suitable for thispurpose and that it could be a valuable tool to help in the selection of the most appropriatetechnology.

Site remediation can be associated with two types of environmental consequences:those resulting from changes in the site environmental quality (primary impacts) and thoseresulting from the remedial activities themselves (secondary impacts). The method ofhandling the contamination that remains in soil after treatment depends on the scope of theLCA (Suer et al., 2004). The remaining concentrations can be compared with regulatory orsite-specific targets. If the target values are fixed through a risk assessment (RA) approach,the remaining contamination can be addressed within the RA process, and thereby excludedfrom the system boundaries (Volkwein et al., 1999). On the other hand, the contaminatedsoil can be included within the system boundary because it is an integral component of theproject (Diamond et al., 1999; Toffoletto et al., 2005). Finally, if the choice of target valuesis part of the decision-making process regarding the remediation technique, including theremaining contamination is important as different techniques will result in different finallevels of contamination (Godin et al., 2004; Cadotte et al., 2007).

The following LCA compares the environmental performances of three treatmentoptions for the remediation of a relatively small-size, diesel-contaminated remote site. Thestudy focuses on the secondary impacts of remediation. Inputs and outputs are described,and the impacts of the entire life cycles, life-cycle stages, and processes are assessed.The aim is to demonstrate the importance of evaluating and considering the environmentalburden of remedial activity for their selection. It also identifies key parameters influencingthe overall environmental burdens of remediation at remote locations, exposes hiddenenvironmental impacts, determines avenues for optimizing the existing systems to reducetheir environmental loads, and provides some guidance to help practitioners make the rightdecision without performing full LCAs. It also addresses a chemical mixture (i.e. diesel),a subject that received relatively little attention in the LCA literature.

2. Method

The life cycle assessment methodology, as described by the international organization forstandardization (ISO, 2006), was applied to assess the remediation alternatives. Althoughpeer-reviewed, it was not revised by a panel of experts, as required by ISO. The method-ological framework of LCAs consists of the following four iterative phases (ISO, 2006):

1) The goal and scope definition describes the application and reason for carrying out thestudy; and gives a description of the system under study, its function, and the systemboundary.

2) The life cycle inventory (LCI) involves data collection and calculations to quantifyrelevant inputs and outputs (i.e. resources used and emissions to the environment) ofthe system.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

18 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014


3) The life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) is aimed at evaluating the significance ofpotential environmental impacts using the LCI results.

4) During the interpretation, the findings from the LCI and LCIA are considered together,important findings are discussed, and the quality of results is evaluated.

2.1 Case-study Description

Soil contaminated with diesel fuel was identified in a residential/commercial area of Hope-dale, NL, Canada. Risk assessment showed that the soil ingestion exposure pathway posedunacceptable risks to on-site residents at two areas: 1) the unpaved parking lot widely usedby residents; and 2) the location of an above-ground fuel tank rarely accessed by residents.The total volume of soil involved was 112 m3 (JWEL, 2003).

Hopedale (pop. ∼600) is a small, remote community only accessible by air or boat viaGoose Bay. Goose Bay, NL (pop. ∼9,000), is the regional service center for the coast ofLabrador. It is accessible by air, boat, and road.

Hopedale had no treatment facility to handle the contaminated soil. Hence it was neces-sary to build a facility or to transport the contaminated soil off-site to the closest permanenttreatment facility (Goose Bay, 800 km away). An ex-situ temporary bioremediation facilitywas built in the community. Once treated, the soil was disposed of in the unlined commu-nity landfill. The goal of the remediation project was to immediately eliminate any risks toresidents, and to treat the soil to reduce the levels of the more mobile HC compounds insoil, thereby allowing its disposal in the unlined community landfill.

2.2 Goal and Scope Definition

2.2.1 Goal. The goal of this LCA was to compare the potential environmental impacts ofthe on-site ex-situ treatment (option A) to that of two other potential treatment regimes:i) off-site treatment (option B); and ii) a hybrid of capping in place and in-situ treatment(option C).

2.2.2 Function and Reference Flow. The function of the system under study was “toremediate the site to an acceptable predetermined risk level over the short term” (Volkweinet al., 1999; Blanc et al., 2004). Only systems fulfilling this function can be compared.A suitable functional unit for this function is: “the treatment of the diesel-contaminatedsite to the acceptable risk level.” The acceptable risk level is the same for each option,regardless of the residual contamination level, as long as the exposure pathway identifiedby risk assessment is eliminated (i.e. soil ingestion pathway). This acceptable risk levelwould be achieved in option C only by covering the contaminated soil (i.e. capping inplace) without treating the soil. Diamond et al. (1999) recommend that the functionalunit for a soil-remediation system should relate to the production of an amount of treatedsoil. Defining the functional unit as “the treatment of 112 m3 of soil contaminated withdiesel to an acceptable risk level over the short term” is suitable for all options as long asoption C includes the treatment of 112 m3 of soil. This discussion illustrates the subtleties ofdeveloping a functional unit that properly describes all systems tested, as well as comparingsystems that fulfill the same functional unit, which is central to the LCA process. In thisstudy, the functional unit related to a volume of soil was used. The reference flow (i.e.the quantity of a product necessary to fulfill the function—used for the calculation ofenvironmental impacts of the system) was 112 m3 of soil.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

18 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014


4. Ex-situTreatment

1. Excavation & backfill

2. Transport of soil to treatment

system

A & B C

7. Disposal of soil to landfill

5. Leachate mgmt

Site & risk assessments

3. Construction treatment system

6. Monitoring

8. Disposal treatment system

Tpt

Tpt

Tpt

Tpt Tpt

Eqpt

Eqpt Eqpt

Eqpt Tpt

Eqpt

Eqpt

4b. In-situTreatment

Treated contaminated site

4a. Paving Area 1

Tpt

Eqpt

Tpt

Eqpt

Transport required

Equipment required

Soil

Waste management

System boundary

6. Monitoring

8. Disposal treatment system

Tpt

Tpt

Eqpt

3. Installation treatment system

Tpt

Eqpt

Figure 1. The system boundaries of the remediation options. Option A: on-site ex-situ treatment;option B: off-site treatment; option C: in-situ treatment.

2.2.3 Boundaries and Systems Description. The boundaries of the systems are presented inFigure 1. Systems were divided into life-cycle stages to facilitate the assessment. Each stageis composed of one or more processes, such as energy and natural resource use, materialproduction, transportation, machinery operation, and emissions. Numbers in parenthesesbelow refer to the life cycle stages. The contaminated sites and landfills were defined aspart of the technosphere; therefore only emissions out of these physical boundaries wereevaluated. Site assessment and risk assessment were excluded because they were the samein all options. The primary impacts were handled with Volkwein et al.’s (1999) approach(i.e. comparison with target values determined by RA).

In option A, the contaminated soil is treated by ex-situ bioremediation (biopile) in thetemporary facility on site. The contaminated soil was excavated with a backhoe (1). Backfill-ing was done with mine waste material transported by barge to Hopedale in 1-m3 bags. Thecontaminated soil was transported by dump truck to the treatment facility (2). Constructionof the treatment facility (3) included qualified supervisory staff travelling from Kingston,ON, the preparation of a containment area with a 0.76-mm high-density polyethylene(HDPE) liner, and soil heaping. The biopile was passively aerated with polyvinyl chloride(PVC) and perforated HDPE pipes that protruded from the soil. Granular fertilizers (ureaand diammonium phosphate) were mixed into the soil. Treatment (4) consisted of periodicvisits by local staff to manage the leachate that was redistributed over the pile or filteredbefore it was released to the environment (5). Monitoring (6) consisted of a visit by aqualified supervisor from Kingston at the end of treatment for sampling. The treated soilwas disposed of and spread in the Hopedale unlined landfill (7). At the end of the facility’slife cycle, materials were disposed of in the landfill (8).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

18 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014


In option B, the contaminated soil was shipped to a permanent treatment facility inGoose Bay. Excavation and backfilling were identical to that option A (1). The soil wasbagged (1-m3 bags) and transported to Goose Bay by barge and dump truck (2). The GooseBay facility consisted of four, 30 × 30 × 0.20 m reinforced concrete pads (3) surrounded bya chain-link fence. Treatment (4) consisted of periodic mechanical mixing of the soil everythree days during the warm months (May-Sept) with a backhoe. Leachates was collectedin a holding pond and released to the sewer system when total petroleum hydrocarbonconcentrations were below criteria (5) (15 mg/L, HOANL, 2003). The wastewater wasultimately treated at the municipal treatment plant. Monitoring (6) occurred when localstaff performed sampling at the end of treatment. The treated soil was disposed of in theGoose Bay unlined landfill (7). At the end of the facility’s life cycle, the material wasdisposed of in the landfill (8).

Option C consisted of paving the parking lot with asphalt (190 m2) (4a) to eliminatethe exposure pathway between contaminants and residents. The machinery and materialnecessary for paving were shipped to Hopedale by barge from Goose Bay. Both areas 1 and2 were treated by bioventing (4b). Installation of the in-situ treatment system (3) includedqualified staff travelling from Kingston and the material used in treatment. Aeration wasprovided by a windmill-powered pump. Air was humidified before being injected into thesoil through perforated PVC pipes. A nutrient solution (ammonium nitrate and ammoniumphosphate) was applied at the beginning of treatment. Monitoring (6) consisted of a visitby qualified staff at the beginning and end of each warm season. At the end of the life cycleof the facility, the material was disposed of in the landfill (8).

2.3 Life Cycle Inventory

For option A, the primary data from the remediation system built at Hopedale were used inpriority. Options B and C were mainly modeled with generic and publicly available data.The primary data used for modeling the three options are presented in Table 1. The lifecycle inventory (LCI) modeling is based on the Ecoinvent LCI database (Swiss Centre forLife Cycle Inventories, Switzerland) and was conducted with SimaPro 7.1 LCA software(PRe consultants, Netherlands). The main assumptions used in the elaboration of the LCIare listed below.

– Although the studied systems are geographically located in eastern Canada, theecoinvent database is used to model cradle-to-gate life cycle inventories. Thesegeneric datasets are essentially based on a Western European technological system,but are considered representative of the Canadian context with the exception of heavymachinery (e.g. backhoe, forklift). These specific ecoinvent datasets were updatedwith NONROAD model data (U.S. EPA, 2005).

– All transportation (by ship, boat, truck, air) to and from the site was included(equipment, material, personnel, contaminated/treated soil, soil samples, and fuel).Montreal, QC, was used as a point of departure for most material. It is a majorindustrial area and shipping port in Eastern Canada. Heavy machinery (e.g. backhoe,dump truck) was available on site unless specified otherwise.

– Totals of 1500 m3 and 60,000 m3 of soil were expected to be treated in the on-siteand off-site facilities, respectively. The construction and disposal phases of the twooptions were allocated to those volumes of soil.

– There were no hydrocarbon emissions to soil apart from the ones already in the con-taminated site. They remained within the technosphere and were therefore excluded.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

18 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014


Table 1Primary data used for modeling of the three options

Options

Item (unit) A B C

ResourcesAmmonium nitrate (kg) 52.6Ammonium phosphate (kg) 13.6Asphalt (kg) 22800Concrete (kg) 3310 4870Diammonium phosphate (kg) 13.6HDPE (kg) 153 222 2Lumber (kg) 20.8PVC (kg) 24.0 33.6Sand (kg) 2790Steel, galvanized (kg) 9.9 17.9Steel, reinforcing (kg) 17.8Urea (kg) 40Industrial land (m2) 78 28

Emissions to the airHydrocarbon fraction F2 (kg) 179 253 105Ammonia (kg) 4.1 2.5ProcessesTransport, aircraft, freight (t∗km) 84 10 42Transport, aircraft, passenger, (person∗km) 11200 5600 33600Transport, barge (kt∗km) 85 223 14Transport dump truck, diesel (t∗km) 590 1870 15Operation backhoe, diesel (hr) 20 85 3Operation forklift, diesel (hr) 17 50 1

– Emissions of hydrocarbons to water were excluded for the following reasons: i)once treated, the soil achieved the generic Canada-Wide Standard for PetroleumHydrocarbons in soil guidelines for potential runoffs, migration to groundwaterand protection of aquatic life from contaminated soil on industrial land (data notshown) (CCME, 2008); ii) water samples collected from the treatment facility inHopedale (option A) showed no detectable levels of HCs (<1 mg/L). For option B,the wastewater treatment plant was assumed to remove hydrocarbons (Tellez et al.,2004) and was excluded from the system boundary. In option C, HC concentrationswere ultimately lowered to environmentally safe levels by the in-situ treatment. Inaddition, capping removes potential off-site migration of remaining contaminants.

– Emission of HC to the atmosphere was included as the different systems releaseddifferent amounts through their life cycles. Volatilization was assumed to accountfor 25% of total hydrocarbon losses during the excavation of soil, based on theauthors’ experience with preparation of experiments with diesel-contaminated soilsand reports of diesel volatilization during bioremediation studies (Margesin et al.,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

18 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014


2000; Namkoong et al., 2002). Volatilization during treatment was estimated basedon laboratory studies of soil collected at the site.

– Hydrocarbon emissions from landfilled soil were considered negligible once the soilwas treated. However, transport of the treated soils and disposal of the remediationsystems’ material to the landfill were included.

– Carbon dioxide production during bioremediation was based on stoichiometric cal-culations (Cookson, 1995).

– Up to 16% and 10% of the N fertilizers added in options A and C, respectively, wereassumed to be lost to the atmosphere as ammonia (Misselbrook et al., 2004).

– Treatment lasted one year for options A and B, and two years for option C becausein-situ treatments tend to be slower than ex-situ treatment (FRTR, 2002).

– The clean fill used for backfilling the excavation was waste material from a minelocated 500 km away. The material was excluded from the systems boundariesbecause it was waste from another system (Volkwein et al., 1999) but its transportwas included.

– A bulk soil density of 1,500 kg/m3 was used in calculations (Humbert et al., 2005).

2.4 Life Cycle Impact Assessment

2.4.1 IMPACT 2002+. The life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) was performed withIMPACT 2002+ (Jolliet et al., 2003). This method links the LCI results to fourdamage categories (human health—HH, ecosystem quality—EQ, climate change—CC,and resources—R) via 15 midpoint categories (human toxicity—carcinogens and non-carcinogens, respiratory inorganics, ionizing radiation, ozone layer depletion, photochem-ical oxidation, aquatic and terrestrial ecotoxicity, aquatic acidification and eutrophication,terrestrial acidification and nutrification, land occupation, global warming, non-renewableenergy use, and mineral extraction).

2.4.2 Characterization Factors for Diesel. Characterization factors (CFs) for diesel fuelwere not available in IMPACT 2002+. A specific methodological development to fill in thisgap is proposed here. Diesel is a mixture of several hydrocarbons in the nC9-nC20 range(CCME, 2000). The Canada-Wide Standard for Petroleum Hydrocarbon in soil definesfour broad hydrocarbon fractions based on normal-alkane equivalent carbon-ranges: F1:nC6-nC10, F2: nC10-nC16, F3:nC16-nC34, and F4: > nC34 (CCME, 2008). Each fractionis considered as one compound that facilitates evaluation. CFs were only developed for theF2 fraction as it is the main fraction of concern for volatilization and migration off-site.CFs were not developed for compounds <nC10 because they accounted for <1% of theinitial contamination and for compounds > nC16 because they are not readily mobilized(CCME, 2000). CFs were developed for the HC fraction F2 for the following midpointcategories: i) non-carcinogens (0.0015 kg chloroethylene/kg F2); ii) aquatic ecotoxicity(0.013 kg triethylene glycol/kg F2); and iii) terrestrial ecotoxicity (0.11 kg triethyleneglycol/kg F2); using the multimedia and multi-pathways IMPACT 2002 model (Jollietet al., 2003) and parameterized with the physical, chemical, and toxicological properties ofthe substance (CCME, 2000; Edwards et al., 1997; U.S. EPA, 2008a; U.S. EPA, 2008b). ACF was not developed for the carcinogens category because petroleum hydrocarbons, otherthan benzene and some PAHs, are not considered as such (CCME, 2000). Benzene was notdetected on site and PAHs were not considered potential contaminants of concern on site(JWEL, 2003).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

18 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014


Table 2Main materials used and emissions of the three options obtained by the LCI analysis

Options

Item (unit) A B C

MaterialDiesel (kg) 1190 3290 260Kerosene (kg) 546 258 1540

Emissions to the air1

Aluminum (g) 64 164 78Carbon dioxide, fossil (ton) 8.0 16.4 8.4Copper (g) 4.7 9.2 5.5Dioxins (µg)2 76 5 106Nitrogen oxides (kg) 64 154 37Particulates, < 2.5 um (kg) 2.3 6.1 1.0Sulfur dioxide (kg) 13 27 12Zinc (g) 5.5 15.4 8.6

Emission to the soil1

Aluminum (g) 59 119 63Zinc (g) 2.5 6.1 1.3

1Only emissions contributing > 2% of damage scores are listed.2Measured as 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1 LCI

Table 2 presents main materials used and emissions (contributing to >2% of the damagescores) of the three options obtained by the LCI analysis (i.e. modeling of the systems).Fuels (diesel and kerosene) were important inputs in all options. The masses of fuels(diesel and kerosene) used in options A, B, and C were 4.0, 8.3, and 3.6 times the estimatedmass of diesel initially present in soils (∼430 kg), respectively. This clearly illustrates theenvironmental and financial costs, as well as potential risk of shifting environmental burdensfrom the local to the global environment, associated with remediating a contaminated site,even small, at a remote location.

3.2 LCIA

In this study, environmental impacts are presented as normalized scores in “points” tofacilitate the presentation and interpretation of results. One “point” corresponds to “onepers·yr”, which represents the average impact generated by one person during one yearin Europe in a specific impact category. Note that normalized scores are not comparablebetween categories, unless a value choice between the four damage categories is made,which was not done in this study. Categories must therefore be considered separately andthe interpretation is made considering the whole environmental profile.

Figure 2 presents the normalized damage scores per damage category divided in theirrespective midpoint categories (damage score values are presented in Table 3). Option B

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

18 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014


Figure 2. Normalized damage scores divided in midpoint categories for the three options: HH-Human health, EQ—Ecosystem quality, CC—Climate change, R—Resources.

Table 3Normalized damage scores of the initial assessment and the modified options tested duringthe sensitivity analysis. Three assumptions were tested: i) soil density (±250 kg/m3); ii)extending treatment by one year; and iii) allocation procedure of option A (completeallocation—i.e. considering that 100% of the infrastructure is allocated to the treatment of

112 m3 of soil only)

Impact categories (Pt)

Assumption Human Ecosystem ClimateOption tested health quality change Resources

A Initial assessment 1.567 0.106 0.828 0.880Soil density = 1250 kg/m3 1.563 0.105 0.826 0.877Soil density = 1750 kg/m3 1.571 0.106 0.831 0.883Extended treatment 1.662 0.117 0.956 1.021Complete allocation 1.737 0.115 0.992 1.125

B Initial assessment 2.907 0.218 1.695 1.685Soil density = 1250 kg/m3 2.694 0.200 1.575 1.571Soil density = 1750 kg/m3 3.117 0.236 1.813 1.798Extended treatment 3.229 0.231 1.815 1.805

C Initial assessment 1.177 0.082 0.862 0.917Extended treatment 1.338 0.101 1.090 1.170

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

18 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014


had scores two- to three-fold higher than the other options in all categories. Options A andC had closer scores especially in the EQ, CC and R categories, making their comparisonambiguous. Option A had higher HH and EQ scores than C, but lower scores for CC andR. Respiratory inorganic contributed the most to HH scores in all options (nearly 95% forB). The Respiratory inorganic category is associated with the emission of NOx, PM2.5, SO2

from the combustion of fossil fuels (Table 2). These three substances combined contributed56–94% of the options’ HH scores. The non-carcinogens category was the secondcontributor to HH scores in options A and C, with 17% and 32% of impacts, respectively.The terrestrial ecotoxicity category contributed the most to the EQ scores (> 47%); mainlycaused by the disposal of drilling waste by landfarming, associated with the extraction ofcrude oil. CC scores were almost entirely (> 99%) associated with emission of CO2 (Table2). The use of non-renewable energy (fossil fuels) contributed > 99% of R scores.

Table 4 presents the individual contribution of eight major processes to the overallimpact category scores. Some processes occurred in more than one life cycle stages (Fig. 1),for example, transport by barge occurred in stages 1, 2, and 3 of option A. The eightprocesses listed contributed > 86% of the overall scores of the entire life cycle of eachtreatment option. Of these, transport was the main contributor with > 50% of scores inall options. Transport by barge dominated options A and B, while transport by aircraftdominated C. Operation of heavy machinery came second followed by manufacturingprocesses. The secondary impacts of all options were mainly associated with the useof energy, consistent with Suer et al. (2004). Production of PVC (mainly used in pipemanufacturing, opt. A and C) was important only for the HH category in options A and C;due to the emission of dioxins (Table 2), potent human carcinogens and non-carcinogens.Remaining processes that are not listed in Table 4 contributed <14% of overall scores.

Figure 3. Normalized damage scores by life cycle stages for the three options. Numbers referto life cycle stages (Fig. 1). HH—Human health, EQ—Ecosystem quality, CC—Climate change,R—Resources.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

18 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

Tabl

e4

Impa

ctco

ntri

butio

nof

maj

orpr

oces

ses,

show

nas

ape

rcen

tage

ofth

eda

mag

esc

ores

ofth

een

tire

life

cycl

es

Hum

anH

ealth

Eco

syst

emQ

ualit

yC

limat

ech

ange

Res

ourc

es

Proc

esse

sA

BC

AB

CA

BC

AB

C

Tra

nspo

rt,b

arge

45%

65%

10%

51%

66%

11%

47%

60%

7%41

%57

%6%

Tra

nspo

rt,a

ircr

aft,

pass

enge

r10

%3%

39%

18%

4%70

%26

%6%

76%

28%

7%79

%T

rans

port

,dum

ptr

uck

3%4%

<0.

1%8%

10%

<0.

1%5%

6%<

0.1%

5%6%

<0.

1%O

pera

tion,

fork

lift

5%9%

<0.

1%6%

8%<

0.1%

8%11

%<

0.1%

7%11

%<

0.1%

Ope

ratio

n,ba

ckho

e7%

14%

1%3%

6%1%

4%8%

1%4%

8%1%

Prod

uctio

n,PV

C20

%37

%<

0.1%

<0.

1%<

0.1%

<0.

1%1%

1%Pr

oduc

tion,

HD

PE2%

2%<

0.1%

<0.

1%0%

<0.

1%3%

2%1%

9%7%

<0.

1%Pr

oduc

tion,

asph

alt

4%5%

3%6%

Rem

aini

ngpr

oces

ses1

7%4%

8%14

%5%

14%

7%6%

12%

6%4%

5%

1Pr

oces

ses

notl

iste

din

tabl

ebu

tinc

lude

din

the

LC

A.

349

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

18 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014


Figure 3 presents the normalized damage assessment data divided in the life-cyclestages of each treatment option (number in parenthesis below, as shown in Fig. 1). Exca-vation and backfilling (1) was the greatest contributor in A, with scores almost ten-foldgreater than that of the other stages. This was mainly associated with the transport of cleanfill to site by barge (Table 4). The construction (3) and monitoring (6) phases were alsoimportant contributors to A. In stage 3, transport and manufacturing of material producedmost impacts (Table 4). Impacts of stage 6 were associated with transport by air. Thesethree stages alone accounted for > 90% of damage scores.

In option B, stages 1 and 2 (transport of contaminated soils) were responsible for > 83%of scores (Fig. 3), scores that were mainly associated with transport by barge (Table 4).For ex-situ treatments, transport of contaminated soil and clean fill are often the maincontributors to environmental impacts (Suer et al., 2004). The construction phase of optionA’s facility (3) generated larger impacts than that of option B’s facility (Fig. 3) for the HHand R categories because the former was dedicated to the treatment of a total of 1500 m3 ofsoil whereas a total of 60,000 m3 of soil was expected to be treated in the latter. However,B scores became bigger than A scores once the soil transport phase (2) was incorporated.An analysis was conducted to estimate the distance travelled by barge by the soil abovewhich option B became worse than A. Only when the transport of the contaminated soilto Goose Bay was completely removed did the impacts of both options became equivalent(data not shown). This is due to handling of soil for shipping, which contributed between8% and 11% of scores (forklift operation—Table 4). On-site treatment has the advantage ofreducing transport but also handling of soil, which can cause important impacts. Treatmentof the soil (4) contributed between 6 and 11% of scores, and was mainly associated withthe operation of a backhoe for mixing of the soil. The impacts of using the passive biopilesystem in the permanent facility at Goose Bay in option B was also investigated but didnot result in smaller impacts than option A (data not shown). These findings suggest thattemporary facilities may be more environmentally efficient than permanent facilities forremote locations, as opposed to the findings by Toffoletto et al. (2005), who investigatedbioremediation in more densely populated areas of Canada and used an asphalt pavementfor the containment area rather than HDPE liner.

In option C, monitoring (6) caused ∼60% of scores in most categories except inHH (Fig. 3). The installation stage (3) was more important in HH because of the useof PVC pipes. Impacts of stage 6 were completely associated with transport by aircraft(Table 4). Stages 3 and 6 contributed to >84% of total scores. Paving (4a) contributed<12% of scores, of which about half was from the paving process itself (Table 4). In-situtreatments are often considered to be low-environmental impact options, mainly becausethey do not involve the excavation and transport of the contaminated soil (Suer et al., 2004;Cadotte et al., 2007). However, as the current study demonstrates, in-situ treatment maybe less environmentally attractive for remote location application. Transport of qualifiedpersonnel to site for monitoring and maintenance purposes is the key issue for remotelocation applications. Additionally, in-situ treatments (option C) are generally less certainthan ex-situ treatments (A and B) because there is less control over the environmentalconditions limiting bioremediation (FRTR, 2002). The chances of extending the treatmentperiod are greater with in-situ treatments, leading to more visits to site, thereby increasingenvironmental impacts. There is a trade-off between a shorter treatment time, more certaintyof results and fewer trips to site with ex-situ treatment and no requirement for excavationand backfilling with an in-situ treatment.

The excavation and backfilling of 112 m3 of soil was compared with air travel usingSimapro. Excavation and backfilling included backhoe and dump truck operation with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

18 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014


equipment already on site, and assumed that backfill material was available on site, asopposed to this project during which backfill had to be shipped from off-site. This analysisdid not include the construction of the treatment facility. For the CC and R categories,excavation and backfilling of 112 m3 of soil was equivalent to 6600 person·km travelledby air (approximately one round-trip between Kingston and Hopedale), whereas for theHH and EQ categories the excavation and backfilling was equivalent to 20,000 person·km.These estimates provide a rough guide for evaluating the trade-offs associated with in-situ treatment at remote locations. They should be used with caution as impacts may varygreatly with site-specific conditions (e.g. distance between excavation and treatment facility,availability of backfill material and machinery, type of aircraft, etc).

Biodegradation of hydrocarbons contributed <2.3% of CC scores. Emission of nC10-nC16 HCs had a negligible contribution to overall impacts: <1.7% and <0.01% of HH andEQ scores, respectively. Impacts in the HH category from this substance were mainly (>99.9%) associated with the respiratory organic impact category. Sensitivity analysis on theCFs for nC10-nC16 HCs showed little effect on the overall damage scores. Contributions toHH and EQ scores remained <0.1%, even after increasing CFs by one order of magnitude.The fraction-based approach presented here, similar to that presented in Toffoletto et al.(2005), appears to be a suitable avenue to improve characterization factors of aggregatedsubstance such as diesel, a research gap identified by Cadotte et al. (2007).

Impacts of disposal of solid waste (8) were negligible in all options.

3.3 Uncertainty Analysis

The credibility of LCA results can be questioned when results are not accompanied byadequate control of the quality of the data. The aim of uncertainty and sensitivity analysesis to test assumptions, data and methods used to evaluate the robustness of conclusionsand to form an opinion on the confidence to have in the results (Bjorklund, 2002). Theseanalyses should focus on key parameters (ISO, 2006).

Uncertainty analysis was conducted using the Monte Carlo approach (900 iterations),supported by the Simapro Software. This analysis calculates the probability that one systemhas a higher score than the other in each damage category. Option A was always better thanB in all damage categories. Option A had higher HH and EQ scores than that of optionC > 98% of the time. However, the probability of option A having a higher score thanoption C in CC and R impact categories decrease to 16% and 27%, indicating that the twooptions may have equivalent impact scores in those categories. This statement is strongerconsidering that the uncertainty assessment is only made with the LCI data and not on theLCIA characterization factors, which would add uncertainty to the overall results.

3.4 Sensitivity Analysis

The robustness of the results was first tested using a second LCIA method: the midpoint-oriented method LUCAS (Toffoletto et al., 2007). The analysis focused on the impactcategories that contributed the most to the four IMPACT 2002+ damage categories (i.e.non-carcinogens, terrestrial ecotoxicity, global warming, and non-renewable energy). Notethat the LUCAS method does not include a respiratory inorganic category which had animportant contribution to the HH impact category in the initial assessment (Fig. 2). Bothmethods gave different scores but the trends in the final results and the conclusions remainedthe same (data not shown).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

18 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014


Three key assumptions were then investigated: soil density, duration of treatment, andallocation procedure in option A. For sensitivity analysis, variations were made to the threeassumptions (one at a time) and the LCA model was re-run, allowing the evaluation of theeffect of changes on the damage scores (Table 3) and the overall conclusions. Soil densityaffects the mass of soil, thus the impact of transport in options A and B. Varying density by± 250 kg/m3 (equivalent to a ∼17% change) affected the damage scores of A by ∼0.4% andB by ∼7%. For both densities of 1250 kg/m3 and 1750 kg/m3, B remained worse than A.Extending the treatment season by one year for all options resulted in increases of damagescores by ∼12%, 8%, and 23% for A, B and C, respectively, but the initial conclusionsremained. Option A was better than B even when allocating its construction and disposalphases entirely to the treatment of 112 m3 of soil. Findings from the uncertainty andsensitivity analysis suggest that the initial assessment and conclusions drawn were robust.

3.5 Improvement Scenarios

LCA can help identify areas of improvement to minimize the environmental burden ofremediation projects and evaluate alternatives before their implementation. Here, we presentthe analysis of some alternate scenarios and show how LCA can identify environmentalpreferable choices vs solutions resulting in burden shifting. Analysis focused on the maincontributors of options A and C. Table 5 presents the scores of the alternate scenarios (notthe scores of the entire life cycles) as a ratio of the scores of the initial scenarios. A score<1 means an improvement whereas a score > 1 means the opposite.

Reducing the number of visits to site by half in option C produced the most importantimprovements (i.e. reduction by half of the environmental burdens associated with travelof personnel). However, this can only be achieved by hiring and training local residentsin the maintenance of the remediation system. This has the advantage of involving thelocal population and increasing their technical knowledge. Using ultra-low sulfur diesel(ULSD: <15 ppm sulfur) and particulate filters for the operation of backhoe resulted in19% and 5% improvements in the HH and EQ categories, respectively. The replacementof PVC pipes with HDPE pipes reduced HH scores by 97% (by the reduction of dioxins)but led to increases in the other categories (i.e. environmental burden shifting). Differentmodes of transportation were available for shipping material from Montreal to Goose Bay.Transport by truck and by air was compared to transport by barge. Although distance bybarge (2500 km) was longer than by truck (1840 km) and air (1300 km), transport by bargewas by far the best choice. For projects at remote locations, transport is inevitable and

Table 5The relative damage scores of alternate scenarios (not of the entire life cycles) presentedas the ratio of the score of the alternate scenario and the initial scenario (score <1 =

improvement, score >1 = worsening)

Damage Half visit ULSD vs HDPE vs Truck vs Air vs Backfill on-sitecategories to site normal diesel PVC pipes barge barge vs off-site

Human health 0.5 0.81 0.03 7.3 8.5 1266Ecosystem quality 0.5 0.95 1.4 17.4 13.9 33910Climate change 0.5 0.99 1.7 10.4 22.2 86Resources 0.5 1 1.8 12.1 26.3 67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

18 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014


will always be a major contributor. To reduce the environmental burden, transport shouldbe minimized and modes of transportation carefully chosen (i.e. by boat instead of planewhenever suitable). Transport by ship is advantageous environmentally and can lead to costreductions, but requires early planning. The final scenario tested was related to the clean fillrequired to backfill the excavation on site. Clean fill is very limited at Hopedale; soil has tobe brought in by barge (as was done in this project) or made by blasting and crushing localbedrock. The latter produced impacts up to nearly 34,000-fold greater than shipping soilfrom off-site because of the high impacts associated with production of explosives. Thisscenario exemplifies how LCA can highlight processes with a high environmental burdenthat could otherwise stay hidden or assumed negligible (i.e. the use of explosive).

Combining those results with data presented in Table 4 allows the determination ofthe alternative scenario providing the best overall improvement. For example, replacingthe PVC pipes by HDPE pipes would result in great reduction (∼19%) of the overall HHscore of option A but only slight increase of the overall scores of other damage (<2%). Onthe other hand, using ULSD fuel would result in little overall improvements; in addition, itwould be difficult to implement because of the availability of specialized fuels in the North.

These findings emphasize that LCA should be conducted during the planning phase ofa project to improve its environmental performance. It could be combined to a cost analysisthat would show the financial benefits of the scenarios.

3.6 Risk Assessment and Life Cycle Assessment: Complementary Tools

Much work is being done to understand how to optimize LCA and RA use for improveddecision-making (Russell, 2006). The method presented herein is an interesting approachfor site remediation. RA is now an integral part of the regulatory framework for siteremediation and is almost systematically conducted before remediation occurs. Achievingthe acceptable risk levels predetermined by the RA approach ensures the protection oflocal receptors, while the LCA process ensures the minimization of overall environmentalburdens. RA can thereby be used to simplify the LCA process by allowing the latter tofocus on secondary impacts of remediation only.

A more integrated approach, such as comparative risk assessment, would allow the con-sistent comparison of primary impacts generated by the contaminated site with secondaryimpacts of different remediation options. For the human and eco-toxicity impact categoriesthis would allow finding the environmental optimum between residual contamination andremediation. It might help evaluating whether maintaining the status-quo (i.e., no action)would result in a lower overall environmental burden than remediation.

4. Conclusion

This study does not present a definitive answer to the question of the selection of envi-ronmentally efficient remediation technology for hydrocarbon-contaminated soil in remotelocations; rather, it presents a suitable approach to assess secondary environmental impactsof a site remediation project. By including activities and burdens that are often not consid-ered, are neglected or assumed to be negligible, it promotes a more holistic approach tothe management of soil contamination. Findings may be used to guide the selection of aremediation technology and to reduce its environmental burden at similar sites.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

18 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014


Acknowledgments

This project was financially supported by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the FederalContaminated Sites Action Plan, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council ofCanada, and the Northern Scientific Training Program. We thank Dr. L. Deschenes, Dept.Genie Chimique, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, for making available the resourcesof the Centre Interuniversitaire de Recherche sur le Cycle de Vie des Produits, Procedeset Services (CIRAIG); K. George, Environmental Sciences Group (ESG), RMC, for sharinginformation about the case study; J. Bailey, ESG, for editing; and C. Belley, CIRAIG, forhelp with the Simapro software.

References

Aislabie, J., Saul, D.J., and Foght, J.M. 2006. Bioremediation of hydrocarbon-contaminated polarsoils. Extremophiles 10, 171–179.

Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP). 1998. AMAP Assessment Report: ArcticPollution Issues, Oslo, Norway.

Bezama, A., Szarka, N., Wolfbauer, J., and Lorber, K.E. 2007. Application of a balanced scorecardsystem for supporting decision-making in contaminated sites remediation. Water Air Soil Pollut.181, 3–16.

Bjorklund, A.E. 2002. Survey of approaches to improve reliability in LCA. Int. J. LCA 7, 64–72.Blanc, A., Metivier-Pignon, H., Gourdon, R. and Rousseaux, P. 2004. Life cycle assessment as a tool

for controlling the development of technical activities: application to the remediation of a sitecontaminated by sulfur. Advances in Environmental Research 8, 613–627.

Cadotte, M., Deschenes, L., and Samson, R. 2007. Selection of a remediation scenario for a diesel-contaminated site using LCA. Int. J. LCA 12, 239–251.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2000. Canada-Wide Standards forPetroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs) in Soil: Scientific Rationale—Supporting Technical Document,Winnipeg, MB.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2001. Canada-Wide Standards forPetroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs) in Soil, Winnipeg, MB.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2008. Canada-Wide Standards forPetroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs) in Soil—Technical Supplement, Winnipeg, MB.

Cookson, J.T., Jr. 1995. Bioremediation Engineering, Design and Application. McGraw-Hill, NewYork.

Diamond, M.L., Page, C.A., Campbell, M., McKenna, S., and Lall, R. 1999. Life-cycle frameworkfor assessment of site remediation options: method and generic survey. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.18, 788–800.

Dobson, R., Schroth, M.H., Schuermann, A., and Zeyer, J. 2004. Methods to assess the amenabilityof petroleum hydrocarbons to bioremediation. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 23, 929–937.

Edwards, D.A., Andriot, M.D., Amoruso, M.A., Tummey, A.C., Bevan, C.J., Tveit, A., Hayes,L.A., Youngren, S.H., and Nakles, D.V. 1997. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Criteria WorkingGroup Series Vol. 4—Development of Fraction Specific Reference Doses (RfDs) and ReferenceConcentrations (RfCs) for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), Amherst Scientific Publishers,Amherst, MA.

Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable (FRTR). 2002. Remediation Technologies ScreeningMatrix and Reference Guide, Version 4.0. http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/section1/toc.html, ac-cessed Nov 2008.

Godin, J., Menard, J.F., Hains, S., Deschenes, L., and Samson, R. 2004. Combined use of life cycleassessment and groundwater transport modeling to support contaminated site management. Hum.Ecol. Risk. Assess. 10, 1099–1116.

House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador (HOANL). 2003. Newfoundland and Labradorregulation 65/03—Environmental Control Water and Sewage Regulations, St. John’s, NL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

18 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014


Humbert, S., Margni, M., and Jolliet, O. 2005. IMPACT 2002+: User Guide Draft for version 2.1,Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Switzerland.

International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 2006. ISO 14040—EnvironmentalManagement—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework, Geneva, Switzerland.

Jacques Whitford Environment Ltd (JWEL). 2003. Final Report Tier II/III Risk Assessment RCMPProperty, Hopedale, Labrador, St. John’s, NL.

Jolliet, O., Margni, M., Charles, R., Humbert, S., Payet, J., Rebitzer, G., and Rosenbaum, R. 2003.IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int. J. LCA 8, 324–330.

Margesin, R., Zimmerbauer, A., and Schinner F. 2000. Monitoring of bioremediation by soil biologicalactivities. Chemosphere, 40, 339–346.

Misselbrook, T.H., Sutton, M.A., and Scholefield, D. 2004. A simple process-based model for esti-mating ammonia emissions from agricultural land after fertilizer applications. Soil Use Manage.20, 365–372.

Namkoong, W., Hwang, E.Y., Park, J.S., and Choi, J.Y. 2002. Bioremediation of diesel-contaminatedsoil during composting. Environ. Pollut. 119, 23–31.

Page, C.A., Diamond, M.L., Campbell, M., and McKenna, S. 1999. Life-cycle framework for assess-ment of site remediation options: case study. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18, 801–810.

Pouliot, Y., Pelletier, J.P., and Castonguay, P. 2007. Cleaning up and remediating Canadian Arcticcontaminated sites: Current and future challenges. In: Assessment and Remediation of Contam-inated Sites in Arctic and Cold Climates (Biggar, K., Guidard, S., Mullick, A., and Nahir, M.,eds.), May 6–8, 2007, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB pp. 41–46.

Russell, A.J. 2006. Human and ecological risk assessment and life cycle assessment: Iitersections,collisions, and future directions. Hum. Ecol. Risk. Assess. 12, 427–430.

Sanscartier, D., Zeeb, B., Koch, I., and Reimer, K. 2009. Bioremediation of diesel-contaminated soilby heated and humidified biopile system in cold climates. Cold Reg. Sci. Technol. 55, 167–173.

Snape, I., Riddle, M.J., Filler, D.M., and Williams, P.J. 2003. Contaminants in freezing ground andassociated ecosystems: key issues at the beginning of the new millennium. Polar Record. 39,291–300.

Suer, P., Nilsson-Paledal, S., and Norrman, J. 2004. LCA for site remediation: a literature review.Soil Sediment Contam. 13, 415–425.

Tellez, G.T., Nirmalakhandan, N., and Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. 2004. Kinetic evaluation of a field-scale activated sludge system for removing petroleum hydrocarbons from oilfield-producedwater. Environ. Prog. 24, 96–104.

Toffoletto, L., Deschenes, L., and Samson R. 2005. LCA of ex-situ bioremediation of diesel-contaminated soil. Int. J. LCA 10, 406–416.

Toffoletto, L., Bulle, C., Godin, J., Reid, C., and Deschenes, L. 2007. LUCAS—A new LCIA methodused for a Canadian-specific context. Int. J. LCA 12, 93–102.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2005. NONROAD Model. Washington, DC.http://www.epa.gov/otaq/nonrdmdl.htm, accessed July 2008.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008a. Integrated Risk Information System.Washington, DC. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.cfm, accessed Sept 2008.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008b. ECOTOX Database. Duluth, MN.http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/, accessed Sept 2008.

Volkwein, S., Hurtig, H.W., and Klopffer, W. 1999. Life cycle assessment of contaminated sitesremediation. Int. J. LCA 4, 263–274.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

18 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

comparison of the secondary environmental impacts of three remediation alternatives for a...

Documents