evaluation of the environmental impact of brownfield remediation options: comparison of two life...

This article was downloaded by: [East Carolina University]On: 30 August 2013, At: 00:14Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Environmental TechnologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tent20

Evaluation of the environmental impact of Brownfieldremediation options: comparison of two life cycleassessment-based evaluation toolsValérie Cappuyns a & Bram Kessen aa Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Centre for Economics and Corporate Sustainability(CEDON), Warmoesberg 26, 1000, Brussels, BelgiumAccepted author version posted online: 08 Mar 2012.Published online: 23 Apr 2012.

To cite this article: Valrie Cappuyns & Bram Kessen (2012) Evaluation of the environmental impact of Brownfield remediationoptions: comparison of two life cycle assessment-based evaluation tools, Environmental Technology, 33:21, 2447-2459, DOI:10.1080/09593330.2012.671854

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2012.671854

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tent20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09593330.2012.671854

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2012.671854

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

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

Environmental TechnologyVol. 33, No. 21, November 2012, 2447–2459

Evaluation of the environmental impact of Brownfield remediation options: comparison of twolife cycle assessment-based evaluation tools

Valérie Cappuyns∗ and Bram Kessen

Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Centre for Economics and Corporate Sustainability (CEDON), Warmoesberg 26,1000 Brussels, Belgium

(Received 15 December 2011; final version received 28 February 2012 )

The choice between different options for the remediation of a contaminated site traditionally relies on economical, technicaland regulatory criteria without consideration of the environmental impact of the soil remediation process itself. In the presentstudy, the environmental impact assessment of two potential soil remediation techniques (excavation and off-site cleaning andin situ steam extraction) was performed using two life cycle assessment (LCA)-based evaluation tools, namely the REC (riskreduction, environmental merit and cost) method and the ReCiPe method. The comparison and evaluation of the differenttools used to estimate the environmental impact of Brownfield remediation was based on a case study which consisted of theremediation of a former oil and fat processing plant.

For the environmental impact assessment, both the REC and ReCiPe methods result in a single score for the environmentalimpact of the soil remediation process and allow the same conclusion to be drawn: excavation and off-site cleaning has amore pronounced environmental impact than in situ soil remediation by means of steam extraction. The ReCiPe method takesinto account more impact categories, but is also more complex to work with and needs more input data. Within the routineevaluation of soil remediation alternatives, a detailed LCA evaluation will often be too time consuming and costly and theestimation of the environmental impact with the REC method will in most cases be sufficient. The case study worked out inthis paper wants to provide a basis for a more sounded selection of soil remediation technologies based on a more detailedassessment of the secondary impact of soil remediation.

Keywords: energy use; excavation; soil remediation; soil contamination; steam extraction

1. Introduction1.1. Environmental impact of soil remediationApproximately 250,000 sites in Europe require cleanup,while the European Environmental Agency estimates thatnearly 3 million sites are potentially polluted [1]. Indus-trial activities are responsible for over 60% of Europe’ssoil pollution (the oil sector accounts for 14% of this total).Among the most common harmful contaminants are heavymetals (37%) and mineral oils (33%) [1]. Although sev-eral European Union (EU) directives support the preventionand cleanup of soil contamination (e.g. EU Directive onEnvironmental Liability, EU Waste Framework Directive,EU Water Framework Directive, EU Integrated PollutionPrevention and Control Directive), there is no general Euro-pean directive with regard to soil remediation and cleanup.Because the cleanup of all historically contaminated sites tobackground concentrations or levels suitable for all types ofland use is not considered technically or economically fea-sible, cleanup strategies are more and more designed to usesustainable, long-term solutions, often using a risk-basedapproach to land management

∗Corresponding author: Email: [email protected]

The cleanup level, the time required for the remedia-tion, economic resources and the best available technologiesare the most important factors that are traditionally takeninto account when a soil remediation technique has to beselected. More and more, the environmental impact of theremediation process itself is also taken into account. Ideally,to be more sustainable, remediation and/or cleaning of soiland groundwater should be performed in a closed-loop sys-tem, with conservation of landscape characteristics, to min-imize the environmental impact of the remediation projectand to achieve the goal of ‘sustainable use of soil’. Bothsoil and groundwater can be considered valuable resources.

Therefore, besides primary impacts, associated with thestate of the site, and secondary impacts, associated withthe site remediation itself [2], contaminated site manage-ment should also account for tertiary impacts, associatedwith the effects of the reoccupation of the site [3]. The term’green or gentle remediation techniques’, is closely relatedto ‘sustainable remediation, as ‘green remediation tech-niques are defined as remediation techniques with a lowerenvironmental impact and a lower associated consumption

ISSN 0959-3330 print/ISSN 1479-487X online© 2012 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2012.671854http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eas

t Car

olin

a U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

14 3

0 A

ugus

t 201

3

2448 V. Cappuyns and B. Kessen

Table 1. Literature overview of LCA-based case studies where the environmental impact of soil remediation technologies was evaluated.

Ref Case study Impact assessment method or tool

[22] - REC (uses value functions method for assessment ofenvironmental merit)

[23] Site contaminated with Pb, As, Cd, polyaromatic hydrocarbons(PAHs)

Calculation of potential impact indicators

[8] Analysis of six generic remediation options Multimedia Maclkay model Solid Waste Burden (SWB) +useable land area

[17] Site contaminated with mineral oil, PAHs and Cr Use of disadvantage factors[24] - Pollution factor (PF) is calculated, and expression of

environmental impacts in dimensionless environmentalimpact units (EIUs)

[21] Industrial site contaminated with sulfur No impact assessment but ranking of productivity resources[18] Spent pot lining (SPL) landfill contaminated with Cd and Cu EDIP97+ simulation of contaminant transport in groundwater,

using site-specific data[2] Diesel-contaminated site EDIP97[20] Landfill sites in Switzerland Procedure for estimating heavy metal transport in soil within

a current LCIA[25] Old landfill Specify method for impact assessment transport of heavy

metals[26] Former manufactured gas plant site Characterization method adopted from Umweltbundesamt

(2000)[27] Mixed industrial–residential–commercial area with BTEX

and THP contaminationIPPC Tier Two methodology

[28] Brownfield contaminated by human activity in railway sector IMPACT2002+[10] Diesel-contaminated site US-EPA TRACI[29] Industrial site with 300 industries involved in chemical and

petro-chemical productionsDEcision Support sYstem for REhabilitation of contaminated

sites (DESYRE).[19] Outdoor shooting range and gasoline station Decision support tool (DST) based on REC[30] Site contaminated with chlorinated ethenes GaBi4 LCA software and EDIP97 impact assessment method

(Lemming et al. [30])[16] Site contaminated with diesel Global warming potential (GWP), acidification potential

(AP), eutrophiation potential (EP) and photo oxidantcreation potential (POCP)

[13] Agricultural fields contaminated with dieldrin RNsoil and economic input–output LCA[31] Dioxin and furan contaminated sediments in a fjord ReCiPe impact model[15] Area of 700 km2 contaminated with Pb, Cd and Zn Global warming potential (GWP) of CO2[12] Previous oil depot ReCiPe- EPD[11] Industrial site with distribution centre for cars REC

Note: IPPC, integrated pollution prevention and control; EPD, environmental product declaration.

of natural resources such as water and energy [4]. Neverthe-less, in green remediation, only one aspect of sustainability,namely, the environmental aspect, is taken into account.

1.2. Evaluation of the environmental impact of soilremediation by life cycle assessment

Since the last decade, life cycle analysis or life cycle assess-ment (LCA) has been gaining wider acceptance as a tool forthe quantification of environmental impacts and evaluationof improvement options throughout the life cycle of a pro-cess, product or activity [5]. With regard to applications inenvironmental technology, LCA has for example been usedas a tool for the assessment of the environmental impact ofthe treatment of waste water (e.g. [6]) or to evaluate wastemanagement options (e.g. [7]). Several examples and casestudies that have been worked out during the last decadeshow that a life cycle framework, including a life cyclemanagement (LCM) approach structuring environmental

activities and life cycle analysis for a quantitative exam-ination, can be helpful for the selection of site remediationoptions with minimum impact on the ecosystem and humanhealth [8].

An updated overview (Table 1) of case studies deal-ing with LCA of the remediation of contaminated sitesillustrates the high variation in impact assessment meth-ods that have been used over the last 10 years. In order totake into account primary, secondary and tertiary impactsof soil remediation, different scenarios could be consideredand the collection of additional data concerning temporaland spatial effects should be integrated into the evaluationof contaminated sites [9]. For example, Cadotte et al. [10]considered two different remediation scenarios: one basedon a fast treatment time and another one based on a low envi-ronmental impact. Additionally, Suér et al. [9] illustrate thatthe result of LCA is highly dependent on the method usedand that the choice of impact categories heavily affects theoutcome of an LCA study.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eas

t Car

olin

a U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

14 3

0 A

ugus

t 201

3

Environmental Technology 2449

Cappuyns et al. [11] compared two remediation sce-narios for a site with light non-aqueous phase liquid(LNAPL) contamination by applying the BATNEEC (bestavailable technique not entailing excessive costs) methodand the LCA-based REC (risk reduction, environmentalmerit and costs) method. They concluded that, although anLCA-based evaluation method is much more complex andrequires much more data than a classical BATNEEC analy-sis, both evaluation tools could be used in a complementaryway. A preliminary selection of remediation technologiescould be based on a BATNEEC analysis, followed by adetailed analysis of the selected remediation options bymeans of LCA. When alternatives for soil remediationare compared, one should be aware that environmentaleffects occur on very different environmental problems andgeographical scales [12], pointing to the importance ofincluding land use in LCA.

Another methodology, namely RNsoil, that has been pro-posed by Inoue and Katayama [13] combines two so-calledrescue numbers to evaluate the increase in economic cost,environmental impact on resource depletion on the onehand, and the risk reduction on the other. Recently, thismodel has been expanded by introducing life cycle costingand economic input–output life cycle assessment [14].

Whereas most LCA-based methodologies try to expressthe environmental impact by means of one aggregatedscore (which is a possibility included in the most recentLCA packages), some studies still rely on characterizationindices such as global warming potential (GWP), acidifica-tion potential (AP), eutrophiation potential (EP) and photooxidant creation potential (POCP) [15,16].

It is also clear from Table 1 that most case studies dealwith sites contaminated with organic contaminants. Sitescontaminated with heavy metals [17–20] or sulfur [21] areonly the subject of a few case studies.

In the present paper, attention is paid to the assessmentof the environmental impact of the soil remediation processand on the way this environmental impact is quantified bymeans of LCA methodology. The objective of this paperis twofold: first, we want two quantify and compare theenvironmental impact of two soil remediation options. Sec-ondly, two LCA-based methods that can be used to assessthe environmental performance of processes and productswill be compared. The evaluation of the environmentalimpact of soil remediation activities is still a relativelynew aspect in soil remediation projects, but the interestin this field, as well as the demand for practical tools toperform such an evaluation is growing. In this study, anLCA-based method that is specifically designed to evaluatesoil remediation options was compared with a more generalLCA-based method in order to select the most appropriatemethod that can be used in the (routinely) evaluation ofsoil remediation. Therefore, a case study is used in whichdifferent remediation scenario’s are worked out for a con-taminated site, by using two different life cycle approaches,namely, the environmental merit approach as is included

in the REC methodology and an LCA approach using theReCiPe method for impact assessment. ReCiPe representsthe initials of the institutes that were the main contributors tothis project and the major collaborators in its design: RIVMand Radboud University, CML and PRé. ReCiPe providesa ‘recipe’ to calculate life cycle impact category indicators.

2. Methodology2.1. Case descriptionThe case studied in this paper concerns the remediationof a Brownfield with a surface of 1.6 ha where a formeroil and fat processing plant was operating at the begin-ning of the 20th century. The activities of this plant resultedin the contamination of soil and groundwater with oil andfat. Additionally, the leakage of fuel tanks contributed tothe contamination of the site after closure of the oil andfat factory. Soil and groundwater are contaminated withmineral oil, polyaromatic hydrocarbons and BTEX (ben-zene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene). In the near future,the site will be redeveloped into a residential area withapartments.

The soil on the site is a sandy soil, with a lot of debris inthe upper 2 m. Below this sandy soil layer the grain sizeof the soil becomes more silty, up to a depth of 4.3 to7 m, depending on the exact location on the site. Finally,at a depth of 3.4 m to 7 m, a clay layer is encountered.The soil is characterized by severe contamination with min-eral oil, moderate to high contamination with polyaromatichydrocarbons and minor contamination with heavy met-als. The maximum depth at which contamination occurs is5 m. The depth of the groundwater table is between 0.5 and1 m and groundwater is also contaminated with mineral oil,polyaromatic hydrocarbons and BTEX. At some locations,mineral oil occurs as a LNAPL layer with a thickness ofapproximately 10 cm on top of the groundwater table.

2.2. Remediation optionsSoil excavationThe contaminated site is characterized by good accessibilityand a hot spot contamination occurring at a limited depth(not deeper than 5 m), which makes soil excavation a fea-sible remediation option. Moreover, no buildings are lefton the site, since the Brownfield will be completely rede-veloped into a residential area. During excavation, volatileemissions, odour nuisance and noise from excavators andtransport equipment are possible adverse environmentaleffects. Additionally, fuel is used to operate the dieselengines from the excavators, which is estimated to bearound 0.1 litres of diesel per m3 of excavated soil. Ifthe contaminated soil is (periodically) stored on the siteitself, precautions have to be taken to avoid secondarycontamination of soil and groundwater by leaching of thecontamination from excavated soil. If soil is transportedto a soil remediation facility (off site), the transport of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eas

t Car

olin

a U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

14 3

0 A

ugus

t 201

3


contaminated soil also has be taken into account, as wellas the treatment of the contaminated soil (e.g. use of chem-icals, nutrients to stimulate biological degradation, and soon). The cost of soil excavation depends on the depth andamount of contaminated soil, the accessibility of the loca-tion and the capacity of the excavators used. The averageprice for the excavations is estimated to be in the range2.5–10 euro/m3 (this does not include the off-site treatmentof the soil).

Steam extractionSoil vapour extraction (SVE) is also a common remediationtechnology used to clean soil contaminated with gasolineand diesel [32]. Thermal enhancements of SVE, such as inthe case of steam extraction, involve transferring heat to thesubsurface to increase the vapour pressure of (semi)volatileorganic compounds.

Steam extraction is a remediation technology that wasoriginally developed by the petroleum industry for therecovery of oil out of oil reservoirs. Nowadays, the technol-ogy has been further developed to be used in the removalof organic contaminants from soil. Steam is injected in thecontaminated soil, and both injection above or below thegroundwater table is possible.

Initially, the steam is injected in an injection well andthis will heat the well bore and the soil around the injec-tion zone of the well. As more steam is injected, the hotwater moves into the soil, pushing the water initially in thesoil (which is at ambient temperature) further into the soil.When the soil at the point of steam injection has absorbedenough heat to reach the temperature of the injected steam,steam itself actually enters the soil, pushing the cold waterand the bank of condensed steam (hot water) in front of it[33]. During heating of the soil, the viscosity of the con-taminants decreases and their solubility in water increases,together with a decrease of the capillary forces that retainthe contaminants in the soil. Additionally, the residual con-taminants are volatilized by the steam and transported tothe steam front. In the centre of the remediation zone, com-posed of the different injection points, an extraction well isinstalled, by which the contaminated gas stream (steam) iscollected by means of a vacuum pump. The gas then entersa condensor, where contaminants and water can be sepa-rated. Non-condensed gasses are passed over an active coalfilter [34].

Steam extraction can potentially recover a large per-centage of volatile contaminants, but residual amounts ofthe contaminants are likely to remain in the subsurface[33]. These remaining contaminants can likely be reme-diated by natural attenuation or bioremediation. Althoughmineral oil products can easily be degraded by microorgan-isms, their biodegradation in natural environments is oftenlimited by the availability of the substrate to the microorgan-isms or by limited concentrations of nutrients and electronacceptors [35].

Steam injection allows one to remove contaminants witha vapour pressure of at least 100 N/m2 at 100◦C or witha Henry coefficient of at least 10−5 atm m3/mol [36]. Theequipment necessary to perform a steam extraction mainlyconsists of a steam generator, a distribution system towardsthe injection wells, an extraction system (pneumatic pumpsand a vacuum pump), coolers and condensators and thepurification equipment for gasses and water. The cost ofsoil remediation by means of steam extraction is estimatedto be in the range 31–280 euro/ton, with an average cost of40–120 euro/ton [36].

2.3. Life cycle analysis: general approachLife cycle analysis is carried out in four distinct phases:(1) definition of goal and scope, (2) life cycle inventory,(3) life cycle impact assessment and (4) interpretation [10].In this section, we will describe the goal and scope of thestudy and the data collection, whereas the life cycle impactassessment and interpretation of the results will be assessedin Section 3.

Functional unitBased on the recommendations of Diamond et al. [8], thefunctional unit was set equal to the remediation of a sitewith an area of the same size as the site in the case study(namely 1.6 ha), in a time frame of 90 days.

Data used as input for the life cycle analysisThe collection of data as input used in the models was car-ried out in collaboration with the project engineer in chargeof the soil remediation project. In order to obtain a betteroverview of the necessary input and to establish the bound-aries of the study, a process tree was constructed for bothremediation technologies (Figures 1 and 2 later). Processesthat were accounted for in the LCA are indicated in grey.For soil excavation, the fuel consumption of the pumps usedto lower the groundwater table was considered, plus thefuel necessary to operate the excavators and the fuel for thetrucks that transport the soil on site and from the site to theremediation facility. Also the cleaning of the groundwater(active coal filter) was taken into account.

For remediation with steam extraction, the followingprocesses were considered: the installation of the equip-ment for steam extraction (drilling of wells, the energy andfuel demand of the different engines used), the use of nat-ural resources (water to produce steam, activated coal forthe filter) and the generated waste streams (water, mineraloil), fuel consumption by the groundwater pumps and theconsumption of gases by the remediation installation.

The total amount of soil and groundwater that has to beextracted and/or cleaned, and the target values for contam-inants in soil and groundwater that have to be reached werealso necessary constituents of the input used in at least oneof the models.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eas

t Car

olin

a U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

14 3

0 A

ugus

t 201

3


Figure 1. Process tree of soil excavation as a soil remediation option (processes that were accounted for in the LCA are indicated ingrey).

Figure 2. Process tree of steam extraction as a soil remediation option (processes that were accounted for in the LCA are indicated ingrey).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eas

t Car

olin

a U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

14 3

0 A

ugus

t 201

3


The production of the equipment necessary to performthe remediation (excavators, pumps, trucks, etc.) and thetransport of equipment towards and from the site were notincluded in the analysis. The personal transport of the oper-ators and workers, however, was included since informationon this topic could be retrieved.

Impact assessmentEnvironmental merit in the REC model is designed to aggre-gate several types of environmental costs and benefits intoan index, which shows the overall environmental balanceof soil remediation [22]. The aspects which are included inenvironmental merit are based on the indications of a lifecycle analysis carried out for soil remediation and on inter-views with soil experts (cf. [37]). Table 2 shows the finallist used in the environmental merit index (E) for REC. Forweighing the contribution of each aspect, a panel of envi-ronmental experts has been interviewed and their weightshave been used for computing the E of REC.

The LCA was also carried out using SimaPro softwareversion 7.3 which allows life cycles to be modelled and anal-ysed. This software was chosen because it includes severaldatabases and impact assessment methods and a powerfulgraphical interface that easily shows the processes havingthe most impact. The ReCiPe 2008 method for life cycleimpact assessment (LCIA) provides a method to calculate

Table 2. Overview of the environmental aspects accounted forin the REC and ReciPe methodologies.

Environmental aspects in REC Environmental aspects in ReCiPe

Clean soil as a result ofremediation

Clean groundwater as aresult of remediation

Clean soil used forremediation

Mineral resource depletion

Clean groundwater usedfor remediation

Water depletion

Energy consumption Fossil depletion

Surface water pollution Freshwater eutrophiationFreshwater ecotoxicityMarine water eutrophiationMarine water ecotoxicity

Final wasteTerrestrial ecotoxicityTerrestrial acidification

Air pollution Particulate matter formationPhotochemical ozone formationClimate change

Space used by theremediation project

Agricultural land occupationUrban land occupationNatural land transformation

Human toxicityRadiationOzone depletion

life cycle impact category indicators as it helps to transformthe long list of life cycle inventory results into a limitednumber of indicator scores that are determined at two lev-els: 18 midpoint indicators and 3 endpoint indicators. Themidpoints indicators (e.g. radiation, terrestrial ecotoxicity,fossil fuel consumption, etc.) (Table 2) are relatively robust,but not easy to interpret, whereas the endpoint indicators(damage to human health, damage to ecosystems, damageto resource availability) are easy to understand, but moreuncertain.

3. Results and discussion3.1. Environmental impact of the soil remediation

project according to the REC method3.1.1. Life cycle inventoryThe life cycle tree, presented in Figures 1 and 2, was takenas a starting point for the data inventory.

For the quantification of the environmental impact of thesoil remediation process, the site was divided into two zonesthat significantly differ with regard to the type and degreeof contamination. The soil of zone 1 is contaminated withBTEX and mineral oil, whereas the soil of zone 2 is onlycontaminated with mineral oil. Both zones are characterizedby groundwater contamination with mineral oil and in zone1 benzene was also found in the groundwater (Table 3).

Soil and groundwater qualityIn a first step, the soil quality that can be obtained withthe different remediation technologies has to be evaluated,including the time frame in which this can be achieved.Soil excavation would take approximately 80 days, whereassoil remediation by steam extraction would last 91 days.After excavation of the contaminated soil, the soil has to betransported to a soil remediation facility, where it is treatedby thermal treatment. After excavation, the excavated sitewill be refilled with cleaner soil, for which the transporta-tion should be taken into account. The total amount of soilthat has to be excavated is estimated to 15,145 m3: 6500 m3

of soil in zone 1 will be replaced by soil with a maximalcontent of 0.5 mg/kg benzene, 7 mg/kg toluene, 10 mg/kgethylbenzene, 11 mg/kg xylene and 1500 mg/kg mineraloil. In zone 2, the mineral oil contamination is less mobilebecause the occurrence of a clay layer underneath the con-taminated soil and entails a lower risk compared to themineral oil contamination in zone 1. Therefore, it is suf-ficient to achieve a final mineral oil content of maximum5000 mg/kg. Although steam extraction as a remediationtechnique will result in lower final contaminant concen-trations in the soil (solid phase), this technique will onlybe applied on certain spots of the site where the min-eral oil is most mobile. As a consequence of this partialremediation, the remaining average concentration of min-eral oil on the site will be higher than in the case of soil

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eas

t Car

olin

a U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

14 3

0 A

ugus

t 201

3


Table 3. Average soil and groundwater concentrations of BTEX and mineral oil.

Soil zone 1 Soil zone 2 Groundwater zone 1 Groundwater zone 2

Benzene 2 mg/kg / 100 μg/L /Toluene 15 mg/kg / / /

Ethylbenzene 50 mg/kg / / /

Xylene 170 mg/kg / / /

Mineral oil 10,000 mg/kg 45,000 mg/kg 7000 μg/L 2500 μg/L

excavation (where all the contaminated soil is removed):5500 mg/kg in zone 1 and 40,800 mg/kg in zone 2. Inzone 1 approximately 80% of the BTEX contaminationwill be removed with steam extraction, resulting in averagevalues of 0.4 mg/kg benzene, 3 mg/kg toluene, 10 mg/kgethylbenzene and 34 mg/kg xylene.

In zones 1 and 2, respectively 12,000 m3 and 219,600 m3

of groundwater have to be pumped during the excavationworks and cleaned over a skewer. Because reinfiltration ofthe cleaned groundwater is not an option for this site, itwill be discharged into the nearby river. Mineral concen-trations in the groundwater can be reduced up to a valueof 500 μg/L, while the remaining benzene concentrationswill be of the order of 1–10 μg/L. During steam extrac-tion, the amount of groundwater that has to be pumped isless important: 7440 m3 in zone 1 and 2163 m3 in zone 2.Because of the lower degree of contamination in zone 2 andthe lower mobility of the mineral oil, a smaller installationwill be sufficient to perform the steam extraction remedia-tion. To operate the steam extraction installation, tap wateris also necessary (1458 m3 for zone 1 and 180 m3 for zone2). Ground and tap water used in the remediation processare treated over a skewer and discharged into the sewer,because reinfiltration of the cleaned water is not possible.With steam extraction as a remediation technique, mineraloil concentrations in the groundwater can be reduced to300 μg/l and benzene concentrations can be brought belowdetection limits.

Emissions and energy consumptionIn the case of soil excavation and off-site cleaning, mostemissions are caused by the transport of contaminated andclean soil from and to the site and by the use of engines thatoperate with diesel fuel. The distance to the nearest soilremediation facility is 20 km. The amount of diesel fuelnecessary for the personal transportation of the operatorsfrom and to the site is estimated to be 373 kg diesel. Theexcavation engine uses 0.1 litre diesel per m3 of excavatedsoil. The energy demand (as electricity) of the groundwaterpumps is around 9000 kWh per zone.

A major advantage of in situ steam extraction is thatthere is no need for excavation and transport of soil. Never-theless, steam extraction is characterized by a considerabledemand (and also important emission of CO2): diesel fuelis necessary to operate the engine of the steam generationinstallation, to operate the machines that drill the injection

wells and for the personal transport of the site operators(58.8 ton for zone 1 and 7.9 ton for zone 2). The amount ofelectricity necessary for the ground water pumps, vacuumpump and condensator equals 54,425.3 kWh for zone 1 and6726.7 kWh for zone 2.

Generation of wasteDuring the soil remediation activities, waste is generated inthe form of the pure contaminating product that is pumpedup together with the groundwater and active coal that is usedfor the groundwater purification (approximately 5.91 m3 ofwaste in zone 1 and 6.2 m3 in zone 2). The remaining con-tamination in the soil will be removed in the soil remediationfacility by thermal treatment, only resulting in emissions ofCO2, but without remaining waste product. During steamextraction, the contaminating product will be withdrawnfrom the soil in the vapour phase and, after condensationand separation, the pure contaminating product is recov-ered. Additionally, highly contaminated soil, which is dugup by the drilling of the injection wells, is also consideredas a waste material, since it consists of soil that is too heav-ily contaminated to be remediated. In total, the generatedwaste amounts to 21.99 m3 in zone 1 and 2.71 m3 in zone 2.

Space usedIn the case of soil excavation and off-site cleaning, it can beassumed that the total area that will be remediated (4800 m2

for zone 1 and 7845 m2 for zone 2) is occupied during aperiod of 80 days. However, the site is unoccupied and thusnot in use at the moment, so this will not substantially affectthe choice of the remediation technique. The area that isnecessary for the installation to perform the steam extractionis estimated to be around 267 m2 for zone 1 and 33 m2 forzone 2, for a period of 91 days.

3.1.2. Impact assessmentOnce the data were entered into the REC model, the effectsof the remediation were quantified and an environmentalmerit index was calculated. The aspects which are includedin the environmental merit are based on the indications oflife cycle analysis carried out for soil remediation and oninterviews with soil experts [22].

Based on the effect table (Table 4), both remediationtechnologies can be compared for each environmentalimpact aspect separately and their contribution to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eas

t Car

olin

a U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

14 3

0 A

ugus

t 201

3


Table 4. Effect table of excavation and steam extraction as soilremediation techniques (REC method).

Excavation – zone 1

Effect Unit ScoreE1 – Soil quality 1000 cubels∗ 659.833E2 – Groundwater quality 1000 cubels 1.190534E3 – Soil loss m3 0E4 – Groundwater loss 1000 m3 −12E5 – Energy use Inh eq∗∗ −3.654543E6 – Air emissions Inh eq −5.992567E7 – Surface water emissions 1000 cubels 0E8 – Waste formation m3 −5.9E9 – Space use m2 year −1056

Steam extraction - zone 1Effect Unit ScoreE1 - Soil quality 1000 cubels 664.1507E2 - Groundwater quality 1000 cubels 5.700012E3 - Soil loss m3 0E4 - Groundwater loss 1000 m3 −18.8976E5 - Energy use Inh eq −1.135447E6 - Air emissions Inh eq −4.968288E7 - Surface water emissions 1000 cubels 0E8 - Waste formation m3 −21.9919E9 - Space use m2 year −66.75

∗A cubel is a m3 of soil that is polluted with one times the targetvalue of the compound.∗∗Inh eq stands for inhabitant equivalent.

different impact categories can be evaluated. A negativeenvironmental merit score indicates an adverse effect forthe environment, whereas a positive score points to animprovement.

For both soil remediation technologies, loss of ground-water, use of energy, emissions, generation of waste and useof space have a negative score, since the soil remediationprocess has an adverse effect on these impact categories.Soil quality and groundwater quality clearly improve afterremediation. When both remediation technologies are com-pared, it is clear that steam extraction gives better resultsfor energy use, emissions and use of space. Soil excavationresults in better soil quality, less loss of groundwater andgenerates less waste. However, the difference in soil qualityobtained after applying both remediation options is mini-mal. There are no emissions into the groundwater and theloss of soil is minimal (with the thermal remediation tech-nology, a small amount of soil has to be withdrawn in orderto insert the installation) or non-existent (with excavation,the contaminated soil is cleaned and can be reused).

Soil excavation performs better with regard to loss ofgroundwater and soil quality (Table 4). Soil excavation gen-erates less waste but results in a groundwater quality that isslightly inferior to the quality obtained with steam extrac-tion, but the difference is minimal. Finally, steam extractionperforms significantly better with regard to the energy usedand the space used.

For the weighting of the different environmental effects,the standard weighting factors that are available in the REC

Figure 3. Weighting of the impact categories with a negativecontribution to the environmental quality in zone 1 (REC method).

program were used. The net negative contribution to theenvironmental merit for the different remediation optionsis presented in Figure 3. The environmental merit of exca-vation is characterized by an absolute E-value that slightlyhigher in the case of steam extraction (Figure 3).

From an environmental point of view, steam extrac-tion is selected by the REC model as the best remediationalternative, mainly because of the values for residual con-taminants in soil and groundwater are better than the valuesobtained by excavation and off-site cleaning techniques.Steam extraction also causes less nuisance to the neigh-bourhood and the environment (e.g. noise from excavators,hinder from the transport of soil), but these effects are notvalued in the REC method.

In Figure 3, ‘MF reference’ represents a hypothetical ref-erence alternative, called the multifunctional reference. Inthis – conservative – alternative, all polluted soil is cleanedby extraction and the groundwater is flushed using 50 timesthe polluted volume [22]. This reference alternative has aworse score in comparison to the soil excavation and off-sitetreatment, because the extraction process generates a lot ofwaste and after extraction the soil can no longer be used assoil, whereas reuse of the soil is possible after off-site reme-diation. For excavation as a remediation option, however,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eas

t Car

olin

a U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

14 3

0 A

ugus

t 201

3


Table 5. ReCiPe model for soil excavation and refilling (hierarchically dominating processes are indicated in bold).

Process Quantity

Excavated soil 15,145 m3

Occupation, construction site 210 m2 per day, 12,645 m2 in totalTransformation, from industrial area 12,645 m2

Excavation, hydraulic digger 15,145 m3

Excavation, skid steer loader 15,145 m3

Transport, passenger car 2 persons, 40 km/day for 60 days = 4800 person kmTransport, lorry, 25 tons (away from site) 25,747 tons, 25 tons/time, 40 km/time = 1, 029, 880 ton kmDisposal, inert material, 0% water, to sanitary landfill/ 25,747 tonsGroundwater pumping, electricity 14,400 kWhElectricity, supplementary 18,000 kWhPumped water + disposal to surface water 31,600 m3

Disposal of mineral oil 38.3 (0.514) kg (m3)Use of active carbon + disposal 2000 kgRefilled soil 15,145 m3

Occupation, construction site 632 m2 per day, 12,645 m2 in totalTransformation, from industrial area 12,645 m2

Ground for refill, example: sand at mine 15,145 m2

Transport, lorry, 25 tons (towards the site) 25,747 tons, 25 tons/time, 40 km/time = 1, 029, 880 ton kmExcavation, skid steer loader 15,145 m2

Transport, passenger car 2 persons, 40 km/day for 20 days = 1600 person kmOperation, lorry >32 tons 200 km

more space is needed in comparison to the cleaning of thesoil by steam extraction.

Impact assessment of zone 2In zone 2, steam extraction will only treat the groundwa-ter and a small part of the soil because of the less mobilecontamination in this zone. In contrast, soil excavation willremove the contamination almost completely, but is it obvi-ous that the environmental impact of soil excavation willalso be more pronounced. The environmental impact of thesteam extraction remediation process is less than in the caseof excavation, but the soil quality after remediation is betterin the case of soil excavation.

3.2. Environmental impact of the soil remediationproject according to the ReCiPe method

3.2.1. Life cycle inventoryThe division of the site into two zones was not necessary forthe ReCiPe model, because it does not work with contam-inant concentrations as input data. For the inventarization,the Eco-invent database, which contains up-to-date LifeCycle Inventory data, was used. The data used as input inthe SimaPro model are presented in Tables 5 and 6. TheSimaPro software generates life cycle trees based on theinput data.

The discharge of wastewater was excluded from themodel since the SimaPro software cannot take this intoaccount. Because not all necessary data could be retrieved,it was also assumed that the contaminated soil was disposedin a contained disposal facility and not cleaned in a remedi-ation facility. Emissions from the excavation activity itself

Table 6. ReCiPe model for steam extraction (Hierarchicaldominating processes are indicated in bold).

Process Quantity

Steam extraction of soilSteam generator• Input of energy (diesel) 64 tons• Input of water 1638 m3

Well drilling• Input of energy (diesel) 0.9984 ton• Disposal, inert material, 0%

water, to sanitary landfill/20 tons

Groundwater pump• Input of energy 16,380 kWhTransport, passenger car 1 person, 13, 000 km =

13, 000 person kmOccupation, construction site 300 m2

Transformation, from industrialarea

300 m2

Vacuum pump• Input of energy 12,012 kWhCondenser• Input of energy 32,760 kWhWater cleaning• Disposal of water to sewer 21,294 m3

• Disposal of mineral oil 1000 kgAir cleaning• Input of active carbon 5000 kgOperation, lorry >32 tons 1500 km

(e.g. dust particles, emission of volatile contaminants) werenot considered.

3.2.2. Impact assessmentThe ReCiPe method was chosen as the impact assessmentmethod because it includes land use. In the present study,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eas

t Car

olin

a U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

14 3

0 A

ugus

t 201

3


Figure 4. Characterization: comparison of soil excavation and steam extraction with the ReCiPe method.

however, we choose to mainly present the 18 midpointindicators, in order to compare them with the impact cat-egories that contribute to the environmental merit indexfrom the REC method. Although the midpoint indicatorsare more difficult to interpret compared to the endpointindicators (damage to human health, damage to ecosys-tems and use of natural resources), the uncertainty of theseindicators is lower than from the endpoint indicators. Soilexcavation has the highest environmental impact (Figure 4),mainly because of the transport of the contaminated soilby trucks and the excavation with hydraulic machines,which both operate on diesel fuel. The (off-site) treatmentof the contaminated soil will also generate a non-negligibleenvironmental impact: if the soil is disposed in a con-fined disposal facility, it is considered as a waste material.Under the hypothesis that a thermal treatment technique isselected, a considerable use of energy will have to be takeninto account.

In Figure 5, the environmental impact of both reme-diation technologies is compared, detailing the differentimpact categories that contribute to the overall environ-mental impact. The higher global environmental impactof soil excavation is caused by the higher energy demand,expressing a depletion of fossil fuel. The burning of fossilfuels in its turn contributes to climate change, which bothaffects ecosystems and human health. Human toxicity isthe second most important impact category, mainly because

the residual benzene concentrations in the groundwater arehigher than in the case of steam extraction.

3.3. Comparison of impact assessment methods andconsequences for environmental impact

For both assessment tools (REC and ReCiPe), there aredifferences in the way different inputs and outputs are takeninto account. First of all, the life cycle inventory of bothLCA-based methods is characterized by different needs andthe complexity of the data needed is also not comparable.Both methods take into account the energy consumption ofexcavators, transport of soil and equipment from and to thesite, passenger transport from and to the site, and the energydemand of remediation installation. The average load ofpollutants in the soil and groundwater and the organic matterand lutum content of the soil is a necessary input into theREC model to calculate target values and the improvementin soil quality, but is not accounted for in the ReCiPe model.

The quantity of contaminated soil and groundwater, aswell as the amount of groundwater for reinfiltration (totalvolume of extracted groundwater, neglecting any soil con-tamination) and the amount of supplemented soil fromother locations or soils that will be reused elsewhere areconsidered in both models.

For the REC method, only the total amount of wastegenerated (waste soil, wastewater, other waste) is required

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eas

t Car

olin

a U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

14 3

0 A

ugus

t 201

3


Figure 5. Weighting of impact categories: comparison of soil excavation and steam extraction with the ReCiPe method.

as an input, without differentiation between different typesof waste. Within the SimaPro tool, the type of waste isspecified, which results in different environmental impactsof the disposal of activated carbon or mineral oil waste.This is not to be neglected in this case, since activatedcoal is one of the materials used for purification of thecontaminated groundwater. Activated carbon, which canbe in granular or powdered form, is an adsorbent used topurify air, water and wastewater. Activated carbon is con-sidered spent when it is fully adsorbed with contaminants.In drinking water production, biological activated carbonfiltration (BACF) was shown to cause the largest part ofthe environmental and financial impact [38]. The cost ofhandling and disposal of spent carbon can be diminishedthrough regeneration, which reduces the amount of newcarbon that must be purchased. Sparrevik et al. [31] cal-culated that the use of biomass-derived activated carbon,where carbon dioxide is sequestered during the productionprocess, considerably reduces the environmental impact ofthe use of activated carbon.

Within the SimaPro software, normalization factors areavailable for over 4000 compounds, based on the Eco-invent database, which contains normalization factors in theareas of agriculture, energy supply, transport, biofuels andbiomaterials, bulk and speciality chemicals, constructionmaterials, packaging materials, basic and precious metals,metals processing, information and communications tech-nology and electronics. These normalization factors allowone to specify the nature of resources used and waste gener-ated. This can also be important in soil remediation projects,especially when products or processes with a considerableenvironmental impact are used.

Regarding the actual and future land use of the site,only the REC model takes into account the amount of space

occupied during soil remediation, whereas the destinationof the site once it has been cleaned is only accounted forin the ReCiPe model, since here the transformation of anindustrial site into an urban site is part of land occupation,which contributes to the natural resources impact category.

In the case study analysed in this paper, both LCA-based methods selected the same (in situ) soil remediationoption as having the lowest environmental impact. How-ever, in other cases, where for example the pollutant load isvery important or a certain type of waste has a major envi-ronmental impact, different conclusions (i.e. the selectionof different soil remediation options with the best envi-ronmental performance) are likely to be obtained fromboth methods. Therefore, the boundary conditions and theassumptions behind each LCA-based evaluation tool shouldbe well known, in order make a correct interpretation of thecalculated environmental impacts.

4. ConclusionLife cycle assessment is a tool that could be used to generateinformation on the environmental impacts of soil remedi-ation technologies. Within the framework of contaminatedsite management, a LCA can be performed for two main rea-sons: to guide a user in their choice for a potential (future)soil remediation technique, or to evaluate the environmen-tal performance a soil remediation technology after theremediation has been carried out.

A comparative LCA was performed on two remedi-ation technologies that could be used for the restorationof a Brownfield area, transforming a former industrial siteinto an urban site with a mainly residential function. Twodifferent LCA-based methods (namely REC and ReCiPe)were used to make the assessment and both methods was

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eas

t Car

olin

a U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

14 3

0 A

ugus

t 201

3


compared and evaluated with respect to their outcome andeasiness to use.

This research indicated that energy consumption (interms of fossil fuel and electricity) of the trucks andengines was the key factor affecting most of the environ-mental impact categories examined. The impact categoriesmost seriously affected by the remediation operations werefreshwater ecotoxicity, climate change affecting humanhealth, non-renewable energy use and human toxicity inthe case of soil excavation. Steam extraction mainly con-tributed to fossil fuel depletion and climate change affectinghuman health.

The REC method has specifically been developed forthe evaluation of soil remediation and the software is rela-tively easy to use. The information and data needed to runthis tool are less detailed than in the case of the ReCiPemethod (in which, for example, the different types of wastehave to been specified) and are mostly related to the infor-mation traditionally included in a soil investigation report.The different impact categories considered in the REC tool(e.g. loss of soil and groundwater, energy use, etc.) canalso directly be linked with the soil remediation process,whereas the midpoint indicators in the ReCiPe method aregeneral indicators (e.g. ozone depletion, ecotoxicity, etc.)and are more difficult to bring into direct relation withthe soil remediation activities. Moreover, the REC tool isquite transparent since the user can verify every calculationand assumption that is made within the Excel sheets. TheSimaPro software is more complicated to use and under-lying assumptions and calculations made by the softwarecannot been verified by the user. Although a trained userthat understands the underlying models and assumptionsshould be able to easily distil the relevant information fromthe output, the routine use of this evaluation tool does notseem evident. Therefore, the REC tool seems more appro-priate for the evaluation of soil remediation options in dailypractice and possibilities to systematically include envi-ronmental impact assessment in soil remediation projectsshould be considered in the future.

References[1] EEA Europe’s Environment, Chapter 2: Environment and

health and the quality of life, in The Fourth Assessment,EEA, Copenhagen, 2007, 441 pp.

[2] L. Toffoletto, L. Deschênes, and R. Samson, LCA for ex-situbioremediation of diesel-contaminated soil, Int. J. Life CycleAssess. 10(6) (2005), pp. 406–416.

[3] P. Lesage, T. Ekvall, L. Deschênes, and R. Samson, Envi-ronmental assessment of brownfield rehabilitation using twodifferent life cycle inventory models. Part 2: Case Study, Int.J. Life Cycle Assess. 12(6) (2007), pp. 497–513.

[4] K. Onwubuya, A. Cundy, M. Puschenreiter, J. Kumpiene,B. Bone, J. Greaves, P., Teasdale, M. Mench, P. Tlustos, S.Mikhalovsky, S. Waite, W. Friesl-Hanl, B. Marschner, andI. Müller, Developing decision support tools for the selec-tion of ‘gentle’ remediation approaches, Sci. Total Environ.407(24) (2009), pp. 6132–6142.

[5] A. Tukker, Life cycle assessment as a tool in environmen-tal impact assessment, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 20(4)(2000), pp. 435–456.

[6] M. Farré, J. García-Montaño, N. Ruiz, I. Muñoz, X.Domènech, and J. Peral, Life cycle assessment of the removalof diuron and linuron herbicides from water using three envi-ronmentally friendly technologies, Environ. Technol. 28(7)(2007), pp. 819–830.

[7] F. Schiller, T. Raffield, A. Angus, M. Herben, P.J. Young,P.J. Longhurst, and S.J.T. Pollard, Hidden flows and wasteprocessing – an analysis of illustrative futures, Environ.Technol. 31(14) (2010), pp. 1507–1516.

[8] M. Diamond, C. Page, M. Campbell, S. McKenna, and R.Lall, Life-cycle framework for assessment of site remedia-tion options: Method and generic survey, Environ. Toxicol.Chem. 18 (4) (1999), pp. 788–800.

[9] P. Suer, S. Nilsson-Påledal, and J. Norrman, LCA for siteremediation: A literature review, Soil Sed. Cont. 13 (2004),pp. 415–425.

[10] M. Cadotte, L. Deschênes, and R. Samson, Selection of aremediation scenario for a diesel- contaminated site usingLCA, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12(4) (2007), pp. 239–251.

[11] V. Cappuyns, D. Bouckenooghe, L. Van Breuseghem, and S.Van Herreweghe, Can thermal soil remediation be sustain-able? A case study for a site with a L-NAPL contamination,J. Integr. Environ. Sci. 8(2) (2011), pp. 103–121.

[12] P. Suer and Y. Andersson-Sköld, Biofuel or excavation? -Life cycle assessment (LCA) of soil remediation options,Biomass Bioen. 35(2) (2011), pp. 969–981.

[13] Y. Inoue and A. Katayama, Application of the rescue numberto the evaluation of remediation technologies for contam-inate ground, J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 6(2004),48–57.

[14] Y. Inoue and A. Katayama, Two-scale evaluation of reme-diation technologies for a contaminated site by applyingeconomic input-output life cycle assessment: Risk-cost, risk-energy consumption and risk-CO2 emission, J Hazard Mater.192(3) (2011), 1234–1242.

[15] N. Witters, R.O. Mendelsohn, S. Van Slycken, N. Weyens, E.Schreurs, E. Meers, F. Tack, R. Carleer, and J. Vangronsveld,Phytoremediation, a sustainable remediation technology?Conclusions from a case study. I: Energy production and car-bon dioxide abatement, Biomass and Bioenergy 39 (2012),pp. 454–469.

[16] J.A.Tajam, A. Jonsson, and M. Fröling, Small scale in-situbioremediation of diesel-contaminated soil-screening lifecycle assessment of environmental performance, in LinnaeusECO-TECH ’10, Kalmar, Sweden, 22–24 November, 2010.

[17] S. Volkwein, H.W. Hurtig, and W. Klöppfer, Life cycleassessment of contaminated sites remediation, Int. J. LifeCycle Assess. 4(5) (1999), pp. 263–274.

[18] J. Godin, J.F. Hainsc, L. Deschénesa, and R. Samson,Combined use of life cycle assessment and groundwatertransport modeling to support contaminated site manage-ment, Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Int. J. 10(6) (2004), pp. 1099–1116.

[19] J. Sorvari and J. Seppälä, A decision support tool to prioritizerisk management options for contaminated sites, Sci. TotalEnviron. 408(8) (2010), pp. 1786–1799.

[20] S. Hellweg, U. Fischer, T.B. Hofstetter, and K. Hungerbühler,Site-dependent fate assessment in LCA: Transport of heavymetals in soil, J. Clean. Prod. 13(4) (2005), pp. 341–361.

[21] A. Blanc, H. Métivier-Pignon, R. Gourdon, and P.Rousseaux, Life cycle assessment as a tool for controllingthe development of technical activities: Application to theremediation of a site contaminated by sulfur, Adv. Environ.Res. 8(1–3) (2004), pp. 613–627.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eas

t Car

olin

a U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

14 3

0 A

ugus

t 201

3


[22] E. Beinat, M.A. van Drunen, R. Janssen, M.H. Nijboer,J.G.M. Koolenbrander, J.P. Okx, and A.R. Schütte, TheREC decision support system for comparing soil remediationoptions; A methodology based on Risk reduction, Environ-mental merit and Costs, CUR/NOBIS research report, 93pp., September 1997.

[23] C. Page, M. Diamond, M. Campbell, and S. McKenna,Life cycle framework for the assessment of site remediationoptions: Case study, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18 (1999),pp. 801–810.

[24] R.P. Vignes, Limited Life Cycle Analysis: A tool for the envi-ronmental decision-making toolbox, Strat. Environ. Manag.1(4) (1999), pp. 297–332.

[25] S. Hellweg, T.B. Hofstetter, and K. Hungerbuëhler, Time-dependent life-cycle assessment of slag landfills with the helpof scenario analysis: The example of Cd and Cu, Environ.Imp. Assess. Rev. 20(4) (2005), pp. 435–456.

[26] P. Bayer and F. Finkel, Life cycle assessment of activeand passive groundwater remediation technologies, J. ContHydrol. 83 (2006), pp. 171–199.

[27] M.J. Harbottle, A. Al-Tabbaa, and C.W. Evans, Assessing thetrue technical/environmental impacts of contaminated landremediation - a case study of containment, disposal and noaction, Land Cont. Reclam. 14 (1) (2006), pp. 85–99.

[28] P. Lesage, T. Ekvall, L. Deschênes, and R. Samson, Envi-ronmental assessment of brownfield rehabilitation usingtwo different life cycle inventory models. Part 1: Method-ological Approach, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12(6) (2007),pp. 391–398.

[29] A. Critto and P. Agostini, Using multiple indices to evalu-ate scenarios for the remediation of contaminated land: ThePorto Marghera (Venice, Italy) contaminated site, Environ.Sci. Poll. Res. 16 (2009), pp. 649–662.

[30] G. Lemming, P. Friis-Hansen, and P. L. Bjerg, Risk-basedeconomic decision analysis of remediation options at aPCE-contaminated site, J. Environ. Manag. 91 (2010),pp. 1169–1182.

[31] M. Sparrevik, T. Saloranta, G. Cornelissen, E. Eek, A.M. Fet,G.D. Breedveld, and I. Linkov, Use of life cycle assessmentsto evaluate the environmental footprint of contaminated sed-iment remediation, Environ. Sci. Technol. 45(10) (2011),pp. 4235–4241.

[32] A. Duggal and R.G. Zytner, Comparison of one- and three-dimensional soil vapour extraction experiments, Environ.Technol. 30(4) (2009), pp. 407–419.

[33] E. Davis, Ground water issue: Steam injection for soil andaquifer remediation, United States Environmental ProtectionAgency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,EPA/540/S-97/505, Washington, 1998.

[34] R. Schmidt, J. Gudbjerg, T. Sonnenborg, and K. Jensen,Removal of NAPLs from the unsaturated zone usingsteam: Prevention of downward migration by injecting mix-tures of steam and air, J. Contam. Hydrol. 55 (2002),pp. 233–260.

[35] M. Martienssen and M. Schirmer, Use of surfactants toimprove the biological degradation of petroleum hydrocar-bons in a field site study, Environ. Technol. 28(5) (2007),pp. 573–582.

[36] L. Goovaerts, R. Lookman, K. Vanbroekhoven, J. Gemoets,and K. Vrancken, Best beschikbare technieken (BBT)bij het uitvoeren van bodemsaneringsprojecten en bijgrondreinigingscentra (Best Available Techniques ForSoil Remediations Projects and Centres for Soil Reme-diation and Cleaning), Academia Press, Gent, 2007,245 pp.

[37] A.G. Nijhof, R. Theelen, A. Weenk, R. Janssen, E.Beinat, C.E.H.M. Buijs, and A.J.M. Schelwald, Riskreduction, Environmental Merit and Costs; REC-Method,phase 1, NOBIS, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1996,188 pp.

[38] R. Barrios, M. Siebel, A. van der Helm, K. Bosklopper, andH. Gijzen, Environmental and financial life cycle impactassessment of drinking water production at Waternet, J.Clean. Prod. 16 (2008), pp. 471–476.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eas

t Car

olin

a U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

14 3

0 A

ugus

t 201

3

evaluation of the environmental impact of brownfield remediation options: comparison of two life...

Documents