Green Remediation:

Incorporating Sustainable

Environmental Practices into

Remediation of Contaminated Sites

Green Remediation:
Technology Primer 

Green Remediation: 

Incorporating Sustainable 

Environmental Practices into 

Remediation of Contaminated Sites 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

 

April 2008 

 

EPA 542-R-08-002 

 

 

 

 

 
Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites i 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The Green Remediation: Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of 

Contaminated Sites technology primer was developed by the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (U.S. EPA) Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI). The 

document was prepared in cooperation with EPA’s Brownfields and Land Revitalization Technology 

Support Center (BTSC) and funded by OSRTI under Contract No. 68-W-03-038 to Environmental 

Management Support, Inc. The authors gratefully acknowledge the insightful comments and 

assistance of reviewers within EPA and other federal and state environmental agencies. 

An electronic version of this primer can be downloaded from OSRTI’s and BTSC’s websites at 

http://cluin.org/greenremediation or http://www.brownfieldstsc.org. To obtain a copy of the Green 

Remediation: Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated 

Sites technology primer (free of charge), contact: 

National Service Center for Environmental Publications 

P.O. Box 42419 

Cincinnati, OH 45242-0419 

Phone: 1-800-490-9198 

Fax: 301-604-3408 

www.epa.gov/nscep/

For additional information about this document, contact Carlos Pachon of EPA OSRTI at 

703-603-9904 or pachon.carlos@epa.gov. 

As a primer, this document provides topical introductory information rather than guidance. EPA 

recommends that users refer to applicable regulations, policies, and guidance documents regarding 

selection of cleanup remedies and implementation of cleanup actions; selected references and 

additional resources are provided herein. This primer was subjected to the Agency’s administrative 

and expert review and was approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or 

commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. 

Cover photo: Ground water remediation at the former St. Croix Alumina Plant in St. Croix, VI, 

relies on wind-driven turbine compressors to drive pneumatic pumps in recovery wells; recovered 

oil is reclaimed and used as feedstock at an adjacent petroleum refinery.

EPA prints this document using vegetable-based ink on 100% recycled/recyclable paper 

with a minimum 50% post-consumer fiber.
ii Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 
Contents 

Page 

List of Profiles.....................................................................................................................iv 

 

Acronyms and Abbreviations.................................................................................................v 

 

Section 1: Introduction........................................................................................................ 1 

Purpose of Primer .............................................................................................................1 

Overview of Green Remediation ........................................................................................2 

Universe of Sites ...............................................................................................................4 

 

Section 2: Sustainability of Site Remediation.......................................................................... 6 

Core Elements of Green Remediation.................................................................................6 

Regulatory Requirements for Cleanup Measures..................................................................8 

Expanded Consideration of Energy and Water Resources.....................................................8 

 

Section 3: Site Management Practices ................................................................................ 10 

Site Investigations and Monitoring ....................................................................................12 

Air Quality Protection ......................................................................................................13 

Water Quality Protection and Conservation ......................................................................14 

Ecological and Soil Preservation.......................................................................................16 

Waste Management........................................................................................................17 

 

Section 4: Energy and Efficiency Considerations .................................................................. 19 

Optimizing Energy Intensive Systems.................................................................................20 

Integrating Renewable Energy Sources..............................................................................23 

Low Energy Systems.........................................................................................................32 

 

Section 5: Tools and Incentives.......................................................................................... 41 

 

Section 6: Future Opportunities ......................................................................................... 43 

 

Section 7: References........................................................................................................ 44 

 

Section 8: General Resources............................................................................................ 46 

Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites iii 
List of Profiles

Site Name Page

Old Base Landfill/Former Naval Training Center-Bainbridge, Port Deposit, MD............................. 15 

California Gulch Superfund Site, Leadville, CO .......................................................................... 16 

Rhizome Collective Inc. Brownfield Site, Austin, TX ...................................................................... 17 

Havertown PCP Site, Havertown, PA .......................................................................................... 22 

Former St. Croix Alumina Plant, St. Croix, VI .............................................................................. 24 

BP Paulsboro, Paulsboro, NJ..................................................................................................... 25 

Former Nebraska Ordnance Plant, Mead, NE ............................................................................ 28 

Operating Industries, Inc. Landfill, Monterey Park, CA................................................................. 30 

Umatilla Army Depot, Hermiston, OR ........................................................................................ 33 

Carswell Golf Course, Fort Worth, TX ........................................................................................ 34 

Upper Arkansas River, Leadville, CO ......................................................................................... 36 

Fort Carson, Colorado Springs, CO.......................................................................................... 37 

British Petroleum Site, Casper, WY ............................................................................................ 38 

Altus Air Force Base, OK .......................................................................................................... 39 

iv Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 
Acronyms and Abbreviations 

ARAR applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement 

BMP best management practice 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as 

amended 

CH4 methane 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

CSP concentrating solar power 

DOD U.S. Department of Defense 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

EERE U.S. DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ET evapotranspiration 

FY fiscal year 

GHG greenhouse gas 

IDW investigation derived waste 

kW kilowatt 

kWh kilowatt-hour 

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 

LFG landfill gas 

LID low impact development 

MNA monitored natural attenuation 

mph miles per hour 

MW megawatt 

N2O nitrous oxide 

NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 

NPL National Priorities List 

NREL U.S. DOE National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

O&M operation and maintenance 

OSRTI U.S. EPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation 

OSWER U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

P&T pump-and-treat 

PRB permeable reactive barrier 

PV photovoltaic 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended 

ROD record of decision 

RSE remedial system evaluation 

SVE soil vapor extraction 

UST underground storage tank 

UV ultraviolet 

VOC volatile organic compound 

WTE waste-to-energy 

Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites v 
vi Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 
Introduction 

Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 1 

Section 1: Introduction 

 

As part of its mission to protect human health and the environment, the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or “the Agency”) is dedicated to developing and promoting innovative cleanup strategies 

that restore contaminated sites to productive use, reduce associated costs, and promote 

environmental stewardship. EPA strives for cleanup programs that use natural resources and energy 

efficiently, reduce negative impacts on the environment, minimize or eliminate pollution at its source, 

and reduce waste to the greatest extent possible in accordance with the Agency’s strategic plan for 

compliance and environmental stewardship (U.S. EPA Office of the Chief Financial Officer, 2006). 

The practice of “green remediation” uses these strategies to consider all environmental effects of 

remedy implementation for contaminated sites and incorporates options to maximize the net 

environmental benefit of cleanup actions. 

Green Remediation: The 

practice of considering all 

environmental effects of 

remedy implementation and 

incorporating options to 

maximize net environmental 

benefit of cleanup actions. 

EPA’s regulatory programs and initiatives actively support site 

remediation and revitalization that result in beneficial reuse such as 

commercial operations, industrial facilities, housing, greenspace, 

and renewable energy development. The Agency has begun 

examining opportunities to integrate sustainable practices into the 

decision-making processes and implementation strategies that carry 

forward to reuse strategies. In doing so, EPA recognizes that 

incorporation of sustainability principles can help increase the 

environmental, economic, and social benefits of cleanup. 

Green remediation reduces the demand placed on the environment during cleanup actions, otherwise 

known as the “footprint” of remediation, and avoids the potential for collateral environmental 

damage. The potential footprint encompasses impacts long known to affect environmental media: 

• Air pollution caused by toxic or priority pollutants such as particulate matter and lead, 

• Water cycle imbalance within local and regional hydrologic regimes, 

• Soil erosion and nutrient depletion as well as subsurface geochemical changes, 

• Ecological diversity and population reductions, and 

• Emission of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4), and other greenhouse 

gases contributing to climate change. 

Opportunities to increase sustainability exist throughout the investigation, design, construction, 

operation, and monitoring phases of site remediation regardless of the selected cleanup remedy. As 

cleanup technologies continue to advance and incentives evolve, green remediation strategies offer 

significant potential for increasing the net benefit of cleanup, saving project costs, and expanding the 

universe of long-term property use or reuse options without compromising cleanup goals. 

■ Purpose of Primer 

This primer outlines the principles of green remediation and describes opportunities to reduce the 

footprint of cleanup activities throughout the life of a project. Best management practices (BMPs) 

outlined in this document help decision-makers, communities, and other stakeholders (such as project 

managers, field staff, and engineering contractors) identify new strategies in terms of sustainability. 

These strategies complement rather than replace the process used to select primary remedies that best 

meet site-specific cleanup goals. The primer identifies the range of alternatives available to improve 
Introduction 

2 Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 

sustainability of cleanup activities and helps decision-makers balance the alternatives within existing 

regulatory frameworks. To date, EPA’s sustainability initiatives have addressed a broader scope or 

focused on selected elements of green remediation such as clean energy. 

The primer strives to cross educate remediation and reuse decision-makers and other stakeholders 

about green remediation using a “whole-site” approach that reflects reuse goals. Greater awareness 

of the opportunities helps remediation decision-makers address the role of cleanup in community 

revitalization, and helps revitalization project managers maintain an active voice during all stages of 

remediation decision-making. To maximize sustainability, cleanup and reuse options are considered 

early in the planning process, enabling BMPs during remediation to carry forward (Figure 1). 

Figure 1. BMPs of green remediation may be used throughout the stages of land 

revitalization, as a contaminated site progresses toward sustainable reuse or new use. 

Best practices can be incorporated into all phases of remediation, including site investigation, remedy 

construction, operation of treatment systems, monitoring of treatment processes and progress, and site 

close-out. Site-specific green remediation strategies can be documented in service or vendor 

contracts as well as project materials such as site management plans. 

To help navigate the range of green remediation opportunities, this primer provides tools for daily 

operations and introductory information on the use of renewable energy resources. Profiles of sitespecific implementation of green remediation strategies are provided throughout the document to 

help federal and state agencies, local communities, and other stakeholders learn from collective 

experiences and successes. As new information becomes available, additional profiles will be 

available online on EPA’s Green Remediation web site (http://www.cluin.org/greenremediation). The 

document also describes the rapidly expanding selection of incentives for strategy implementation and 

provides a list of additional resources [bracketed number resources] in addition to direct 

(parenthetical) references. 

■ Overview of Green Remediation 

Sustainable development 

meets the need of the 

present without 

compromising the need 

of future generations, 

while minimizing overall 

burdens to society. 

Strategies for green remediation rely on sustainable development 

whereby environmental protection does not preclude economic 

development, and economic development is ecologically viable today 

and in the long run. The Agency has compiled information from a 

range of EPA programs supporting sustainability along the categories 

of the built environment; water, ecosystems and agriculture; energy 

and environment; and materials and toxics. [General Resource 1, 

Section 8] Many programs, tools, and incentives are available to help 

governments, businesses, communities, and individuals serve as good 

environmental stewards, make sustainable choices, and effectively 

manage resources. 
Introduction 

Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 3 

Use of green remediation BMPs helps to accelerate the pace of environmental protection in 

accordance with the Agency’s strategic plan for improving environmental performance of business 

sectors. Green remediation builds on environmentally conscious practices already used across 

business and public sectors, as fostered by the Agency’s Sectors Program, and promotes incorporation 

of state-of-the-art methods for: 

• Conserving water, 

• Improving water quality, 

• Increasing energy efficiency, 

• Managing and minimizing toxics, 

• Managing and minimizing waste, and 

• Reducing emission of criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gases (GHGs) (U.S. EPA National 

Center for Environmental Innovation, 2006). 

Increasing concerns regarding climate change have prompted major efforts across the globe to 

reduce GHG emissions caused by activities such as fossil fuel consumption. [2] The Agency’s current 

strategic plan calls for significant reductions in GHG emissions as well as increases in energy 

efficiency as required by federal mandates such as Executive Order 13423: Strengthening Federal 

Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management (Executive Order 13423, 2007). [3, 4] 

Accordingly, one category of EPA’s evolving practices for green remediation places greater emphasis 

on approaches that reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions: 

• Designing treatment systems with optimum efficiency and 

modifying as needed, 

• Using renewable resources such as wind and solar energy to 

meet power demands of energy-intensive treatment systems or 

auxiliary equipment, 

• Using alternate fuels to operate machinery and routine vehicles, 

BMPs of green remediation 

help balance key elements 

of sustainability: 

• Resource conservation 

measured by “water 

intensity,” the amount of 

water necessary to remove 

one pound of 

contaminant, or by “soil 

intensity,” the amount of 

soil displaced or disturbed 

to remove one pound of 

contaminant, 

• “Material intensity”

measured by the amount 

of raw materials extracted, 

processed, or disposed of 

for each pound of 

contaminant treated, and 

• Energy efficiency 

measured by the amount 

of energy needed to 

remove one pound of 

contaminant. 

• Generating electricity from byproducts such as methane gas or 

secondary materials, and 

• Participating in power generation or purchasing partnerships 

offering electricity from renewable resources. 

Green remediation strategies also reflect increased recognition of 

the need to preserve the earth’s natural hydrologic cycle. Best 

management of remediation activities includes water conservation 

measures, stormwater runoff controls, and recycling of treatment 

process water. Techniques for maintaining water balance are 

based on requirements of federal and state ground water protection 

and management programs and on recent climate-change findings 

by government agencies and organizations such as the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, U.S. Geological Survey, and National 

Ground Water Association. [5] The strategies build on ground 

water and surface water management requirements under the 

Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act as well as water 

conservation goals set by Executive Order 13423. 
Introduction 

4 Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 

■ Universe of Sites 

Green remediation promotes adoption of sustainable strategies at every site requiring environmental 

cleanup, whether conducted under federal, state, or local cleanup programs or by private parties. 

Past spills, leaks, and improper management or disposal of hazardous materials and wastes have 

resulted in contaminated land, water, and/or air at hundreds of thousands of sites across the country. 

EPA and its state, tribal, and territorial partners have developed a number of programs to investigate 

and remediate these sites. 

Most federal cleanup programs are conducted under statutory authority of the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act (RCRA ) of 1976, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 

1984; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 

as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986; and Small Business 

Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2001. Most states maintain parallel statutes 

providing for voluntary and mandatory cleanup as well as brownfield and reclamation programs. In 

addition, most states have attained authority to implement federal mandates under the RCRA 

corrective action and underground storage tank programs. 

Remediation activities in the United States may be grouped into seven major cleanup programs or 

market segments implemented under different federal or state statues. These market segments are 

described in Cleaning Up the Nation’s Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends, along with 

estimates of the number of sites under each major cleanup program (U.S. EPA/OSWER, 2004). 

Principles and BMPs of green remediation can be applied at sites in each of the market segments, 

although administrative, institutional, and remedy-selection decision criteria may vary across 

programs. Based on this report and other summary data, EPA estimates the approximate number of 

sites requiring remediation under each of the major cleanup programs. 

Superfund Sites: As of 2005, nearly 3,000 CERCLA records of decision (RODs) and ROD 

amendments had been signed. RODs document treatment, containment, and other remedies for 

contaminated materials at approximately 1,300 of the more than 1,500 sites historically listed on the 

National Priorities List (NPL), including those delisted over the years. Superfund cleanups also 

encompass “removals,” which are short-term actions to address immediate threats and emergency 

responses. Since its inception, the program has undertaken more than 9,400 removal actions. 

 

RCRA Sites: EPA estimates that more than 3,700 regulated hazardous waste treatment, storage, and 

disposal facilities are expected to need corrective action under the RCRA Corrective Action Program. 

 

Underground Storage Tank Sites: Through September 2007, over 474,000 releases of hazardous 

substances have been reported at sites with underground storage tanks. Of these, 365,000 cleanups 

have been completed, leaving approximately 109,000 sites with reported releases to be remediated. 

In recent years, between 7,000 and 9,000 new reports of releases were received annually. 

 

Department of Defense Sites: The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) estimates that investigations 

and/or cleanups are planned or underway at nearly 8,000 areas. These areas are located on 

hundreds of active and inactive installations and formerly used defense sites. 

 

 
Introduction 

Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 5 

Department of Energy Sites: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has remediated contaminated 

areas at more than 100 installations and other locations. The Department has identified 

approximately 4,000 contaminated or potentially contaminated areas on 22 installations and other 

locations. Most of DOE's remediated areas will require ground water treatment and monitoring or 

other long-term stewardship efforts. 

 

Other Federal Agency Sites: EPA estimates that there are more than 3,000 contaminated sites, 

located on 700 federal facilities, potentially requiring remediation. These facilities are distributed 

among 17 federal agencies. Investigations at many of these facilities are not complete. These 

estimates do not include an estimated 8,000-31,000 abandoned mine sites, most of which are 

located on federal lands. 

 

State, Brownfield, and Private Sites: EPA estimates that during 2006 and 2007 alone cleanups were 

completed at over 18,900 sites, totaling over 250,000 acres, through state and tribal response 

programs. Institutional controls have also been put in place where required. EPA's investment in 

brownfields, exceeding 1.3 billion dollars through 2007, has leveraged more than $10.3 billion in 

cleanup and redevelopment funding and financed assessment and/or cleanup of more than 4,000 

properties. 

Cleanups across these market segments involve a wide range of pollution sources and site types such 

as neighborhood dry cleaners and gas stations, former industrial sites in urban areas, metalscontaminated mining sites, and large DOD, DOE, and industrial facilities that are downsized or 

decommissioned. Cleanup and reuse of these sites will consume significant amounts of energy, 

considerably impact natural resources, and affect the infrastructures of surrounding communities. 
Sustainability of Site Remediation 

6 Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 

Section 2: Sustainability of Site Remediation 

Green remediation focuses on maximizing the net environmental benefit of cleanup, while preserving 

remedy effectiveness as part of the Agency’s primary mission to protect human health and the 

environment. Site-specific strategies must take into account the unique challenges and characteristics 

of a site; no single solution exists. At all sites, however, key opportunities for integrating core 

elements of green remediation can be found when designing and implementing cleanup measures. 

Regulatory criteria and standards serve as a foundation for building green practices. 

■ Core Elements of Green Remediation 

Green remediation results in effective cleanups minimizing the environmental and energy footprints 

of site remediation and revitalization. Sustainable practices emphasize the need to more closely 

evaluate core elements of a cleanup project; compare the site-specific value of conservation benefits 

gained by different strategies of green remediation; and weigh the environmental trade-offs of 

potential strategies. Green remediation addresses six core elements (Figure 2): 

Energy requirements of the treatment system 

• Consider use of optimized passive-energy technologies 

(with little or no demand for external utility power) that 

enable all remediation objectives to be met, 

Figure 2. Best management 

practices of green remediation 

balance core elements of a 

cleanup project. 

• Look for energy efficient equipment and maintain 

equipment at peak performance to maximize efficiency, 

• Periodically evaluate and optimize energy efficiency of 

equipment with high energy demands, and 

• Consider installing renewable energy systems to replace or 

offset electricity requirements otherwise met by the utility. 

Air emissions 

• Minimize use of heavy equipment requiring high volumes 

of fuel, 

• Use cleaner fuels and retrofit diesel engines to operate 

heavy equipment, when possible, 

• Reduce atmospheric release of toxic or priority pollutants 

(ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen 

dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead), and 

• Minimize dust export of contaminants. 

Water requirements and impacts on water resources 

• Minimize fresh water consumption and maximize water reuse during daily operations and 

treatment processes, 

• Reclaim treated water for beneficial use such as irrigation, 

• Use native vegetation requiring little or no irrigation, and 

• Prevent impacts such as nutrient loading on water quality in nearby water bodies. 

 
Sustainability of Site Remediation 

Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 7 

Land and ecosystem impacts 

• Use minimally invasive in situ technologies, 

• Use passive energy technologies such as bioremediation and phytoremediation as primary 

remedies or “finishing steps,” where possible and effective, 

• Minimize soil and habitat disturbance, 

• Minimize bioavailability of contaminants through adequate contaminant source and plume 

controls, and 

• Reduce noise and lighting disturbance. 

Material consumption and waste generation 

• Use technologies designed to minimize waste generation, 

• Re-use materials whenever possible, 

 

Green Remediation Objectives 

• Achieve remedial action goals, 

• Support use and reuse of remediated 

parcels, 

• Increase operational efficiencies, 

• Reduce total pollutant and waste 

burdens on the environment, 

• Minimize degradation or enhance 

ecology of the site and other affected 

areas, 

• Reduce air emissions and 

greenhouse gas production, 

• Minimize impacts to water quality 

and water cycles, 

• Conserve natural resources, 

• Achieve greater long-term financial 

return from investments, and 

• Increase sustainability of site 

cleanups. 

• Recycle materials generated at or removed from 

the site whenever possible, 

• Minimize natural resource extraction and disposal, 

and 

• Use passive sampling devices producing minimal 

waste, where feasible. 

Long-term stewardship actions 

• Reduce emission of CO2, N2O, CH4, and other 

greenhouse gases contributing to climate change, 

• Integrate an adaptive management approach into 

long-term controls for a site, 

• Install renewable energy systems to power longterm cleanup and future activities on redeveloped 

land, 

• Use passive sampling devices for long-term 

monitoring, where feasible, and 

• Solicit community involvement to increase public 

acceptance and awareness of long-term activities 

and restrictions. 

Green remediation requires close coordination of 

cleanup and reuse planning. Reuse goals influence 

the choice of remedial action objectives, cleanup 

standards, and the cleanup schedule. In turn, those 

decisions affect the approaches for investigating a site, 

selecting and designing a remedy, and planning future 

operation and maintenance of a remedy to ensure its 

protectiveness. 

Site cleanup and reuse can mutually support one another by leveraging infrastructure needs, sharing 

data, minimizing demolition and earth-moving activities, re-using structures and demolition material, 

and combining other activities that support timely and cost-effective cleanup and reuse. Early 

consideration of green remediation opportunities offers the greatest flexibility and likelihood for 

related practices to be incorporated throughout a project life. While early planning is optimal, green 

strategies such as engineering optimization can be incorporated at any time during site investigation, 

remediation, or reuse. 
Sustainability of Site Remediation 

8 Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 

■ Regulatory Requirements for Cleanup Measures 

EPA’s green remediation strategies build on goals established by federal statutes and regulatory 

programs to achieve greater net environmental benefit of a cleanup. Although remedy selection 

criteria and performance standards vary in accordance with statutory or regulatory authority, goals 

remain common among the cleanup programs. Section 121 of CERCLA, for example, requires that 

remedies: 

• Protect human health and the environment, 

• Attain applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) or provide reasons for not 

achieving ARARs, 

• Are cost effective, 

• Utilize permanent solutions, alternative solutions, or resource recovery technologies to the 

maximum extent possible, and 

• Satisfy the preference for treatment that reduces the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the 

contaminants as opposed to an alternative that provides only for containment. [6] 

Pursuant to CERCLA, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) 

also identifies nine evaluation criteria to be used in a detailed analysis of cleanup alternatives: 

• Overall protection of human health and 

the environment, 

• Compliance with ARARs, 

• Long-term effectiveness and permanence, 

• Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume 

through treatment, 

• Short-term effectiveness, 

• Implementability, 

• Cost, 

• State acceptance, and 

• Community acceptance. [7] 

Similarly, several evaluation criteria are used under the Agency’s RCRA Corrective Action Program to 

determine the most favorable alternative for corrective measures: long-term reliability and 

effectiveness; reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume of wastes; short-term effectiveness; 

implementability; cost; community acceptance; and state acceptance. 

EPA’s strategic plan for compliance and environmental stewardship relies on the Agency’s cleanup 

programs to significantly reduce hazardous material use, energy and water consumption, and GHG 

intensity by 2012. In addition, the Agency’s strategy regarding clean air and global climate change 

calls for collaboration with DOE and organizations to help the United States reduce its GHG intensity 

from 2002 levels by 18% by 2012. These partnerships encourage sound choices regarding energy 

efficient equipment, policies and practices, and transportation. BMPs of green remediation provide 

additional tools for making sustainable choices within this statutory, regulatory, and strategic 

framework. 

■ Expanded Consideration of Energy and Water Resources 

Site remediation and revitalization decisions also must comply with more recent federal and state 

statutes requiring or recommending reductions in energy and water consumption as well as increased 

use of renewable energy. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, for example, promotes energy conservation 

nationwide and increases availability of energy supplies. [8] The Act recognizes that energy 

production and environmental protection are non-exclusive national goals and encourages energy 
Sustainability of Site Remediation 

Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 9 

production and demand reduction by promoting new technology, more efficient processes, and 

greater public awareness (Capital Research, 2005). 

A number of policies are in place to ensure that federal activities meet greener objectives. EPA’s 

strategic plan recognizes that implementing provisions of the Energy Policy Act is a major undertaking 

involving increased partnership with DOE. DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

(EERE) reports that the Act’s major provisions, as strengthened by Executive Order 13423, require 

federal facilities (sites owned or operated by federal agencies) to: 

• Reduce facility energy consumption per square foot (a) 2% each year through the end of 2015 or 

a total of 20% by the end of fiscal year (FY) 2015 relative to 2003 baseline; and (b) 3% per year 

through the end of 2015 or a total of 30% by the end of FY 2015 relative to 2003 baseline 

(including industrial and laboratory facilities), 

• Expand use of renewable energy to meet (a) no less than 3% of electricity demands in FY 2007-

2009, 5% in FY 2010-FY 2012, and 7.5% in 2013 and thereafter; and (b) at least 50% of the 

renewable energy requirements through new renewable sources, 

• Reduce water consumption intensity by 2% each year through the end of FY 2015 or 16% by the 

end of FY 2015 (relative to 2007 baseline) beginning in 2008, 

• Employ electric metering in federal buildings by 2012, 

• Apply sustainable design principles for building performance standards, and 

• Install 20,000 solar energy systems by 2010. 

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 sets additional goals regarding energy 

consumption and associated GHG emissions, including increased use of alternative fuels for vehicles 

and new standards for energy efficiency in buildings. [9] The Act also promotes accelerated research 

and development of alternative energy resources (primarily solar, geothermal, and marine energy 

technologies) and provides grants to develop technologies for large-scale CO2 capture from 

industrial sources. To date, 24 states plus the District of Columbia have implemented policies for 

renewable portfolio standards requiring electricity providers to obtain a minimum percentage of their 

power from renewable energy resources by a certain date. Four additional states have established 

non-regulatory goals for adopting renewable energy. [10] 

Federal agencies such as the EPA, DOD, DOE, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and General 

Services Administration are working to develop mechanisms for meeting energy and water 

conservation goals and deadlines across both government and private sectors. Voluntary or required 

participation in related federal, state, and a growing number of municipal initiatives provides 

significant opportunities for integrating green practices into site remediation and reuse. 

EPA’s sustainability strategy encourages “demand-driven” and participatory decision-making using a 

systematic approach and life-cycle perspective to evaluate chemical, biological, and economic 

interactions at contaminated sites. Accordingly, EPA is collaborating with public and private partners 

to establish benchmarks, identify best practices, and develop the models, tools, and metrics needed 

to reach the goals of green remediation. The Agency also is compiling new information to quantify 

the net environmental benefit gained by site-specific reductions in fossil fuel consumption and to 

estimate related contributions in meeting national climate-change goals. On a local level, EPA 

regions are working with business and community partners to identify site-specific opportunities for 

demonstrating and applying these practices. 
Site Management Practices 

10 Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 

Section 3: Site Management Practices 

BMPs of green remediation help ensure that day-to-day operations during all cleanup phases 

maximize opportunities to preserve and conserve natural resources while achieving the cleanup’s 

mission of protecting human health and the environment. Opportunities to implement the practices 

are not restricted to cleanups involving media treatment; for example, the practices can apply to 

removal actions involving primarily institutional controls or short-term soil excavation with offsite 

disposal. In these cases, the cleanup approach is similar to one used for sustainable and energy 

efficient construction projects. 

Many of the strategies already are used to some degree in site cleanup, although the practices are not 

necessarily labeled “green.” For example, selection of native rather than non-native plants for 

remedies such as vegetative landfill covers or soil excavation and revegetation significantly reduces 

the need to consume water for irrigation purposes – one of the key BMPs for water conservation. 

Each site management plan can incorporate practices addressing core elements of green remediation 

with periodic review and update as new opportunities arise. An adaptive approach to site 

management planning enables early plans, in many cases initiated during emergency removal 

actions, to be expanded throughout remediation and extended into 

long-term stewardship controls. Each plan can outline site-specific 

procedures to: Site management 

plans can specify BMPs 

for daily operations 

that meet the goals of 

green remediation. 

• Reduce air emissions and energy use, 

• Demonstrate water quality preservation and resource conservation, 

• Establish near-term improvements to the ecosystem that carry 

forward into site revitalization, and 

• Reduce material consumption and waste generation. 

Many of the BMPs and high performance criteria for site management draw on elements of a variety 

of programs: 

• U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating 

system for new or existing building construction, 

• Joint EPA/DOE Energy Star® product ratings, guidelines for energy management in buildings and 

plants, and general designs for energy efficient commercial buildings, 

• EPA’s GreenScapes for landscaping approaches that preserve natural resources while preventing 

waste and pollution, and 

• Smart Growth principles helping to reduce urban sprawl. [11-14] 

BMPs also stem from new or ongoing federal initiatives to reduce GHG emissions and energy 

consumption and generally promote green practices and products within market sectors. Examples 

include joint EPA/DOE recommendations regarding green construction of federal buildings; 

requirements for General Services Administration procurement of green products and services; and 

EPA partnership with trade associations of major manufacturing and service sectors such as the 

construction industry’s Associated General Contractors of America. [15-17] 

Costs for implementing the “extra steps” of green remediation range considerably but can be equal to 

or below those of conventional cleanup practices, particularly following an initial learning curve. 

Effective strategies consider site-specific conditions and requirements, long-term investment returns, 
Site Management Practices 

Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 11 

energy efficiency, and product or service lifecycles. Efficiency improvements under DOE energysavings performance contracts, for example, are estimated to provide federal net savings of $1.4 

billion. The savings result from implementing recommendations of energy service companies under 

contracts extending up to 25 years (U.S. DOE/EERE, 2007). Site-specific case studies show that BMPs 

applicable to green remediation can result in immediate and long-term savings: 

• Capital costs for a 3-kilowatt (kW) solar system at the Pemaco Superfund site in Maywood, CA, 

were recovered after one year of operation. Nine months of solar operations provided sufficient 

electricity to cover one month of operating the site’s treatment building, which contains controls 

for soil heating and ground water pumping and treatment (U.S. EPA/OSWER, 2008(a)). 

• Recent engineering optimization of the ground water pumping and treatment system used at the 

Havertown PCP Site in Havertown, PA, provides a savings of $32,000 each year. Cost reductions 

are attributed to lower electricity consumption as well as fewer purchases of equipment parts and 

process chemicals (U.S. EPA/OSWER, 2006). 

• Low impact development strategies involving open space preservation and cluster design result in 

total capital cost savings of 15-80%, according to the majority of 17 case studies conducted by 

EPA. The savings are generated by reduced costs for site grading and preparation, stormwater 

infrastructure, site paving, and landscaping (U.S. EPA/Office of Water, 2007). 

One example of innovative strategies used to incorporate BMPs common across market sectors is 

provided by the passive solar biodiesel-storage shed design (Figure 3) developed by Piedmont 

Biofuels, a North Carolina community cooperative using and encouraging the use of clean, 

renewable biofuels. Green elements of the design include cob walls comprising sand, clay, and straw 

to ensure biodiesel storage at interior temperatures remaining above 20o F; a foundation of locally 

obtained stone mortared with clay; a low-cost galvanized metal roof for heat retention; and a 

southern overhang to prevent excess solar gain in summer. When needed, portable solar systems can 

provide electricity to generate additional interior heat. [18] 

Incorporating green remediation into cleanup 

procurement documents is one way to open the door for 

best practices in the field. In accordance with federal 

strategies for green acquisition (Executive Order 13423, 

2007), purchasing agreements supporting site cleanup 

and revitalization should give preference to: 

• Products with recycled content, 

• Biobased products, 

• Alternative fuels, 

• Hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles, 

• Non-ozone depleting substances, 

• Renewable energy, 

• Water efficient, energy efficient Energy Star®

equipment and products with the lowest watt stand-by 

power, and Figure 3. Green construction techniques 

can be integrated into BMPs for small 

structures used to store field equipment or 

to house treatment components such as 

pump equipment. 

• All services that include supply or use of these 

products. 
Site Management Practices 

12 Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 

■ Site Investigations and Monitoring 

Green remediation builds additional sustainability into practices already used for site evaluations and 

encourages development of novel techniques. Removal actions as well as site assessments and 

investigations should maximize opportunities for combining field activities in ways that reduce waste 

generation, conserve energy, and minimize land and ecosystem disturbance. Site investigation and 

monitoring, including well placement, should consider land reuse plans, local zoning, and 

maintenance and monitoring of any engineering and institutional controls. BMPs of green 

remediation help identify sustainable approaches for field work commonly involving subsurface drilling 

and multimedia data gathering. 

At Superfund sites, for example, sampling and analysis plans are required to contain an investigation 

derived waste (IDW) plan that describes how all ARARS for waste generation and handling will be met, 

and the best approach for minimizing waste generation, handling, and disposal costs. IDW 

requirements also apply to projects involving offsite disposal of hazardous waste under other cleanup 

programs such as RCRA. Typical IDW includes: 

• Drilling fluids, cuttings, and purge water from test pits and well installations, 

• Purge water, excess soil, and other materials from sample collection, 

• Residues such as ash, spent carbon, and well purge water from testing of treatment technologies 

and aquifer pumping tests, 

• Contaminated personal protective equipment, and 

• Solutions used to decontaminate non-disposable protective clothing and equipment. [19, 20] 

Personal protective equipment is usually changed on a daily basis; fewer days in the field result in a 

smaller quantity of contaminated equipment needing disposal. When cleaning field equipment such 

as soil and water samplers, drill rods, and augers to prevent contaminant transfer between sample 

locations, consider using steam and non-phosphate detergent instead of toxic cleaning fluids. 

Organic solvents and acid solutions should be avoided in decontamination procedures but may be 

required when addressing free-product contaminants or high concentrations of metals. 

Where technically feasible, collection of subsurface soil and ground water samples can rely on direct 

push drilling rigs rather than conventional rotary rigs. Direct push techniques employ more timesaving tools (particularly for subsurface investigations extending less than 100 feet below ground 

surface), avoid use of drilling fluids, and generate no drill cuttings. Total drilling duration is estimated 

to be 50-60% shorter for direct push systems. In addition, direct push rigs can be used to collect soil 

and ground water samples simultaneous to the drilling process. This approach results in reduced IDW 

volume and field mobilization with related fuel consumption and site disturbance. 

Larger push rods now available on the market enable a direct push rig to be used also for placement 

of monitoring wells with pre-packed screen sizes. This approach provides an alternative to the 

conventional, energy intensive method involving use of a direct push rig to determine only the location 

of a long-term monitoring well, and subsequent placement of the well through use of an auger rig. 

Although some states have not approved wells placed through direct push techniques, this approach 

to monitoring well installation provides additional fuel and waste savings and significantly reduces the 

extent of site disturbance. Regardless of drill technique, many rigs operate with diesel engines that 

can use biodiesel fuel. Site investigations should avoid use of oversized equipment and unnecessary 

engine idling to maximize fuel conservation. 
Site Management Practices 

Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 13 

Geophysical techniques such as ground penetrating radar could be used at some sites to reduce the 

need for direct measurement of stratigraphic units. Feasibility of using geophysical methods for these 

purposes depends heavily on site conditions and the nature of contamination. Geophysical surveys 

result in much smaller environmental footprints than invasive techniques for site investigations, 

including cone penetrometer test rigs. 

BMPs include use of passive sampling techniques for monitoring quality of air, sediment, and ground 

or surface water over time. In contrast to traditional methods involving infrequent and invasive spotchecking, these methods provide for steady data collection at less cost while generating less waste. 

Passive techniques for water sampling rely on ambient flow-through in a well without well pumping or 

purging, avoiding the need for disposal of large volumes of water that require management as 

hazardous waste. For some contaminants, however, passive devices for obtaining ground water 

samples are ineffective. [21] 

Remote data collection significantly reduces onsite field work and associated labor cost, fuel 

consumption, and vehicular emissions. For example, water quality data on streams in acid mine 

drainage areas can be monitored automatically and transmitted to project offices through solar 

powered telemetry systems. This approach can be used for site investigations as well as site 

monitoring once treatment is initiated. Renewable energy powered systems with battery backup can 

be used to operate meteorological stations, air emission sensors, and mobile laboratory equipment. 

Remote systems also provide quick data access in the event of treatment system breakdown. 

Green remediation builds on methods used in the Triad decision-making approach to site cleanup: 

systematic planning, dynamic work strategies, and real-time measurement systems. The approach 

advocates onsite testing of samples with submission of fewer samples to offsite laboratories for 

confirmation. The need for less offsite confirmation saves resources otherwise spent in preserving, 

packing, and shipping samples overnight to a laboratory. The number of required field samples also 

can be lowered through comprehensive review of historical information. The Triad approach allows 

for intelligent decision-making regarding the location and extent of future sampling activities based on 

the results of completed analytical sampling. This dynamic work strategy significantly minimizes 

unnecessary analytical sampling. [22] 

■ Air Quality Protection 

Green remediation strategies for air quality protection build on 

requirements or standards under the Clean Air Act, Energy Policy 

Act, and Energy Independence and Security Act. Cleanup at many 

sites involves air emissions from treatment processes and often 

requires use of heavy diesel-fueled machinery such as loaders, 

trucks, and backhoes to install and sometimes modify cleanup 

systems (Table 1). BMPs for operation of heavy equipment as well 

as routine on- or off-road vehicles provide opportunities to reduce 

emission of GHG and criteria pollutants such as sulfur dioxide. 

These practices encourage use of new user-friendly tools becoming 

available from government agencies and industry to help managers 

estimate and track project emissions. 

Contracts for field service 

can include specifications 

regarding diesel emissions 

and air quality controls. 

Sample language may be 

drawn from EPA’s Clean 

Construction USA online 

resource. [23] 
Site Management Practices 

14 Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 

Overall efforts should be made to minimize use of heavy equipment and to operate heavy equipment 

and service vehicles efficiently. Site contracts for service vendors or equipment should give preference 

to providers able to take advantage of air protection opportunities: 

• Retrofitting machinery for diesel-engine emission control and exhaust treatment technologies such 

as particulate filters and oxidation catalysts, 

• Maintaining engines of service vehicles in accordance with manufacturer recommendations 

involving air filter change, engine timing, and fuel injectors or pumps, 

• Refueling with cleaner fuels such as ultra-low sulfur diesel, 

• Modifying field operations through combined activity schedules as well as reducing equipment 

idle, and 

• Replacing conventional engines of existing vehicles when feasible, and purchasing new vehicles 

that are equipped to operate on hybrid systems or alternative fuel and meet the latest engine 

standards. [24, 25] 

Field Machinery and Vehicles Used for 

a Typical Multi-Phase Extraction Project 

Fuel 

Consumption 

(gallons) 

CO2 

Emission 

(pounds)

Site Preparation: One Bobcat with 

intermittent use of flatbed trailer-truck 

or dump truck operating for 26 weeks 

8,996 199,711

Well Construction: Truck-mounted 

auger system installing ten 75-foot 

extraction wells over 30 days 

612 13,586 

Routine Field Work: Two pickup trucks 

for site preparation, construction, 

treatment system monitoring, sampling, 

and repair over five-year duration 

19,760 383,344

Total for Project Life: 29,368 596,641

Table 1. Mobile sources 

typically employed during 

a five-year multi-phase 

extraction treatment 

project could consume 

nearly 30,000 gallons of 

fuel, equivalent to the 

amount of carbon annually 

sequestered by 62 acres of 

pine or fir forests. [26]

Site management plans should specify procedures for minimizing worker and community exposure to 

emissions, and for minimizing fuel consumption or otherwise securing alternatives to petroleum-based 

fuel. Plans also should contain specific methods to avoid dust export of contaminants, such as using 

simple wet-spray techniques, and to control noise from power generation. 

■ Water Quality Protection and Conservation

Best practices for stormwater management limit the disruption of natural 

water hydrology by reducing impervious cover, increasing onsite 

infiltration, and reducing or eliminating pollution from stormwater runoff. 

Green goals used in industry-based programs such as LEED can be 

applied to cleanup construction; sample targets include: 

• Implementing a management plan that results in a 25% decrease in 

runoff at sites with impervious cover exceeding 50%, 

• Capturing 90% of the site’s average annual rainfall, and 

• Removing 80% of the average annual total load of suspended solids 

based on pre-construction monitoring reports. 

Site “fingerprinting” is 

an ecology-based 

planning tool focused 

on the protection of 

natural resources during 

site development. 
Site Management Practices 

Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 15 

Site management plans can describe BMPs for reducing and controlling stormwater runoff in manners 

that mimic the area’s natural hydrologic conditions, otherwise known as low impact development 

(LID). Cleanup at sites undergoing redevelopment could introduce best practices to be used during 

later stages: 

• Conservation designs for minimizing runoff 

generation through open-space 

preservation methods such as cluster 

development, reduced pavement widths, 

shared transportation access, reduced 

property setbacks, and site fingerprinting 

during construction, 

• Engineered structures or landscape features 

helping to capture and infiltrate runoff, such 

as basins or trenches, porous pavement, 

disconnected downspouts, and rain gardens 

or other vegetated treatment systems, 

• Storage of captured runoff in rain barrels or 

cisterns, green (vegetated) roofs, and 

natural depressions such as landscape 

islands, and 

• Conveyance systems to route excess runoff 

through and off the site, such as grassed 

swales or channels, terraces or check dams, 

and elimination of curbs and gutters. [27] 

BMPs reflect maximum efforts to reclaim treated 

water for beneficial use or re-inject it into an 

aquifer for storage, rather than discharging to 

surface water. Where treatment processes 

result in wastewater discharge to surface water 

or municipal sewage treatment plants (publicly 

owned treatment works), green remediation 

strategies build on criteria of EPA’s effluent 

guidelines. The guidelines rely on industryproven performance of treatment and control 

technologies. Best practices for wastewater 

treatment, including any resulting in pollutant 

discharge significantly below regulatory 

thresholds, can be recorded in associated 

permits for national pollutant discharge 

elimination systems. [28] 

BMPs could include estimates of the anticipated 

demands for potable and non-potable water 

and substitution of potable with non-potable water whenever possible. One goal might be to replace 

50% of the potable water used at a site with non-potable water. Targets can be met by using high 

efficiency water fixtures, valves, and piping, and by reusing stormwater and greywater for applications 

such as mechanical systems and custodial operations. 

Cleanup Objectives: Contain an unlined 

landfill containing nearly 38,000 cubic 

yards of soil contaminated by waste such 

as pesticides and asbestos debris 

Green Remediation Strategy: Employed 

BMPs for controlling stormwater runoff and 

sediment erosion during construction of a 

landfill cover 

- Installed a woven geotextile silt fence 

downgradient of construction to filter 

sediment from surface runoff 

- Added a “super-silt fence” (woven 

geotextile with chain-link fence backing) 

on steep grades surrounding the landfill 

- Constructed berms and surface channels 

to divert stormwater to sediment ponds 

- Emplaced erosion control blankets to 

stabilize slopes and channels until 

vegetation was established 

- Hydroseeded the landfill cover with 

native seed to foster rapid plant growth 

Results: 

- Effectively captured sediment at supersilt fence despite heavy rain of Hurricane 

Floyd 

- Avoided damage of infrastructure used 

in site redevelopment 

- Reestablished 100% vegetative cover 

within one year 

Property End Use: Redevelopment for 

office and light industrial space 

Profile: Old Base Landfill, Former Naval 

Training Center-Bainbridge, Port 

Deposit, MD 
Site Management Practices 

16 Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 

Green remediation practices potentially help cleanups not only meet but exceed water-quality and 

drinking-water standards set by federal and state agencies. In turn, the benefit of higher water quality 

can be passed to future site users. Broader 

strategies for managing a cleanup project’s 

impact on local watershed conditions can 

complement regional water and waste 

programs for watershed restoration. [29] 

Profile: California Gulch Superfund Site, 

Leadville, CO 

Cleanup Objectives: Address metalscontaminated soil at a former mining site 

Green Remediation Strategy: Constructed 

a recreational trail serving as a cap for 

contaminated soil 

‐ Conducted a risk-based assessment to 

confirm trail interception of exposure 

pathways for waste left in place 

‐ Demonstrated the trail would not harm 

adjacent wetlands and streams 

‐ Completed a cultural resource inventory 

and mitigation plan to meet historic 

preservation requirements 

‐ Consolidated slag-contaminated soil 

into a platform running along the site’s 

former rail and haul-road corridor 

‐ Covered the soil platform with a six-inch 

layer of gravel spanning a width of 12 

feet with additional three-foot shoulders 

‐ Installed six inches of asphalt above the 

gravel layer 

Results: 

‐ Avoided invasive soil excavation and 

costly offsite disposal 

‐ Reduced consumption and cost of 

imported construction material through 

use of contained waste-in-place 

‐ Increased user safety and remedy 

integrity through trail restriction to nonmotorized use 

‐ Relied on an integrated remediation 

and reuse plan involving extensive 

community input, donation of land and 

construction material by the property 

owner, and long-term trail and remedy 

maintenance by Lake County, CO 

Property End Use: Recreation 

■ Ecological and Soil 

Preservation

Green remediation practices provide a wholesite approach that accelerates reuse of 

degraded land while preserving wildlife habitat 

and enhancing biodiversity. BMPs can provide 

novel tools for measuring a site’s progress 

toward meeting both short- and long-term 

ecological land reuse goals involving: 

• Increased wildlife habitat, 

• Increased carbon sequestration, 

• Reduced wind and water erosion, 

• Protection of water resources, 

• Establishment of new greenspaces or 

corridors, 

• Increases in surrounding property values, 

and 

• Improved community perception of a site 

during cleanup. [30] 

Site management plans can describe an 

approach to ecological preservation that 

considers anticipated reuse as well as the 

natural conditions prevailing before 

contamination occurred. BMPs address daily 

routines that minimize wildlife disturbance, 

including noise and lights affecting sensitive 

species. On previously developed or graded 

sites, goals for habitat restoration might include 

planting of native vegetation on 50% of the 

site. Native plants require minimal or no 

irrigation following establishment and require 

no maintenance such as mowing or chemical 

inputs such as fertilizers. Invasive plants or 

noxious weeds are always prohibited. 
Site Management Practices 

Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 17 

Ecological restoration and preservation at sites anticipated for full or partial reuse as greenspace are 

best managed through site surveys and careful master planning. BMPs for greenspace could include 

targets such as confining site disturbance to areas within 15 feet of roadways and utility trenches or 

within 25 feet of pervious areas of paving. 

BMPs include development of an erosion and 

sedimentation control plan for all activities 

associated with cleanup construction and 

implementation. Objectives include: 

• Preventing loss of soil by stormwater 

runoff or wind erosion, 

• Preventing topsoil compaction, thereby 

increasing subsurface water infiltration, 

• Preventing sediment transport to storm 

sewers or streams, and 

• Preventing dispersion of dust and 

particulate matter. 

Potential strategies for erosion and 

sedimentation control include stockpiling of 

topsoil for reuse, temporary and permanent 

seeding, mulching, earth dikes, silt fencing, 

straw-bale barriers, sediment basins, and 

mesh sheeting for ground cover. 

■ Waste Management 

Green remediation practices for waste 

management encourage consumers to 

consider lifecycle cost (including natural 

resource consumption) of products and 

materials used for remedial activities. BMPs 

build on requirements set by municipal or 

state agencies and those formalized in various 

construction and operating permits. A site 

management plan should include waste 

planning practices that apply to all cleanup 

and support activities. For sites involving 

construction and demolition or requiring 

diversion of landfill waste, stakeholder 

collaboration plays a significant role in 

sustainable cleanup. 

BMPs for waste management during site 

cleanup are borrowed from the construction industry. Demolition concrete, for example, is often reused onsite as road base, fill, or other engineering material. Reducing and recycling debris such as 

concrete, wood, asphalt, gypsum, and metals helps to: 

Profile: Rhizome Collective Inc. Brownfield 

Site, Austin, TX 

Cleanup Objectives: Clean up illegal 

dump containing 5,000 cubic yards of 

debris 

Green Remediation Strategy: Constructed 

a four-foot-thick evapotranspiration cover 

‐

Chipped or shredded wood to create 

mulch for recreational trails 

Salvaged wood scraps and concrete for 

erosion control 

‐

‐ Recycled 31.6 tons of metal 

‐

‐ Powered equipment through use of 

biofuel generators and photovoltaic 

panels, due to lack of grid electricity 

Salvaged concrete for later use as fill for 

building infrastructure 

‐

‐ Inoculated chainsaws with fungi sporeladen oil to aid in degradation of 

residual contaminants 

Extracted 680 tires through use of 

vegetable oil powered tractor 

‐ Constructed floating islands of 

recovered plastic to create habitat for 

life forms capable of bioremediating 

residual toxins in an onsite retention 

pond 

‐ Planted native grasses, wildflowers, and 

trees 

Results: 

‐

‐ Gained community help to restore the 

property within a single year 

Reestablished wildlife habitat for native 

and endangered species 

Property End Use: Environmental 

education park 
Site Management Practices 

18 Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 

• Conserve landfill space, 

• Reduce the environmental impact and cost of producing new materials, and 

• Reduce overall project expenses through avoided purchase and disposal costs. 

Waste management practices should consider every opportunity to recycle land-clearing debris, 

cardboard, metal, brick, concrete, plastic, clean wood, glass, gypsum wallboard, carpet, and 

insulation. Site preparation can include early confirmations with commercial haulers, deconstruction 

specialists, and recyclers. A convenient and suitably sized area should be designated onsite for 

recyclable collection and storage. Requirements for worker use of cardboard bailers, aluminum can 

crushers, recycling chutes, and sorting bins will facilitate the waste management program. In 

addition, stakeholders can help identify local options for material salvage that may include donation 

of materials to charitable organizations such as Habitat for Humanity. To document BMPs, site 

managers are encouraged to track the quantities of waste that are diverted from landfills during 

remediation. 

Green waste management 

practices rely on recycling, 

reusing, and reclaiming 

materials to the greatest 

extent possible. [31] 

Investigation derived waste such as drilling fluids, spent carbon, 

and contaminated personal protection equipment must be 

appropriately contained and stored outside of general recycling 

or disposal areas. Preference should be given to building- and 

equipment-cleaning supplies with low phosphate and non-toxic 

content. 
Energy and Efficiency Considerations 

Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 19 

Section 4: Energy and Efficiency Considerations

Energy requirements constitute a core element of green remediation. Significant reductions in fossil 

fuel consumption during treatment processes can be achieved through (1) greater efforts to optimize 

treatment systems, and (2) use of alternative energy derived from natural, renewable energy sources. 

“Active energy” systems use external energy to power mechanical 

equipment or otherwise treat contaminated media. These systems 

typically consume high quantities of electricity, and to a lesser extent 

natural gas, although duration of peak consumption varies among 

cleanup technologies and application sites. In 2007, approximately 

70% of the U.S. electricity supply was generated by fossil fuel-fired 

plants. 

EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) is 

analyzing the extent of energy use, CO2 emissions, and energy cost of 

technologies used to treat contaminated media at NPL sites. The 

analysis will help the Agency to: 

• Establish benchmarks regarding the energy consumption of 

technologies with high energy demand, 

• Examine operational and management practices typically used to 

implement these technologies, and 

• Identify methods for reducing energy consumption during 

treatment processes and optimizing the systems. 

The most frequently used energy-intensive treatment technologies used at NPL sites are pump-andtreat (P&T), thermal desorption, multi-phase extraction, air sparging, and soil vapor extraction (SVE). 

Using data from cost and performance reports compiled by the Federal Remediation Technologies 

Roundtable and other resources, OSWER estimates that a total of more than 14 billion kilowatt-hours 

(kWh) of electricity will be consumed through use of these five technologies at NPL sites from 2008 

through 2030 (Table 2). 

 

Technology 

 

Estimated Energy 

Annual Average 

(kWh*103) 

Total Estimated 

Energy Use 

in 2008-2030 

(kWh*103) 

Pump & Treat 489,607 11,260,969 

Thermal Desorption 92,919 2,137,126 

Multi-Phase Extraction 18,679 429,625 

Air Sparging 10,156 233,599 

Soil Vapor Extraction 6,734 154,890 

Technology Total 618,095 14,216,209 

CO2 is one of several 

gases with potential to 

contribute to climate 

change. CO2 is 

produced from a variety 

of sources including 

fossil fuel combustion 

and industrial process 

emissions. Electric 

power production is the 

largest source of CO2 

emissions in the U.S. 

energy sector, 

representing 

approximately one-third 

of the total. 

Table 2. Technologies used 

for Superfund cleanups often 

involve energy intensive 

components such as ground 

water extraction pumps, air 

blowers, or ultraviolet lamps 

(U.S. EPA/OSWER, 2008(b). 

DOE estimates that 1.37 pounds of CO2 are emitted into the air for each kWh of electricity generated 

in the United States. Accordingly, use of these five technologies at NPL sites in 2008 through 2030 is 

anticipated to indirectly result in CO2 emissions totaling nearly 9.2 million metric tons (Table 3) (U.S. 

EPA/OSWER, 2008(b)). 
Energy and Efficiency Considerations 

20 Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 

Based on the average electricity cost of $0.0914/kWh in December 2007, consumption of fossil fuel 

energy at NPL sites during operation of these five technologies is anticipated to cost over $1.4 billion 

from 2008 through 2030. Use of these technologies under other cleanup programs such as RCRA, 

UST, or brownfields could produce similar results. Trends in the use of active energy treatment 

systems often vary among the various cleanup programs due to the type and extent of contamination 

and cleanup practices commonly encountered within each program. 

Technology 

Estimated 

CO2 Emissions 

Annual Average 

(Metric Tons) 

Total Estimated 

CO2 Emissions 

in 2008-2030 

(Metric Tons) 

Pump & Treat 323,456 7,439,480 

Thermal Desorption 57,756 1,328,389 

Multi-Phase Extraction 12,000 276,004 

Air Sparging 6,499 149,476 

Soil Vapor Extraction 4,700 108,094 

Technology Total 404,411 9,301,443 

Table 3. Estimated CO2

emissions from use of five 

types of cleanup technologies 

at NPL sites over 23 years are 

equivalent to operating two 

coal-fired power plants for 

one year. [26] 

General assumptions used in these estimates are dependent on and sensitive to factors such as site 

size or setting. The estimates do not include variable demands of additional electricity consumed 

during site investigations, field trials, remedy construction, treatment monitoring, and other activities. 

The Agency’s online Power Profiler can help estimate air emissions attributable to electricity 

consumption at specific sites based on geographic power grids. [32] 

■ Optimizing Energy Intensive Systems 

Significant reductions in natural resource and energy consumption can be made through frequent 

evaluation of treatment system efficiencies before and during operations. Opportunities to optimize 

systems and integrate high performance equipment begin during feasibility studies, when potential 

remedies are evaluated and the most appropriate and cost-effective cleanup technology is selected. 

In accordance with green remediation strategies, feasibility studies could include comparison of the 

environmental footprint expected from each cleanup alternative, including GHG emissions, carbon 

sequestration capability, and water drawdown (lowering of the water table or surface water levels). 

The subsequent design phase involves planning of the selected technology’s engineering aspects such 

as equipment sizing and integration. Energy consumption of remediation technologies ranges 

considerably, from soil excavation that requires virtually no mechanical integration or electrical power, 

to treatment trains involving media extraction and aboveground exposure to a series of electrically 

driven physical or chemical processes. In contrast to a “bottom up” approach, most cleanup 

technologies are designed through a series of equipment specifications requiring adjustment when 

components are integrated. Project solicitations for equipment and services should contain 

specifications regarding product efficiency, reliability, fuel consumption, air emissions, water 

consumption, and material content. 
Energy and Efficiency Considerations 

Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 21 

Equipment and vendor selection can maximize use of alternative 

fuel and renewable energy sources. Where alternatives are 

currently unavailable or infeasible, designs can document the 

project’s baseline energy demand for future reconsideration. 

Energy efficiency can be gained relatively simply by techniques 

such as insulating structural housing and equipment used to 

maintain certain process temperatures; installing energy recovery 

ventilators to maintain air quality without heat or cooling loss in 

treatment buildings; and weather-proofing system components that 

are exposed to outside elements. Electronic data systems for 

controlling and monitoring operations also provide significant opportunity to conserve energy, 

particularly in the multi-step processes commonly used for P&T. EERE has identified specific 

opportunities to identify and quantify energy efficiencies that might occur during pumping operations. 

Inefficiency symptoms include use of throttle-valve controls, cavitation noise or damage, continuous 

pumping to support a batch process, open bypass or recirculation lines, and functional changes of a 

system. [33] 

Selection of equipment and 

service providers must meet a 

project’s performance and 

cost requirements, giving 

preference to products and 

user techniques working 

together to reduce 

environmental footprints. 

 

Treatment system designs also should compare the environmental footprint left by alternate methods 

of managing process water, whether through re-injection to an aquifer, discharge to surface water, or 

pumping to a publicly owned wastewater treatment plant. Effective designs maximize every 

opportunity to recycle process fluid, byproducts, and water; reclaim material with resale value; and 

conserve water through techniques such as installation of automatic shut-off valves. To reduce 

impacts on water quality, construction designs can follow LID practices helping to infiltrate, 

evapotranspire, and re-use stormwater runoff in ways mirroring the site’s natural hydrology. 

Green remediation relies on maximizing efficiencies and reducing natural resource consumption 

throughout the duration of treatment. Upon process startup, tests are conducted to ensure the system 

is functioning as designed. For a technology such as in situ chemical oxidation, testing primarily 

involves ensuring that an injected material is reaching the target treatment zone. For a complex multicontaminant P&T system, however, numerous tests are conducted to ensure that flow rates for each 

process step are appropriate and that equipment is properly sized. 

Remedial system evaluations (RSEs) provide examples of BMPs already in place. EPA is conducting 

RSEs for operating P&T systems at Superfund-lead sites to: 

• Indicate whether the original monitoring or treatment system design is fully capturing the target 

contaminant plume, 

• Determine whether new monitoring or extraction wells are needed, 

• Recommend specific modifications to increase system performance and efficiency, and 

• Obtain cost savings from direct optimization or project management improvements. [34] 

RSEs often find that energy intensive equipment such as pumps and blowers are oversized or set at 

operating rates or temperatures higher than needed, resulting in excess energy consumption (U.S. 

EPA/OSWER, 2002). Evaluations such as these also help to remove redundant or unnecessary steps 

in a treatment process, consider alternate discharge or disposal options for treated water or process 

waste, and eliminate excess process monitoring. 
Energy and Efficiency Considerations 

22 Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 

Standard operating procedures for treatment systems should include frequent reconsideration of 

opportunities to increase operational efficiencies. System optimization should carry forward to longterm operation and maintenance (O&M) programs that ensure system components are performing as 

designed. Poorly operating or broken equipment should be repaired immediately to avoid treatment 

disruption and energy waste. 

Subsurface remediation generally changes dynamics of the natural system as well as distribution of 

contaminants. Changes might occur slowly, not becoming evident for several years. Periodic RSE 

helps to identify any subsurface changes, prompting modification to long-term treatment operations. 

Many years of P&T operations, for example, could change dynamics of plume behavior to the point 

where an outside extraction well that originally pumped contaminated water is later capturing clean 

water. In this case, shutdown of the 

extraction well will result in significant energy 

and cost savings. 

Profile: Havertown PCP Site, Havertown, PA 

Cleanup Objectives: Remediate shallow 

ground water containing metals, chlorinated 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 

benzene, and dioxins/furans 

Green Remediation Strategy: Conducted 

RSE evaluation of a 12-acre treatment area 

encompassing 

‐ Four recovery wells 

‐

‐ A pre-treatment system to break oil/water 

emulsion, remove metals, and remove 

suspended solids in extracted ground 

water 

One collection trench 

‐ An aboveground system employing three 

30-kW ultraviolet/oxidation (UV/OX) 

lamps, a peroxide destruction unit, and 

two granular activated carbon units to 

destroy or remove organic contaminants 

Results: 

‐ Removed two UV/OX lamps from the 

treatment line, based on RSE 

recommendations 

‐ Reduced annual operating costs by 

$32,000, primarily due to lower electricity 

consumption 

‐ Continues to meet cleanup criteria for 

ground water 

Property End Use: Undetermined 

Most remedies for soil and sediment (in situ

oxidation, thermal treatment, and 

solidification/stabilization) are short-term in 

nature but require continual optimization 

throughout operations. Optimization of a 

biological system ensures that geochemical 

conditions such as reduction/oxidation, 

electron donor availability, and oxygen 

content are maximized. 

In contrast to other soil and sediment 

technologies, SVE treatment results in 

contaminant loading that is initially high but 

decreases over time, prompting the need for 

frequent system modifications. Key 

opportunities for SVE optimization include 

(1) determining if any well in a manifold 

system is not contributing contaminants, and 

if so, taking the well offline, (2) operating 

pulsed pumping during off-peak hours of 

electrical demand, as long as cleanup 

progress is not compromised, and (3) 

considering alternative technologies with 

lower cost and energy intensity once the bulk 

of contamination is removed. The EPA, U.S. 

Air Force Center for Engineering and the 

Environment, Federal Remediation 

Technologies Roundtable, and Interstate 

Technology and Regulatory Council continue 

to develop tools such as checklists and case 

studies to help project managers optimize 

cleanup systems for all environmental media. 

[35-38] 
Energy and Efficiency Considerations 

Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 23 

■ Integrating Renewable Energy Sources 

Incorporation of alternative, renewable energy sources into site cleanup may reduce a project’s 

carbon footprint while offering other benefits: 

• Hedge against fossil fuel prices, with the potential for near- and long-term cost savings, 

• Lower demand on traditional energy sources, 

• Reduced need for emission controls related to onsite fossil fuel consumption, and 

• Opportunities for new energy markets and job creation when combined with site revitalization. 

Renewable energy sources can be used to meet partial or full demand of a treatment system. When 

meeting partial demand, a renewable energy system can be designed to power one or more specific 

mechanical components or to generally supplement grid electricity supplied to the entire treatment 

process. EPA’s Green Power Equivalency Calculator could be used to better understand and 

communicate the environmental benefits of directly or indirectly using electricity produced from solar, 

wind, geothermal, biogas, biomass, and low-impact small hydroelectric sources, otherwise known as 

“green power.” [39] 

Energy alternatives already available for remediation and revitalization 

include solar, wind, landfill gas, and waste-to-energy sources. 

Emerging technologies such as geothermal and tidal power also 

could be used for site-wide applications or as means to optimize 

treatment system components. Potential integration of renewable 

energy sources considers: 

Renewable energy 

industries estimate a 

current renewable 

energy capacity of 

550-770 gigawatts in 

the United States, with 

growth sufficient to 

meet at least 25% of 

the country’s electricity 

needs by 2025. 

(ACORE/ABA, 2008) 

 

• Natural resource availability, reliability, and seasonal variability, 

• Total energy demand of the treatment system, 

• Proximity to utility grids, and associated cost and time needed to 

connect to the grid, 

• Back-up energy sources for treatment or safety, 

• Cost tradeoffs associated with cleanup duration and economy of 

scale, and 

• Long-term viability and potential reuse. 

Renewable energy provides significant opportunities at sites that require long-term treatment, are 

located in remote areas, or involve energy intensive technologies such as P&T. Renewable energy 

systems can operate independently without connection to a utility grid (off-grid) or as interconnected 

systems tied to the utility power grid (inter-tie). Energy management tools can be used to monitor 

supply and demand, automatically shutting off or initiating grid power as desired. Hybrid systems 

combining capability of two or more renewable resources often provide the most efficient and costeffective option in rural areas or to achieve total energy independence. 

Off-grid systems are best suited to mechanical or infrastructure components with low or intermittent 

energy demands such as small pumps, communication systems, or the interior of small buildings. 

Cost effectiveness of off-grid systems significantly increases at remote sites, where extension of utility 

lines might be cost prohibitive or otherwise infeasible due to difficult access. As in all optimized 

engineering systems, effective renewable energy systems include climate control measures to minimize 

energy loss throughout the mechanical network. 
Energy and Efficiency Considerations 

24 Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 

Interconnection of renewable energy systems with the utility grid allows use of utility power when 

availability of a natural resource is low, without disruption to site cleanup operations. Excess energy 

produced by a small renewable energy system could be stored in batteries until needed or transferred 

to the grid for consumption by other users. Most states now require electric utilities to offer net 

metering, a service that enables renewable energy generators to receive utility consumption credit. 

The amount of excess electricity transferred to the grid could be directly measured through installation 

of an additional meter or generally monitored through visual observation of the primary utility meter 

“spinning backward.” DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is working with other 

government agencies and private industry to develop consistent standards for grid interconnection, 

system engineering, and power production market rules. 

Profile: Former St. Croix Alumina Plant, St. 

Croix, VI 

Cleanup Objectives: Recover hydrocarbons 

from ground water at a RCRA site 

Green Remediation Strategy: Uses a hybrid 

system employing solar and wind energy 

‐ Began operating four wind-driven turbine 

compressors in 2002 to drive compressed 

air into hydraulic skimming pumps 

‐ Installed three 55-watt photovoltaic 

panels in 2003 to power some recovery 

wells 

‐ Added three 110-watt photovoltaic 

panels and two wind-driven electric 

generators in 2006 to power a total of 

nine submersible total-fluid pumps and 

the fluid-gathering system 

‐ Recycles recovered petroleum product by 

transfer to an adjacent oil refinery for use 

as feed stock 

Results: 

- Recovered 228,000 gallons of freeproduct oil (approximately 20% of the 

estimated volume) by the end of 2006 

 - Avoids offsite transfer and disposal of 

petroleum product 

Property End Use: Industrial operations 

(U.S. EPA/OSWER, 2008(c)) 

Capital costs for renewable energy systems 

continue to decrease as technologies 

advance and as demand steadily increases 

but might prohibit their use in some 

projects. Costs can be lowered by taking 

advantage of federal and state rebates or 

tax credits or shared through reuse of 

equipment in other cleanup projects. 

Project decision-makers are encouraged to 

capitalize on 10-year renewable energy 

incentives now available to help capture 

long-term savings while strengthening 

community economics. 

Increasing numbers of regional 

partnerships are forming to help property 

owners install large utility-grade systems 

that can meet energy demands of onsite 

operations such as remediation, while 

receiving production tax credit and 

allowing sale of excess energy to the utility 

at wholesale price. Another mechanism is 

the power purchase agreement, which 

enables owners of large properties to lease 

land to a utility for installation and 

operation of a renewable energy network 

(typically solar or wind systems) while 

purchasing electricity at a considerably 

lower rate. These partnerships add to 

renewable energy portfolios maintained by 

state agencies and authorized utilities to 

help meet national goals. Accordingly, 

new generators of renewable energy are 

actively solicited by states working to meet 

the goals of renewable portfolios. [40] 
Energy and Efficiency Considerations 

Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 25 

Solar Energy 

Solar energy can be used in site cleanups through one or more methods involving photovoltaics (PV), 

direct or indirect heating and lighting systems, or concentrating solar power. PV technology easily 

lends itself to applications involving remote locations, a need for portability, or support for long-term 

treatment systems. This technology is already in place or under design at numerous sites. 

Profile: BP Paulsboro, Paulsboro, NJ 

Cleanup Objectives: Remove petroleum 

products and chlorinated compounds from 

surface and ground water near a Delaware 

River port 

Green Remediation Strategy: Uses a solar 

field to power P&T system extracting 300 

gallons of ground water per minute 

‐ Installed a 275-kW solar field 

encompassing 5,880 PV panels in 2003 

‐ Uses solar energy to operate six recovery 

wells including pump motors, aerators, 

and blowers 

‐ Transfers extracted ground water into a 

biologically activated carbon treatment 

system 

Results: 

‐ Supplies 350,000 kWh of electricity each 

year, meeting 20-25% of the P&T system 

energy demand 

‐ Eliminates 571,000 pounds of CO2 

emissions annually, equivalent to 

avoiding consumption of 29,399 gallons 

of gasoline 

‐ Prevents emission of 1,600 pounds of 

sulfur dioxide and 1,100 pounds of 

nitrogen dioxide each year 

‐ Provides opportunity for reuse and 

expansion of the PV system, with potential 

capital cost recovery if integrated into site 

reuse 

Property End Use: Port operations 

(U.S. EPA/OSWER, 2007(a))

PV cells consist of absorbing, semiconducting 

material that converts sunlight directly into 

electricity. Typically, about 40 PV cells are 

combined to form a module, or panel. 

Approximately ten of the modules are 

combined on a flat-plate PV array that might 

range several yards in size. An array could be 

mounted at a fixed angle facing south, or on 

a tracking device following the sun to allow 

maximum capture of sunlight over the course 

of a day. Six to 12 modules might meet all or 

part of a treatment system with low energy 

demand. In contrast, 10-20 arrays could be 

needed to power systems on the order of a 

small industrial facility or hundreds of arrays 

can be interconnected to form a single 

system. 

Use of solar energy at the Pemaco Superfund 

site in Maywood, CA, demonstrates the 

flexibility and capability of solar technology in 

helping to meet energy demands of aboveground treatment operations. Four PV panels 

with a total generating capacity of 3 kW were 

installed on the existing building, which 

houses a soil and ground water treatment 

system employing high-vacuum pumps, 

controls for electrical resistance heating, a 

granular activated carbon unit, and a hightemperature flameless thermal oxidizer. The 

PV system contributes a total of 375 kWh of 

electricity to the building operations each 

month, avoiding more than 4,300 pounds of 

CO2 emissions per year. After the first nine 

months of operation, solar energy had 

generated enough power to cover one month 

of the building’s electricity expenses for system 

controls and routine operations. Payback for 

PV capital costs is estimated at one year. 
Energy and Efficiency Considerations 

26 Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 

Aboveground treatment processes also can use solar thermal methods. These methods employ solar 

collectors such as engineered panels or tromb walls to absorb the sun's energy, providing lowtemperature heat used directly for space heating. In contrast, solar water heaters use the sun to 

directly heat water or a heat-transfer fluid in collectors. Industrial-grade solar heaters can be used to 

provide hot water and hot-water heat for large treatment facilities. 

Passive (non-mechanical) methods also could be used to heat treatment buildings, potentially 

reducing structural energy consumption by up to 50%. Buildings can be designed to include large 

spans of windows with southern exposure or constructed of materials with high mass value (high 

absorbency but slow heat release). Passive solar designs also include natural ventilation for cooling. 

Daylighting of treatment buildings can be enhanced through installation of conventional skylights or 

smaller “tubular skylights” constructed of reflective material. Also, parabolic solar collectors could be 

used to supplement electricity demands of fiber optic systems for treatment monitoring or data 

transfer. 

The potential for using active or passive solar energy to meet the energy demands of treatment 

processes throughout the year can be calculated using the site’s estimated insolation. An 

insolation value indicates the rate at which solar radiation is delivered to a unit of horizontal 

surface. Insolation values indicate radiation reflection or absorption by (1) flat-plate collectors 

facing south at fixed tilt (Figure 4), (2) single-axis (north/south) flat-plate collectors tracking from 

east to west, (3) two-axis flat-plate collectors tracking the sun in both azimuth and elevation, or (4) 

concentrating collectors using multiple axes to track direct solar beams. Technical assistance and 

more information is available from NREL and the American Solar Energy Society to help site 

managers determine whether the energy demands of site remediation as well as anticipated reuse 

could be met by solar resources. [41, 42] 

Figure 4. Estimates of 

U.S. annual solar 

resources indicate 

highest potential in the 

Southwest; in areas with 

lowest potential, 

resources remain 

equivalent to those of 

Germany, where solar 

energy is used routinely 

across business sectors. 

(U.S. DOE NREL, 

2008(a)) 

Concentrating solar power (CSP) systems provide significant opportunities at large sites undergoing 

cleanup and revitalization. CSP systems use reflective materials such as mirrors or parabolic troughs 

to concentrate thermal energy driving an electricity generator, or concentrated PV technology to 

directly provide electrical current. Large-scale CSP systems are under consideration at sites in 

southwestern portions of the United States. 
Energy and Efficiency Considerations 

Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 27 

Wind Energy 

Determining the potential for using wind energy to meet energy demands of a cleanup requires a wind 

resource assessment. The assessment involves collection of climatic data from an onsite or local 

weather station over the course of one year, although DOE’s wind resource data might be sufficient 

for small applications on relatively flat terrain. Wind speed is critical but wind shear and turbulence 

intensity also impact assessment results. Generally, the amount of power available by wind is 

proportional to the cube of wind speed; for example, a two-fold increase in wind speed increases the 

available power by a factor of eight. Wind energy is best suited to resource areas categorized as 

“Class 3” or higher on DOE’s scale of 1-7 (Figure 5). [43] 

Wind Power Classification 

 Resource Wind Speed 

 Potential (at 50 meters, 

 (annual) miles/hour) 

1 Poor 0.0-12.5 

2 Marginal 12.5-14.3 

3 Fair 14.3-15.7 

4 Good 15.7-16.8 

5 Excellent 16.8-17.9 

6 Outstanding 17.9-19.7 

7 Superb >19.7 

Figure 5. NREL annual wind 

resource mapping shows excellent 

potential in portions of the Great 

Plains, and outstanding potential 

in coastal areas or at high 

altitudes common to many mining 

sites requiring cleanup and reuse 

(U.S. DOE/NREL, 2008(b)). 

Results of the wind resource assessment are compared to the cleanup’s anticipated energy demand to 

determine whether wind energy would meet full or partial demand. Demands of low energy 

components such as small generators might be met by wind speeds of 6 miles per hour (mph), while 

activities such as ground water pumping generally require a wind speed above 9 mph. At sites with 

wind speeds averaging 12 mph, a small 10-kW wind turbine can generate approximately 10,000 

kWh annually (equivalent to avoiding CO2 emissions resulting from consumption of 882 gallons of 

gasoline). 

In addition to wind speed, output of a wind turbine significantly depends on a turbine’s size. Most 

small turbines consist of a rotor (encompassing the gearbox and blades) with diameters of less than 

10 feet, mounted on towers 80-120 feet in height. Due to the low number of moving parts, most 

small turbines require little maintenance and carry an estimated lifespan of 20 years. Small systems 

cost $3,000-5,000 for every kilowatt of generating capacity, or approximately $40,000 for a 10-kW 

installed system. 
Energy and Efficiency Considerations 

28 Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 

Treatment systems requiring compressed air 

could be powered by wind-driven electric 

generators. This type of generator employs a 

small turbine or windmill to capture, 

compress, and direct air to equipment such 

as hydraulic pumps. The generator typically 

is designed to allow blade rollup and 

repositioning during excessive wind, and can 

easily be lowered to the ground for routine 

maintenance. 

Profile: Former Nebraska Ordnance Plant, 

Mead, NE 

Cleanup Objectives: Remove 

trichloroethene and destroy explosives in 

ground water 

Green Remediation Strategy: Uses a 10-kW 

wind turbine to power ground water 

circulation wells for air stripping and UV 

tr atment e

‐ Calculated a total demand of 767 kWh 

each month for the circulation wells 

‐ Determined electricity demand could be 

met by site conditions including wind 

speed of 6.5 meters/second 

Results: 

‐ Provides sufficient energy for continued 

trichloroethene removal and explosives 

destruction by the aboveground treatment 

system during grid inter-tie operation 

‐

‐ Decreases CO2 emissions by 24-32% 

during off-grid operation of the system’s 

230-volt submersible pump 

‐

Results in no observable impacts on 

wildlife 

Returns surplus electricity to the grid for 

other consumer use 

‐

‐ Provides electricity cost savings expected 

to total more than $40,000 over the next 

15 years of treatment 

‐ Estimated that cost recovery time for 

turbine capital and installation could be 

cut in half by improved freeze-proofing of 

wells 

Property End Use: Continued agricultural 

research and development, residential, and 

commercial use 

(U.S. EPA/OSWER, 2007(b); University of MissouriRolla, 2005) 

Reduces consumption of utility electricity 

by 26% during grid inter-tie operation 

Increasing numbers of communities are 

examining opportunities for integrating 

renewable energy production into a 

contaminated site’s long-term viability and 

reuse. Site revitalization involving production 

of electricity for utility distribution requires 

installation of co-located utility-scale (100-

kW or more) turbines to form a wind farm 

(wind power plant). A wind farm is best 

suited to areas with wind speeds averaging at 

least 13 mph. A one-megawatt (MW) 

turbine can generate 2.4-3 million kWh 

annually; a 5-MW turbine can produce more 

than 15 million kWh annually. Capital and 

installation costs range according to factors 

including economy of scale and site-specific 

conditions such as terrain. 

Integration of utility-scale energy production 

in site reuse considers efficiencies as well as 

economic factors. Commercial wind turbines 

average a mechanical and electric 

conversion efficiency of approximately 90%, 

and an aerodynamic efficiency of 

approximately 45%. In contrast, the average 

efficiency of electricity generating plants in 

the United States averages approximately 

35%; over two-thirds of the input energy is 

wasted as heat into the environment. 

 

Over the last 20 years, the cost of electricity 

from utility-scale wind systems has dropped 

more than 80%, from an earlier high of 

approximately 80 cents per kWh. With the 

use of production tax credits, modern wind 

power plants can generate electricity for 4-6 

cents/kWh, which is competitive with the cost 

of new coal- or gas-fired power plants. 
Energy and Efficiency Considerations 

Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 29 

Design of a small wind system includes consideration of horsepower across the entire system to 

maximize efficiency. Ground water pumps, for example, typically operate at 50% efficiency, while 

turbine efficiency typically exceeds 90% and grid efficiency averages about 91% (U.S. DOE/EIA, 

2007). Efficiency can be enhanced by grid interconnection allowing higher start-up current to be 

drawn from the grid and by avoiding the need for storage batteries. 

Wind plants typically are designed in modules allowing for addition or subtraction of individual 

turbines as electricity demand changes. Construction of a 50-MW wind farm can be completed in six 

months, beyond the initial 12-18 months commonly needed for wind measurements and construction 

permits. 

For maximum efficiency, installation locations should be sufficiently distant from trees or buildings that 

potentially reduce speed of wind entering the turbine. Selection of turbine sites also considers 

potential impacts on sensitive environments made by turbine noise (commonly compared to a 

domestic washing machine) and public perceptions regarding aesthetics of turbine sizes. A typical 

100-kW turbine contains a rotor approximately 56 feet wide, while rotor width of a 1,650-kW turbine 

averages 233 feet. Height of a utility-scale tower ranges according to site conditions but generally is 

similar to rotor width. 

EERE estimates wind energy is the fastest growing energy generation technology, expanding 30-40% 

annually. NREL and the American Wind Energy Association offer technical assistance on evaluating 

and implementing wind systems. [44] 

Landfill Gas Energy 

Landfill gas (LFG) generated through decomposition of solid waste provides a potential source of 

energy at numerous sites across the country with abandoned or inactive landfills. LFG typically 

contains about 50% CO2 and 50% CH4. LFG-to-energy systems use extraction wells to capture gas 

before it enters the atmosphere or is burned as part of the landfill management process. Captured 

gas can be converted to an alternate fuel, to electricity for direct use, or to both electricity and thermal 

energy (co-generated heat and power, or CHP) for dedicated mechanical operations. [45] 

Conversion of LFG to electricity is possible through a number of technologies, depending on the scale 

of generation. Proven technologies include microturbines, internal combustion engines, gas turbines, 

external combustion engines, organic Rankine cycle engines, and fuel cells. Microturbines range in 

power from 30 kW to 250 kW (not exceeding 1 MW), internal combustion engines range from 100 

kW to 3 MW; and gas turbines range from 800 kW to 10.5 MW. Although combustion of LFG 

converts CH4 to CO2, the global warming potential of methane is 23 times higher than that of carbon 

dioxide. Increasing numbers of LFG applications involve development of aerobic digesters that rely 

exclusively on anaerobic bacteria to break down organic substances. 

Effective design of an LFG energy system includes adequate conditioning that ensures converted gas is 

free of vapor and remaining contaminants or impurities, and operational practices that minimize 

liquid waste streams. Performance and lifespan of a system depend on long-term availability and 

reliability of the methane as an energy resource. 
Energy and Efficiency Considerations 

30 Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 

Profile: Operating Industries, Inc. Landfill, 

Monterey Park, CA 

Cleanup Objectives: Remediate soil and 

ground water contaminated by a 145-acre 

inactive landfill 

Green Remediation Strategy: Convert LFG 

to electric power for onsite use 

‐

‐ Converts a LFG flow rate of 5,500 

standard cubic feet per minute, with a 

CH4 content of approximately 30% 

‐ Returns microturbine emissions to the 

existing gas treatment system to ensure 

contaminant removal 

Results: 

‐ Generates sufficient energy to meet 

approximately 70% of onsite needs 

including thermal oxidation, a 40-

horsepower gas blower, refrigeration 

units, and air-exchange systems 

‐ Saves up to $400,000 each year in gridsupplied electricity expenses 

Property End Use: Commercial/industrial 

operations or open space, pending 

Superfund close-out 

(U.S. EPA/OSWER, 2007(a)) 

Installed six 70-kW microturbines in 2002 

as part of the LFG collection system 

LFG energy systems benefit from economy 

of scale. For example, EPA estimates that 

the total installed cost for an LFG 

microturbine project falls from $4,000-

5,000 per kW for a small (30-kW) system to 

a cost of $2,000-2,500 per kW for systems 

rated 200 kW and higher. As of early 

2007, 424 LFG energy projects operated in 

the United States, producing a total 1,195 

MW of electricity. EPA estimates that an 

additional 560 landfills hold potential for 

converting LFG to productive use, with a 

total production potential of 1,370 MW of 

electricity. [46] This technology brings 

significant potential for reducing GHG 

emissions from landfills. The community of 

Shippensburg, PA, for example, anticipates 

that operation of its 6.4-MW LFG electricitygenerating system will prevent emission of 

39,000 tons of CO2 each year (an 

equivalency of one coal-fired power plant 

generating electricity for nearly 660,000 

homes). 

Waste-Derived Energy 

Waste-to-energy (WTE) systems convert 

solid waste into electricity, or in some cases 

liquid waste to alternative fuel. Large sites 

undergoing remediation provide 

opportunities for local communities to 

consider reuse options involving WTE 

facilities as a means to: 

• Reduce municipal landfill burdens posed by disposal of non-hazardous waste, 

• Provide an alternative to onsite landfill construction, 

• Procure a long-term source of renewable energy, 

• Decrease export of waste from communities with little or no landfill capacity to other facilities, 

often in other states, and 

• Provide employment opportunities. 

An average municipal WTE facility emits 837 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour; in contrast, coal, 

oil, and natural gas facilities emit over 2,000, 1,600, and 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour, 

respectively (Solid Waste Association of North America, 2005; U.S. EPA, 2008 online). DOE’s Energy 

Information Administration estimates that a total of 299 trillion British thermal units of energy were 

consumed by combustion of municipal solid waste in 2005 (U.S. DOE/EIA, 2008). Conversion of 

heat produced during this process is used increasingly to produce electricity. For example, Lee 

County, FL, recently expanded its existing 4 million-ton WTE combustion system to process an 
Energy and Efficiency Considerations 

Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 31 

additional 636 tons of municipal waste each day, resulting in production of an additional 18 MW of 

electricity. 

Capital and operating costs for WTE facilities are significantly higher than conventional landfill costs 

and typically are covered through local bonds. To ensure long-term viability, WTE facilities rely on an 

infrastructure that guarantees a minimum quantity of incoming solid waste. The estimated lifespan of 

a WTE facility is 40 years. [47] 

Developing and Evolving Energy Sources 

Green remediation relies on novel applications of emerging technologies within the context of site 

cleanup. Technologies for producing energy from previously untapped renewable resources are 

quickly moving from research facilities into the field, significantly increasing the options available for 

site revitalization. Integrated planning for site cleanup and reuse borrows principles used in this “next 

generation” of renewable energy technologies but also resurrects past methods for obtaining energy 

from natural resources such as “old-fashioned” windmills or small-scale hydropower. 

 

Geothermal power is energy generated by heat stored beneath the earth's surface, whether stored in 

shallow ground or in water and rock at depths extending several miles below ground surface. 

Temperatures in ground water and rock at subsurface depths up to 10 feet remain relatively constant 

at 50-60o

F, bringing potential for geoexchange systems to be used in remediation. Aboveground 

treatment methods can use this energy directly through installation of air exchange pumps to heat or 

cool building interiors. Heat removed from indoor air also could be used to elevate the temperature 

of water required in a treatment process. 

In contrast to heat exchange, new technologies for cold energy storage could help cool treatment 

processes and structures at sites located adjacent to cold water reservoirs. For example, the Halifax 

Regional Municipality began construction of a $3 million energy system retrofit in 2007 to meet peak 

air conditioning needs of buildings along the waterfront in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada. The 

system employs a borehole exchanger drawing cold air from 100 holes extending 600 feet below 

ground surface to tap energy from subsurface rock mass. 

Geothermal resources at greater subsurface depths could be considered to generate electricity for 

long-term cleanup as well as potential sale. Geothermal power plants currently coming into 

operation in western states tap reservoirs of water with temperatures of 107-182o

F, which are 

considerably lower temperatures than needed in past production. New plants operate at lower cost 

and greater efficiency, and emit significantly less CO2 than fossil fuel plants (less than 100 pounds per 

megawatt hour). Potentially adverse environmental problems posed by geothermal energy production 

include process operations requiring deep subsurface drilling and condensed steam re-injections to 

draw additional heat; changes in geological stability of a region; and decreasing temperatures of 

water reservoirs over time. [48] 

Tidal energy could provide opportunities at coastal sites undergoing long-term treatment. Although 

ocean tide has not yet been tapped for remediation purposes, small-scale variations relying on the 

flow of ground water and surface water are under evaluation. For example, DOE’s Savannah River 

National Laboratory field tested a passive siphoning system using a synthetic tube to induce ground 

water flow from a contaminated aquifer into a treatment cell containing reactive material. After 

passing through the treatment cell, water discharges to nearby surface water. System recharge, when 
Energy and Efficiency Considerations 

32 Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 

needed, can be accomplished easily through use of a solar powered vacuum pump to remove gas 

bubbles. This technology provides a passive, in situ alternative to P&T systems and could be used to 

improve performance of other low energy technologies such as permeable reactive barriers. 

Adaptations of conventional treatment technologies can take advantage of energy produced by other 

earth processes. Passive bioventing or passive SVE rely on natural venting cycles of the subsurface to 

create atmospheric pressure differences capable of inducing air flow (barometric pumping) for 

subsurface removal of nonchlorinated hydrocarbons. Effectiveness is enhanced through simple aircontrol equipment such as one-way valves preventing flow of air into venting wells. The U.S. Air Force 

Center for Engineering and the Environment is evaluating long-term efficiency of pressure-driven 

systems at numerous sites, including Hanford, WA, and Hill Air Force Base, UT. Pressure-driven 

systems do not require mechanical pumps or electrical blowers to draw volatile contaminants from soil 

and provide a low-cost approach for remediation polishing following use of energy-intensive 

remediation technologies. Applications are limited to sites with substantial swings in barometric 

pressures and are most effective under aerobic conditions in shallow, unsaturated soil. Passive 

pressure systems commonly require more venting wells than conventional systems and often require 

longer time to achieve cleanup goals. [49] 

The Savannah River National Laboratory is testing low power (20-40 watt) SVE systems powered by 

small PV modules, wind generators, or batteries. Pumps used in these applications are small and 

relatively unobtrusive (typically four by three inches in size) but might need replacement after one year 

of operation. Use of low power SVE is limited to long-term remediation polishing. [50] 

■ Low Energy Systems 

Passive energy remediation systems use little or no external energy to power mechanical equipment or 

otherwise treat contaminated environmental media. These systems commonly involve technologies 

such as bioremediation, phytoremediation, soil amendments, evapotranspiration covers, engineered 

wetlands, and biological permeable reactive barriers. Cleanup strategies can combine elements of 

these technologies to achieve novel hybrid systems, paving the way for yet more innovative 

applications. 

Carbon sequestration is the removal 

from the emission stream of CO2 or 

other GHG that would otherwise be 

emitted to the atmosphere. GHGs 

can be sequestered at the point of 

emission or removed from air, often 

referred to as carbon capture and 

storage. Emissions can be offset by 

enhancing carbon uptake in terrestrial 

ecosystems and subsequent carbon 

storage in soil. Vegetation serving as 

“carbon storage sinks” adds to the 

earth’s net carbon storage. [51]

To maximize remediation sustainability, passive energy 

systems should operate in conjunction with other core 

elements of green remediation such as water 

conservation and waste minimization; rely on energy 

efficient equipment during construction and monitoring; 

and consider use of renewable energy sources for 

auxiliary equipment. As in all cleanup actions, selection 

and implementation of remedies relying on passive 

energy technologies must account for short- and longterm environmental and cost trade-offs. Passive systems 

often require more time than aggressive, active energy 

systems to meet cleanup goals. 

These systems can serve as the primary means for treating 

contaminated media or as secondary polishing steps 

once the effectiveness of more energy intensive systems 
Energy and Efficiency Considerations 

Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 33 

begins to be outweighed by negative cost and environmental affects. Passive energy systems can 

increase terrestrial sequestration of CO2 and other GHG, resulting in a “co-benefit” of site 

remediation. Monitoring and controls are required, however, to minimize potential for these systems 

to act as atmospheric CO2 sources. For potential application in carbon offset programs becoming 

available in government and industrial 

sectors, systems must demonstrate 

permanence of atmospheric carbon 

sequestration as well as the amount of carbon 

being newly sequestered. 

Profile: Umatilla Army Depot, Hermiston, 

OR 

Cleanup Objectives: Treat 15,000 tons of 

soil contaminated with explosives such as 

trinitrotoluene (TNT) and 

cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine (RDX) 

Green Remediation Strategy: Composted 

with locally obtained feedstock 

‐ Used windrow techniques involving 

placement of soil in lengthy piles 

‐ Periodically mixed soil with a mixture of 

cattle/chicken manure, sawdust, alfalfa, 

and potato waste 

‐ Mixed soil with feedstock inside mobile 

buildings to control fumes and optimize 

biological activity 

Results: 

‐

‐ Destroyed contaminant byproducts or 

permanently bound the byproducts to soil 

or humus, achieving non-detectable 

concentrations of explosives 

‐

‐ Saved an estimated $2.6 million 

compared to incineration, a common 

alternative for explosives treatment 

Provided $150,000 potential revenue 

from sale of humus-rich soil 

‐ Avoided significant fossil fuel 

consumption by an incinerator 

‐ Avoided fuel costs and consumption 

associated with transporting soil to an 

offsite incinerator or transferring ash 

generated by an onsite mobile incinerator 

Property End Use: Conversion under base 

realignment and closure 

(U.S. EPA/OSWER, 1997) 

Treated each 2,700-cubic-yard batch of 

soil in 10-12 days 

Passive energy systems inherently complement 

efforts to protect and restore ecological 

systems on contaminated lands, one of the 

core elements of green remediation. In 

addition to enhancing wildlife and vegetative 

habitat, ecological land use can provide 

features such as commercial riparian zones or 

recreational opportunities. Improved soil 

stability gained by ecological restoration also 

reduces erosion, slows and filters stormwater 

runoff, and reduces topsoil lost as dust during 

both remediation and reuse activities. 

Enhanced Bioremediation 

Enhanced bioremediation helps 

microorganisms degrade contaminants in 

soil, ground water, or sludge. In situ

applications involve subsurface injection of 

microbial enhancing substrates, which results 

in minimal disturbance to land or ecosystems 

and little fuel consumption. Ex situ 

bioremediation involves disturbance to upper 

soil layers and requires more field activity but 

avoids offsite disposal of contaminated soil 

and associated consumption of vehicular fuel 

for transport. Depending on the selected 

technique, ex situ bioremediation can 

produce significant amounts of nutrient-rich 

material available for onsite or potentially 

commercial offsite applications. 

In situ aerobic bioremediation typically is 

enhanced by injection of oxygen and/or 

moisture as well as compounds influencing 

media temperature and pH. The end product 

comprises primarily CO2 and water. In situ

anaerobic bioremediation processes typically 
Energy and Efficiency Considerations 

34 Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 

are enhanced by injection of an electron donor substrate such as vegetable oil to promote suitable 

conditions for microbial growth. If the appropriate contaminant-degrading microbes are not present 

in sufficient quantity, additional microbes will be injected (bioaugmentation). Some applications 

targeting ground water create flow-through bioreactors or permeable reactive barriers constructed of 

organic material. 

Ex situ bioremediation of soil may be conducted through a slurry process, whereby contaminated soil 

is excavated and mixed with water to suspend solids and provide contact with microorganisms. In 

contrast, solid-phase bioremediation involves placement of contaminated soil in a treatment cell or 

aboveground structure where it is tilled with water and nutrients. Land farming, biopiles, and 

composting are among the solid-phase bioremediation techniques producing enriched soil for 

potential use in landscaping and agriculture at revitalized sites. [52] 

 

Profile: Carswell Golf Course, Fort 

Worth, TX 

Cleanup Objectives: Biodegrade 

subsurface VOCs through reductive 

dechlorination and control contaminant 

migration 

Green Remediation Strategy: Planted 

660 cottonwood trees across 4,000 

square meters in 1996 to: 

‐ Establish root biomass promoting 

activity of indigenous microbes 

‐ Enhance transpiration of ground water 

through the trees, helping to control 

hydraulic gradient and downgradient 

migration of VOCs 

Results: 

‐ Produces virtually no process residuals 

‐ Reduced VOC concentrations in 

ground water approximately 65% 

within four years after the plantings, 

‐ Demonstrates increased treatment 

efficacy over time according to plant 

growth 

‐ Incurred costs of only $2,100 for 

plants and $10,000 for irrigation 

‐ Supported transfer of property to 

community as part of base closure, 

without disruption to ongoing activities 

Property End Use: Recreation 

[U.S. EPA/OSRTI, 2005] 

Ex situ enhanced bioremediation can play a 

significant role in green remediation by helping to 

rebuild organic content of soil, increase soil 

aeration, improve water infiltration, increase 

moisture retention, and stimulate vegetation 

growth. BMPs of green remediation include 

methods to control soil erosion and sediment 

transport through strategies such as topsoil 

stockpiling, installation of straw barriers, and 

placement of permeable ground cover to prevent 

soil compaction caused by heavy machinery. The 

practices also encourage air protection strategies 

such as use of clean fuel in on-road vehicles, 

retrofitting of diesel equipment, and minimal 

idling of heavy machinery. 

Phytoremediation 

Phytoremediation uses plants to remove, transfer, 

stabilize, or destroy contaminants in soil, 

sediment, and ground water. This technology 

encompasses all biological, chemical, and 

physical processes influenced by plants, including 

the root biomass (rhizosphere). Treatment 

mechanisms include: 

• Phytoextraction (phytoaccumulation and 

phytotranspiration) involving contaminant 

uptake by plant roots and subsequent storage 

or transpiration of contaminants in plant 

shoots and leaves, 

• Enhanced rhizosphere biodegradation, 

whereby contaminants break down in soil or 

ground water surrounding plant roots, 

• Phytodegradation, whereby plant tissue 

metabolizes contaminants, and 
Energy and Efficiency Considerations 

Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 35 

• Phytostabilization, whereby plants produce chemical compounds to immobilize contaminants at 

the root/soil interface. 

Plant communities used in phytostabilization can serve as significant carbon storage sinks. Carbon 

uptake during photosynthesis increases plant growth rate, in turn increasing biomass capability to 

capture and store atmospheric carbon. BMPs for phytoremediation rely on the use of native, 

noninvasive, and non-noxious plants. While selection of suitable plants is site-specific, vegetation with 

capability to treat contaminated soil or ground water includes common plants such as hybrid poplars, 

Bermuda grass, and alpine pennycress. Phytoremediation systems can be constructed and maintained 

at low cost, depending upon site characteristics and goals, and require minimal equipment once 

installed. 

LEED-based water efficiency goals for phytoremediation could include 50% use of non-potable water 

for irrigation, where needed. Methods to minimize water consumption include use of drip irrigation 

techniques, greywater reclaimed from industrial or small-scale potable water systems, and high 

efficiency equipment or climate-based controllers. 

Phytoremediation can be used to treat organic compounds through the process of mineralization, and 

heavy metals or other inorganic compounds through the processes of accumulation and stabilization. 

The technology can be applied in situ to soil, sediment, or ground water. Applications involving no 

accumulation of contaminants (and associated disposal of plants) particularly complement land use 

that is dependent on bioversity, such as greenspace. [53] 

Soil Amendments 

Soil amendments are organic materials that can be applied in situ to enhance contaminant 

biodegradation by subsurface microorganisms and to decrease availability of metal contaminants. 

Soil amendments help restore degraded lands and ecosystems by: 

• Improving water retention (resulting in enhanced plant growth and drought resistance) and other 

soil properties such as pH balance, 

• Supplying nutrients essential for plant growth, including nitrogen and phosphorous as well as 

essential micronutrients such as nickel, zinc, and copper, and 

• Serving as an alternative to chemical fertilizers that incur additional project costs and potentially 

introduce human health or environmental concerns. 

In contrast to the quick release of nutritional elements following application of inorganic fertilizers, 

organic nutrients in soil amendments are released slowly, resulting in more efficient plant uptake and 

subsequent growth. Nutrients bound in organic matter also are less water soluble, rendering them 

less likely to leach into ground water or migrate as runoff into surface water. The process of applying 

soil amendments can be completed at a relatively low cost and often produces soil for use in site 

redevelopment. Applications must include precautions, however, to avoid potential nutrient- or 

metals-loading that contributes to nonpoint pollution of other environmental media. 

“Biosolid recycling” of stabilized sewage sludge, which is increasingly used by municipalities as an 

alternative to incineration, provides a significant source of organic material needed to amend soil at 

hazardous waste sites. This approach converts organic wastewater treatment material into products 

for beneficial use such as bulk application in agriculture or pellets in commercial fertilizers. 

Generation and use of biosolids are subject to federal, state, and local requirements to ensure that 
Energy and Efficiency Considerations 

36 Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 

treatment systems sufficiently sterilize organic material; excess field application is avoided; sufficient 

post-application time is allowed before plant harvesting; and metal content is within safe levels. [54] 

Evapotranspiration Covers 

Profile: Upper Arkansas River, Leadville, 

CO

Cleanup Objectives: Restore soil and 

ecosystems severely degraded by past 

mining activities conducted upstream 

Green Remediation Strategy: Introduced 

biosolids and assorted soil amendments 

‐ Applied 100 dry tons (pellets) of 

biosolids to each of 20 target acres 

along an 11-mile stretch of the river 

‐ Mixed biosolids with lime to reduce soil 

acidity, consequently increasing plant 

viability and metal insolubility 

‐ Seeded native plants and quick-growing 

ryegrass 

‐

Added wood chips to reduce nitrogen 

(nutrient) leaching 

Added compost and woody material as 

additional plant nutrients 

‐

‐ Covered amended soil with native hay 

to promote plant growth and seeding 

Results: 

‐

‐ Reduced concentrations and 

bioavailability of zinc and other metals 

through bioremediation, 

phytoremediation, and solubility 

reduction 

Revegetated denuded acreages 

‐ Neutralized soil to levels supporting 

healthier ecosystems 

‐ Reduced soil erosion, river channel 

degradation, and property loss 

‐ Reestablished communities of native 

plants such as white yarrow and tufted 

hairgrass 

Property End Use: Agriculture and 

recreation 

Evapotranspiration (ET) covers are waste 

containment systems providing an alternative 

to conventional compacted-clay covers (caps) 

that might insufficiently prevent percolation of 

water downward through the cover to the 

waste. ET covers use one or more vegetated 

soil layers to retain water until it is transpired 

through vegetation or evaporated from the 

surface of soil. An ET cover also is known as 

a water balance cover, alternative earthen 

final cover, vegetative landfill cover, soil-plant 

cover, or store-and-release cover. These 

systems increase vegetative growth, help 

establish small wildlife habitat, and provide 

significant opportunities for CO2 capture and 

sequestration. 

Effective cover designs incorporate methods 

to control percolation and moisture buildup 

and to promote surface water runoff. ET 

covers rely on a soil layer’s capacity for water 

storage, instead of engineered material with 

low hydraulic conductivity, to minimize 

percolation. Cover designs emphasize use of: 

• Native vegetation to increase 

evapotranspiration, and 

• Local soil to streamline construction, 

minimize project costs, and avoid fuel 

consumption associated with imported 

soil. 

ET cover systems generally are constructed as 

monolithic barriers or capillary barriers. A 

monolithic cover (or monofill cover) uses a 

single vegetated layer of soil to retain water 

until it is either transpired through vegetation 

or evaporated from the soil surface. A 

capillary barrier cover system uses a similar 

clay layer typically underlain by sand or gravel 

to cause infiltrating water to wick at the layer 

interface. 
Energy and Efficiency Considerations 

Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 37 

Costs for construction could be 50% lower for 

ET covers than for conventional covers. O&M 

costs for an ET cover, however, depend heavily 

on site-specific factors such as the need for 

light irrigation of vegetation, nutrient additions, 

erosion and biointrusion controls, and related 

field work. Applications often involve higher 

energy consumption associated with increased 

O&M activity. These systems are anticipated to 

cover many small landfills in arid or semi-arid 

climates over the coming decade, particularly 

on military properties. [55] 

Profile: Fort Carson, Colorado Springs, 

CO 

Cleanup Objectives: Contain a 15-acre 

hazardous waste landfill 

Green Remediation Strategy: Installed a 

four-foot-thick monolithic ET cover 

‐ Applied biosolids from an onsite 

wastewater treatment plant 

‐

Revegetated with native prairie grass 

resistant to drought and disease 

Installed a layer of straw mulch to 

prevent erosion 

‐

‐ Provided uncompacted soil more 

conducive to plant growth than 

conventional earthen covers 

Results: 

‐

Reclaimed sludge otherwise destined for 

landfill disposal 

Reduced potential for desiccation 

‐

‐ Enhances visual aesthetics contrasting 

to adjacent asphalt cover 

‐ Saved nearly $1.5 million in 

construction costs compared to a 

conventional cover 

‐ Incurs annual O&M costs averaging 

$75,000, relatively higher than 

conventional covers 

Property End Use: Open space 

(McGuire, et. al., 2001) 

Engineered Wetlands

Wetlands serve as biofilters capable of 

removing solid or dissolved-phase 

contaminants from ground water via passage 

of water through the system, while using no 

external sources of energy. Engineered 

wetlands are semi-passive networks of 

constructed cells specifically designed to treat 

contaminants in surface and/or ground water. 

Engineered systems accelerate cleanup through 

use of auxiliary components for increased 

control and monitoring of the treatment cells, 

and consequently carry higher extrinsic energy 

demands. 

Wetlands contain rich microbial communities 

housed in sediment typical of marsh or 

swamps. In addition to biodegrading 

contaminants, engineered wetlands can 

eliminate discharge to a water treatment plant, 

create habitats important to healthy 

ecosystems, and enhance visual aesthetics of a 

degraded site through addition of greenspace. 

Traditionally, natural or engineered wetland applications were limited to treatment of stormwater and 

municipal wastewater. Increased demand for wetland-based treatment systems has resulted in 

technology advancements enabling applications for acid mine drainage, treatment process 

wastewater, and agricultural waste streams. Evaluation and preliminary design of engineered 

wetlands as a cleanup remedy requires early assessment of site-specific characteristics and 

remediation/reuse goals: 

• Confirming anticipated site reuse and determining whether use is compatible with a sustainable 

wetland, 

• Estimating the time needed to establish a wetland system, 
Energy and Efficiency Considerations 

38 Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 

• Identifying optimal biological and 

chemical treatment mechanisms, 

Green Remediation Strategy: Installed an 

engineered, radial-flow constructed 

wetland system 

‐ Designed wetland treatment cells for 

subsurface location to increase 

operational control, reduce offensive 

odors and insects, and avoid disruption 

of surface activity 

‐ Constructed treatment beds of crushed 

concrete reclaimed from demolition of 

the site’s former refinery 

‐ Insulated each treatment cell with a sixinch layer of mulch to withstand 

temperatures reaching -35o F 

‐ Installed native, emergent wetland 

plants such as bulrushes, switchgrass, 

and cordgrass in each treatment cell 

‐ Employed “Smart Growth” principles to 

complement site conversion for mixed 

use 

Results: 

‐

Achieves non-detectable concentrations 

of benzene and other hydrocarbons 

Treats up to 700,000 gallons of 

contaminated ground water each day 

‐

Operates year-round despite cold 

climate 

‐

‐Incurred construction costs totaling $3.4 

million, in contrast to $15.9 million for 

the alternative P&T system employing air 

stripping and catalytic oxidation 

Property End Use: Office park and 

recreation facilities including golf and 

kayak courses 

(Wallace, 2004) 

Cleanup Objectives: Remediate gasolinecontaminated ground water for 50 to 100 

years 

Profile: British Petroleum Site, Casper, WY 

• Avoiding use of non-native, invasive, or 

noxious plants, 

• Removing certain ground water 

contaminants such as mercury prior to 

wetland treatment, and closely monitoring 

the concentrations during treatment, and 

• Accounting for seasonal variance in 

system performance and maintenance. 

Designs need to account for future O&M 

needs, particularly for small-scale systems. If 

a wetland is used for buffering, rejuvenation is 

typically needed over time. Rejuvenation 

involves addition of buffering material such as 

limestone and removal of some sediment to 

maintain system grade. [56, 57] 

 

Biowalls

A permeable reactive barrier (PRB) is an in situ

ground water treatment technology that 

combines a passive chemical or biological 

treatment zone with subsurface fluid-flow 

management. PRB construction commonly 

involves subsurface placement of selected 

reactive media into one or more trenches 

perpendicular to and intersecting ground 

water flow. Passage of ground water through 

the barrier is driven by the natural hydraulic 

gradient, requiring no external energy. 

PRBs employing organic material as reactive 

media, otherwise known as “biowalls,” are 

used to treat ground water containing 

chlorinated solvents and other organic 

contaminants. Reactive media typically 

comprise readily available, low-cost materials 

such as mulch, woodchips, or agricultural 

byproducts mixed with sand. Enhanced 

microbial activity within the organic material 

stimulates contaminant biodegradation as 

water slowly passes through the barrier. 

Sequential breakdown of contaminants results 

in both aerobic and anaerobic zones of the 

treatment area. 
Energy and Efficiency Considerations 

Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 39 

Biowall installation involves varying degrees of 

soil excavation and field mobilization, 

depending on site and contaminant 

characteristics. Typical biowall dimensions are 

1.5-3 feet in width and 25-35 feet in depth, with 

variable length to accommodate width of the 

contaminant plume. Configurations could 

involve a single continuous trench or a series of 

trenches angled for maximum plume capture. 

Once installed, biowalls require little field work 

beyond routine monitoring. Periodic 

replenishment of the reactive medium can be 

accomplished by injecting soluble organic 

substrate such as common soybean oil. Due to 

the low cost of organic materials, biowalls can 

be installed for one-fourth to one-third the cost 

of PRBs using zero valent iron, a commonly used 

reactive medium. [58] 

Profile: Altus Air Force Base, OK 

Cleanup Objectives: Biodegrade a VOC 

hotspot 10-18 feet below ground surface 

in a remote location 

Green Remediation Strategy: Installed a 

10,000-square-foot subsurface biowall of 

organic material 

‐ Filled trenches with woody waste 

supplied by a local municipality and 

cotton gin trash obtained from the 

local cotton industry 

‐ Relied exclusively on power from a 

200-watt PV array to recirculate 

ground water 

‐ Employed a small submersible pump 

designed for solar applications and 

suitably sized for low rates of ground 

water transfer 

Results: 

‐

‐ Transfers 1,300 cubic meters of 

carbon-enriched leachate into the 

aquifer each year 

‐

Avoided significant cost for connection 

to the electricity grid 

Maintains a ground water flow rate of 

928 gallons each day 

‐

‐ Incurred capital costs of only $2,300 

for the pump/solar system 

‐ Provided a low-maintenance 

alternative for potentially extended 

cleanup duration 

‐ Provides opportunity of re-using solar 

equipment (with 20- to 30-year 

lifespan) at other locations or sites 

Property End Use: Continued military 

operations 

(U.S. EPA/OSWER, 2007(c)) 

Demonstrates continued 

biodegradation of VOCs 

Operating on the same principles as a biowall, 

a “bioreactor” additionally integrates a 

recirculation system to transfer downgradient 

water to the trench filled with organic media. 

Nutrient-rich leachate exiting the bioreactor is 

transferred continuously to the aquifer. Ground 

water pumping from the collection trench can 

be powered by renewable energy sources due to 

the low rate of water exchange required. 

Monitored Natural Attenuation 

Monitored natural attenuation (MNA) relies on 

nature’s biological, chemical, or physical 

processes to reduce the mass, toxicity, mobility, 

volume, or concentration of contaminants in 

environmental media under favorable 

conditions. MNA uses an in situ approach 

involving close control and monitoring to 

achieve remediation objectives within a 

reasonable time frame. MNA processes include 

biodegradation, dispersion, dilution, sorption, 

volatilization, radioactive decay, and chemical 

or biological stabilization, transformation, or 

destruction of contaminants; degradation or 

destruction is preferred. 
Energy and Efficiency Considerations 

40 Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 

MNA is suited for sites with low potential for contaminant migration and where application ensures 

that all remedy selection criteria are met. MNA can be combined with aggressive remediation 

measures such as ground water extraction and treatment or used as a polishing step following such 

measures. Advantages of MNA generally include: 

• Less remediation-generated waste, reduced potential for cross-media transfer of contaminants, 

and reduced risk of onsite worker exposure to contaminants, 

• Less environmental intrusion and smaller treatment-process footprints on the environment, and 

• Potentially lower remediation costs compared to aggressive treatment technologies. 

When compared to aggressive treatment systems, potential disadvantages of MNA include: 

• More complex and costly site characterization, longer periods needed to achieve remediation 

objectives, and more extensive performance monitoring (with associated energy consumption), 

• Continued contamination migration or renewed contaminant mobility caused by hydrologic or 

geochemical changes, and 

• Institutional controls to ensure long-term protectiveness and more public outreach to gain 

acceptance. [59] 
Tools and Incentives 

Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 41 

Section 5: Tools and Incentives 

Growing numbers of tools and incentives are available to site remediation and redevelopment 

managers for planning, financing, and implementing green projects. Several programs within EPA's 

Clean Energy initiative provide technical assistance and policy information, foster creation of 

public/private networks, and formally recognize leading organizations that adopt clean energy policies 

and practices. [http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy] 

• The Green Power Partnership helps organizations to buy green power designed to expand the 

market of environmentally preferable renewable energy sources. 

[http://www.epa.gov/greenpower] 

• State Utility Commission Assistance is offered to utility regulators exploring increased use of 

renewable resources for energy production, energy efficiency, and clean-distributed generation 

such as co-generated heat and power. [http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energyprograms/suca.html] 

• The National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency engages public/private energy leaders (electric 

and gas utilities, state utility regulators and energy agencies, and large consumers) to document a 

set of business cases, BMPs, and recommendations designed to spur investment in energy 

efficiency. [http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-programs/napee/index.html] 

• The Clean Energy-Environment State Partnership Program and Clean Energy-Environment 

Municipal Network support development and deployment of emerging technologies that achieve 

cost savings through energy efficiency in residential and commercial buildings, municipal facilities, 

and transportation facilities. [http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-programs/state-andlocal/index.html] 

EPA’s Environmentally Responsible Redevelopment and Reuse (“ER3”) Initiative uses enforcement 

incentives to encourage developers, property owners, and other parties to implement sustainable 

practices during redevelopment and reuse of contaminated sites. 

[http://www.epa.gov/compliance/cleanup/redevelop/er3/] 

As lead agency for federal energy policy, DOE continues to expand and establish new programs 

aimed at reducing the use of non-renewable energy sources and increasing energy efficiency. 

• EERE offers grants or cooperative agreements to industry and outside agencies for renewable 

energy and energy efficiency research and development. Assistance is available in the form of 

funding, property, or services. In fiscal year 2004, EERE awarded $506 million in financial 

assistance. [http://www1.eere.energy.gov/financing/types_assistance.html] 

• EERE also provides grants to state energy offices for energy efficiency and renewable energy 

demonstration projects as well as analyses, evaluation, and information dissemination. 

[http://www.eere.energy.gov/state_energy_program/] 

State and local mechanisms are evolving quickly to meet national energy goals for the coming 

decades. State renewable energy portfolios help meet these goals by offering (1) third-party funding 
Tools and Incentives 

42 Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 

mechanisms that support public/private partnerships for generation of electricity from renewable 

resources, (2) reduced purchasing rates for electricity generated from renewable resources, and (3) tax 

credits for energy production from renewable resources. The Database of State Incentives for 

Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE) provides quick access to information about renewable energy 

incentives and regulatory policies administered by federal and state agencies, utilities, and local 

organizations. Information is updated frequently through a partnership among the North Carolina 

Solar Center, the Interstate Renewable Energy Council, and DOE. [www.dsireusa.org/] 

State authorities are working with commissioned utilities to develop a host of tools and incentives for 

using green practices. Programs in Minnesota and California demonstrate some of the mechanisms 

becoming available. 

• The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Green Practices for Business, Site 

Development, and Site Cleanups: A Toolkit provides online tools to help organizations and 

individuals make informed decisions regarding sustainable BMPs for use, development, and 

cleanup of sites. [http://www.pca.state.mn.us/programs/p2-s/toolkit/index.html]

• The State of California Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) provides incentives for 

installation of renewable energy systems and rebates for systems sized up to 5 MW. Qualifying 

technologies include PV systems, microturbines, fuel cells, and wind turbines. 

[http://www.pge.com/selfgen/]
Future Opportunities 

Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 43 

Section 6: Future Opportunities 

Significant opportunities exist to increase sustainability of site remediation while helping to meet 

national, regional, and state or local goals regarding natural resource conservation and climate 

change. Decision-makers are encouraged to take advantage of newly demonstrated or emerging 

technologies and techniques in ways that creatively meet the objectives of site cleanup as well as 

revitalization. Effective green remediation can provide a range of new opportunities. 

► Building Stronger Communities

• Renew or form new partnerships among organizations and individuals with common 

environmental, economic, and social concerns, including energy independence, 

• Identify optimal methods that stakeholders can use to influence the direction of remediation and 

revitalization and to maintain an active voice throughout a project, and 

• Work more efficiently with local engineering firms involved in cleanup design, construction, and 

operations. 

► Expanding the Options for Site Reuse

• Evaluate options presented by a larger universe of potential developers, 

• Identify new solutions for unresolved site issues, and 

• Facilitate new incentives for current site owners. 

► Increasing Economic Gains

• Integrate new energy-related businesses into local and regional infrastructures, 

• Demonstrate specific technical needs to be met by commercial product and service vendors, and 

• Foster government initiatives that reward businesses employing sustainable practices. 

► Increasing Environmental Benefits of Cleanups

• Enhance environmental conditions beyond immediate target areas, 

• Participate in state and local initiatives collectively working to meet goals for natural resource and 

energy conservation, and 

• Showcase more sustainable cleanup and revitalization strategies that readily apply to other sites. 

Additional information on opportunities and tools for implementing green remediation is frequently 

uploaded to the EPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation’s CLU-IN Web 

page on Green Remediation (http://www.cluin.org/greenremediation). Future electronic updates to 

this primer also will be available on CLU-IN to share emerging information on green remediation. 
References 

44 Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 

Section 7: References 

ACORE (American Council on Renewable Energy) and ABA (American Bar Association). January 16, 

2008. Renewable Energy Seminar and Teleconference. 

Capital Research. 2005. Legislative History Report: H.R. 6 - the Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

http://www.capitolresearch.us/reports/2005energy_policy.html#exhibits

Executive Order 13423. January 24, 2007. Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and 

Transportation Management. http://www.ofee.gov/ 

McGuire, Patrick E., John A. England, and Brian J. Andraski. 2001. “An Evapotranspiration Cover 

for Containment at a Semiarid Landfill Site,” Proceedings of International Containment and 

Remediation Technology Conference and Exhibition. 

Solid Waste Association of North America. 2005. Jeremy O’Brien, Applied Research Foundation. 

Comparison of Air Emissions from Waste-to-Energy Facilities to Fossil Fuel Power Plants. 

U.S. DOE/EERE. July 2007. Federal Energy Management Program. Fact Sheet: Super ESPC – Just 

the Facts: Energy Savings Performance Contracting. 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/program/equip_procurement.html 

U.S. DOE/Energy Information Administration (EIA). July 2007. Annual Energy Review 2006, Diagram 

6: Electricity Flow, 2006. http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer

U.S. DOE/EIA. April 2008. Municipal Solid Waste: Table 7, Waste Energy Consumption by Type and 

Energy Use Sector, 2005. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/trends/table7.html

U.S. DOE/NREL. March 2008 (a). Solar Energy Resource Atlas of the U.S.: Annual Average Wind 

Resource Estimates. Compiled by Billy Roberts, NREL. 

U.S. DOE/NREL. March 2008 (b). Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the U.S.: 50 Meter Wind Power 

Resource. Compiled by Billy Roberts, NREL. 

U.S. EPA. 2008 [online]. Clean Energy: Municipal Solid Waste. 

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/municipal-sw.html

U.S. EPA/National Center for Environmental Innovation. March 2006. Sectors Program:

Performance Report 2006. EPA 100-R-06-002. http://www.epa.gov/ispd/performance.html

U.S. EPA/Office of the Chief Financial Officer. September 2006. 2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan. 

http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/plan.htm

U.S. EPA/OSRTI. November 2005. Cost and Performance Report: Phytoremediation at Naval Air 

Station – Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth, Fort Worth, TX. 

U.S. EPA/OSWER. October 1997. Innovative Uses of Compost: Composting of Soils Contaminated 

by Explosives. EPA 530-F-97-045. http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/compost/explosn.txt
References 

Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 45 

U.S. EPA/OSWER. December 2002. Elements for Effective Management of Operating Pump and 

Treat Systems. EPA 542-R-02-009. 

http://clu-in.org/techfocus/default.focus/sec/Remediation_Optimization/cat/Guidance/page/3/

U.S. EPA/OSWER. 2004. Cleaning Up the Nation’s Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends. 

EPA 542-R-04-015. http://www.cluin.org/market/

U.S. EPA/OSWER. December 2006. Final Report, Pilot Region-Based Optimization Program for 

Fund-Lead Sites in EPA Region 3: Site Optimization Tracker, Havertown PCP Site, Havertown, 

Pennsylvania. EPA 542-R-06-006j. 

http://clu-in.org/search/default.cfm?search_term=Havertown+PCP&t=all&advlit=0

U.S. EPA/OSWER. August 2007 (a). Green Remediation and the Use of Renewable Energy Sources 

for Remediation Projects. Amanda Dellens, National Network for Environmental Management Studies 

Fellow, Case Western Reserve University. http://cluin.org/s.focus/c/pub/i/1474/

U.S. EPA/OSWER. May 2007 (b). “Wind Turbine Cost Study Shows Need for Redesigned GroundWater Remediation Systems,” Technology News and Trends. EPA 542-N-06-009. 

http://clu-in.org/products/newsltrs/tnandt/view.cfm?issue=0507.cfm#1

U.S. EPA/OSWER. May 2007 (c). “Solar Power Recirculates Contaminated Ground Water in LowEnergy Bioreactor,” Technology News and Trends. EPA 542-N-06-009. 

http://clu-in.org/products/newsltrs/tnandt/view.cfm?issue=0507.cfm#1

U.S. EPA/OSWER. April 2008 (a). “Integrated Technology Approach Used to Remediate Site 

Contaminated by 56 Chemicals,” Technology News and Trends. EPA 542-N-08-002. 

http://cluin.org/products/newsltrs/tnandt/

U.S. EPA/OSWER. April 2008 (b). Energy Consumption and Carbon Dioxide Emissions at Superfund 

Cleanups. http://www.cluin.org/greenremediation 

U.S. EPA/OSWER. April 2008 (c). Green Remediation online. Profiles of Green Remediation: 

Former St. Croix Alumina, St. Croix, VI. http://clu-in.org/greenremediation/subtab_d7.cfm

U.S. EPA/Office of Water. December 2007. Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low Impact 

Development (LID) Strategies and Practices. EPA 841-F-07-006. 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lid/costs07/

University of Missouri-Rolla. 2005. Ground Water Remediation Powered by a Renewable Energy 

Source. In collaboration with EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Kansas City District. 

http://clu-in.org/greenremediation/tab_c.cfm

Wallace, Scott. September/October 2004. “Engineered Wetlands Lead the Way,” Land and Water. 

http://www.landandwater.com/features/vol48no5/vol48no5_1.php
General Resources 

46 Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 

Section 8: General Resources 

Expanding numbers of technical, planning, and financial resources for implementing green 

remediation are available from federal or state agencies, academic organizations, and sector-specific 

trade associations. The following documents and online resources provided key information for this 

primer and are readily available to readers interested in learning more about specific topics. 

1. U.S. EPA online. Sustainability. http://www.epa.gov/sustainability/index.htm

2. U.S. EPA online. Climate Change. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

3. U.S. DOE/EERE Federal Energy Management Program. January 2008. 2007 Federal Energy 

Management Program (FEMP) Renewable Energy Requirement Guidance for EPACT 2005 and 

Executive Order 13423 Final. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/

4. U.S. DOE/EERE Federal Energy Management Program. January 2008. DOE Supplemental 

Guidance to the Instructions for Implementing Executive Order 13423, “Strengthening Federal 

Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management.” Establishing Baseline and Meeting 

Water Conservation Goals of Executive Order 13423. January 2008. 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/

5. National Ground Water Association online. Ground Water Protection and Management Critical 

to the Global Climate Change Discussion. 

http://www.ngwa.org/PROGRAMS/government/issues/climate.aspx

6. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act: 42 U.S.C. § 9601–

9675. 

7. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan: 40 CFR 300(e)(9). 

8. Energy Policy Act of 2005. August 8, 2005. Public Law 109-48. http://thomas.loc.gov/

9. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. December 19, 2007. Public Law 110-140. 

http://thomas.loc.gov/

10. U.S. DOE online. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. http://www.eere.energy.gov

11. U.S. Green Building Council online. LEED. 

http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=19

12. U.S. DOE/EPA online. Energy Star. http://www.energystar.gov/

13. U.S. EPA online. GreenScapes. http://www.epa.gov/greenscapes/

14. Smart Growth Network online. Principles of Smart Growth. 

http://www.smartgrowth.org/about/principles/default.asp?res=1680

15. National Institute of Building Sciences online. Federal Green Construction Guide for Specifiers. 

http://www.wbdg.org/design/greenspec.php

16. General Services Administration online. Go Green: GSA Environmental Initiatives. 

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/home.do?tabId=10

17. U.S. EPA online. Sector Strategies Program. http://www.epa.gov/ispd/

18. Piedmont Biofuels online. http://biofuels.coop/coop/
General Resources 

Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 47 

19. U.S. EPA/OSWER. May 1991. Management of Investigation Derived Waste During Site 

Inspections. OERR Directive 9345.3-02. EPA 540/G91/009. 

http://nepis.epa.gov/EPA/html/pubs/pubtitleoswer.htm

20. U.S. EPA/OSWER. 1992. Guide to Management of Investigation-Derived Wastes. Directive 

9345.3-03FS. Triad Resource Center [online]. http://triadcentral.org

21. ITRC online. Diffusion/Passive Sampler Documents. http://www.itrcweb.org/gd_DS.asp

22. Triad Resource Center online. http://triadcentral.org

23. U.S. EPA online. Clean Construction USA: Construction Air Quality Language. 

http://www.epa.gov/diesel/construction/contract-lang.htm

24. U.S. EPA/Region 9 online. Cleanup – Clean Air Initiative. 

http://www.epa.gov/region09/cleanup-clean-air/

25. U.S. EPA/National Center for Environmental Innovation. March 2007. Cleaner Diesels: Low 

Cost Ways to Reduce Emissions from Construction Equipment. 

http://www.epa.gov/sectors/construction/

26. U.S. EPA online. Clean Energy: Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator. 

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html

27. U.S. EPA. Polluted Runoff (Nonpoint Source Pollution): Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low 

Impact Development (LID) Strategies and Practices. EPA 841-F-07-006. 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lid/costs07/

28. U.S. EPA online. Effluent Limitation Guidelines. 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/index.html

29. U.S. EPA/OSWER. August 2007. Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore 

Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers. EPA 540K07001. 

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/integrating.htm

30. U.S. EPA online. Eco Tools: Tools for Ecological Land Reuse. 

http://cluin.org/products/ecorestoration/

31. U.S. EPA online. Municipal Waste: Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle. 

http://www.epa.gov/msw/reduce.htm

32. U.S. EPA online. Clean Energy: Power Profiler. http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-andyou/how-clean.html

33. U.S. DOE/EERE online. Industrial Technologies Program: Pumping System Assessment Tool. 

http://www.eere.energy.gov

34. U.S. EPA Technology Innovation Office and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. CLU-IN Online 

Seminar: Remediation System Evaluations and Optimization of Pump and Treat Projects. 

http://clu-in.org/s.focus/c/pub/i/826/

35. U.S. EPA online. Remediation System Optimization. http://clu-in.org/rse

36. U.S. Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment online. Remedial Process 

Optimization. http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil/products/rpo/default.asp

37. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable online. Remediation Optimization. 

http://www.frtr.gov/optimization
General Resources 

48 Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites 

38. ITRC online. Remediation Process Optimization Documents. 

http://www.itrcweb.org/gd_RPO.asp

39. U.S. EPA online. Green Power Partnership: Green Power Equivalency Calculator. 

http://www.epa.gov/grnpower/pubs/calculator.htm

40. U.S. DOE/NREL online. Science and Technology. http://www.nrel.gov/

41. U.S. DOE/NREL online. Solar Research. http://www.nrel.gov/solar/

42. American Solar Energy Society online. http://www.ases.org/index.htm

43. U.S. DOE/NREL online. Wind Research. http://www.nrel.gov/wind/

44. American Wind Energy Association online. http://www.awea.org/faq/

45. U.S. EPA online. Combined Heat and Power Partnership. http://www.epa.gov/chp/

46. U.S. EPA online. Landfill Methane Outreach Program. http://www.epa.gov/landfill/

47. U.S. DOE/EERE online. State Activities and Partnerships: Waste-to-Energy Projects Gain 

Momentum in the United States 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/states/state_news_detail.cfm/news_id=10404/state=AL

48. Idaho National Laboratory online. Geothermal Energy. http://geothermal.inel.gov/

49. U.S. DOD Environmental Security Technology Certification Program. March 2006. Design 

Document for Passive Bioventing. ESTCP Project: ER-9715. 

http://www.cluin.org/techfocus/default.focus/sec/Bioventing%5Fand%5FBiosparging/cat/Guida

nce/

50. Savannah River National Laboratory online. Tech Transfer: Environmental Remediation. 

http://www.srs.gov/general/busiops/tech-transfer/

51. U.S. EPA online. Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Forestry. 

http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/

52. U.S. EPA online. CLU-IN Technology Focus: Bioremediation of Chlorinated Solvents. 

http://clu-in.org/techfocus/

53. U.S. EPA online. CLU-IN Technology Focus: Phytoremediation. 

http://clu-in.org/techfocus/default.focus/sec/Phytoremediation/cat/Overview/

54. U.S. EPA/OSWER. December 2007. The Use of Soil Amendments for Remediation, 

Revitalization, and Reuse. EPA 542-R-07-013. http://www.clu-in.org/s.focus/c/pub/i/1515/

55. U.S.EPA/OSWER. September 2003. Evapotranspiration Landfill Cover Systems Fact Sheet. EPA 

542-F-03-015. http://www.clu-in.org/download/remed/epa542f03015.pdf

56. U.S. EPA online. Constructed Wetlands. 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/watersheds/cwetlands.html 

57. ITRC online. Constructed Treatment Wetlands Documents. http://www.itrcweb.org/gd_CW.asp

58. U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, Environmental Restoration Technology Transfer 

(ERT2) online. Permeable Mulch Biowalls. 

http://www.ert2.org/PermeableMulchBiowalls/tool.aspx

59. U.S. EPA online. CLU-IN Technology Focus: Natural Attenuation. 

http://clu-in.org/techfocus/default.focus/sec/Natural%5FAttenuation/cat/Overview/