CLU-IN Home

U.S. EPA Contaminated Site Cleanup Information (CLU-IN)


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. EPA Technology Innovation and Field Services Division

ITRC Internet-Based Training Course Questions Wiki

GSR

ITRC Disclaimer, Privacy, and Usage Policies

The training page, with links to registration or archive, Links page, and feedback, for the Green & Sustainable Remediation (GSR) course is available at http://www.clu-in.org/conf/itrc/gsr/

Remaining Simulcast Questions and Answers from January 6, 2015

Question 1: For the Level 1 case study of former refinery with the landfill cap, when converting the cap to a natural area that's shown with bird houses & wild flower...was annual or semi-annual mowing still required to prevent trees & shrubs from piercing the impermiable cap? (Presuming an impermiable cap.)

  • instructor name: (insert response)

Question 2: For the RCRA site Level 2 case study, was the retained future liability from landfilling the excavated soil a consideration in the remedy selection matrix?

  • instructor name: (insert response)

Remaining Simulcast Questions and Answers from April 26, 2012

Question 1: Who conducted the GSR Planning and Implementation study for the Brownfield site: NJDEP or the developer/clean up contractor? - State regulator; Atlanta, GA, United States

  • instructor name: (insert response)

Remaining Simulcast Questions and Answers from Febuary 14, 2012

Question 1: GSR appears to place a higher level of importance on saving energy and reduction of green house gases than other goals Based on the repetition and prominance of these topics during the training. What is the best way to entice use of GSR in a brownfield context if energy use and air emissions are of lesser importance to revitalization or job creation when remediation driver is redevelopment? - State Participant; MN, United States

  • Rebecca Bourdon: The team intends to provide the greatest amount of tools available to the GSR Practitioner throughout the training. The greatest amount of resources, thus far, in the industry appear to have been focused on quantifying the environmental metrics. Although there is a greater quantity of this information and resources available on the market, currently, it should be the responsibility of the GSR Practitioner to adequately consider all three aspects of sustainability (environmental, social and economic) when attempting to perform a GSR evaluation. If one solely uses the environmental metric tools, without consideration of the other two aspects of sustainability, the evaluation should not be referred to or considered a sustainable remediation.

    GSR as it applies to Brownfields, may find greater opportunities to grow the social component of a green and sustainable remediation evaluation as your example suggests. The GSR evaluator should document the boundary and driver conditions during the planning phase of the evaluation. Then while performing the evaluation, they may find weighting of the social components will be reflected in the scores of the remedial (response actions) options. When combined with the stakeholder input, the decision should attempt to balance the three sustainable aspects and reflect the project-specific stakeholder desires.

Question 2: On Slide 42, that the community acceptance for the bioremediation was not favorable as compared to insitu thermal. What was the basis for that conclusion? - State regulator; Trenton, NJ, United States

  • instructor name: (insert response)

Question 3: On slide 81, the CO2 emissions for excavation is presented as much lower than other alternatives but were the emissions from the receiving entity of the excavated materials taken into account? - State regulator; Trenton, NJ, United States

  • Nick Petruzzi: CO2 emissions were calculated for all potential remedial alternatives based on the fuel and/or energy that would be utilized. Both direct and indirect CO2 emissions where calculated as appropriate. Direct emissions included diesel fuel from trucking transportation, construction equipment, and/or on-site treatment. Indirect emissions were based on power plant operation for generation of electricity for on-site treatment.

    To answer your question, we did account for CO2 emissions from the receiving entity. The landfills were contacted to determine the make/model of construction equipment that would be utilized, as well as fuel use rate of the equipment. Similarly, CO2 emissions also accounted for off-site construction equipment utilized for borrow material to backfill the excavation.

Top of Page