Comparison of the secondary environmental impacts of three remediation alternatives for a diesel-contaminated site in northern Canada

Soil and Sediment Contamination

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 338-355

  Sanscartier, David ^a   Margni, Manuele ^b   Reimer, Ken ^a   Zeeb, Barbara ^a  

^a ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE OF CANADA   (Canada)

^b ÉCOLE POLYTECHNIQUE DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Contaminated soil; Environmental impacts; LCA; Life cycle analysis; Petroleum hydrocarbons; Site remediation

Indexed keywords

CONTAMINATED SOIL; CONTAMINATED SOILS; LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS; PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS; SITE REMEDIATION;

BIOREMEDIATION; CONTAMINATION; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; HYDROCARBONS; LAND RECLAMATION; LIFE CYCLE; PETROLEUM CHEMISTRY; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; SOIL POLLUTION; SOILS;

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT;

EID: 77951698847     PISSN: 15320383     EISSN: 15497887     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15320381003695256     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Aislabie, J., Saul, D.J., and Foght, J.M. 2006. Bioremediation of hydrocarbon-contaminated polar soils. Extremophiles 10, 171-179.
2. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP). 1998. AMAP Assessment Report: Arctic Pollution Issues, Oslo, Norway.
3. Bezama, A., Szarka, N., Wolfbauer, J., and Lorber, K.E. 2007. Application of a balanced scorecard system for supporting decision-making in contaminated sites remediation. Water Air Soil Pollut. 181,3-16.
4. Bjorklund, A.E. 2002. Survey of approaches to improve reliability in LCA. Int. J. LCA 7, 64-72.
5. Blanc, A., Métivier-Pignon, H., Gourdon, R. and Rousseaux, P. 2004. Life cycle assessment as a tool for controlling the development of technical activities: application to the remediation of a site contaminated by sulfur. Advances in Environmental Research 8, 613-627.
6. Cadotte, M., Deschênes, L., and Samson, R. 2007. Selection of a remediation scenario for a dieselcontaminated site using LCA. Int. J. LCA 12, 239-251.
7. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2000. Canada-Wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs) in Soil: Scientific Rationale-Supporting Technical Document, Winnipeg, MB.
8. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2001. Canada-Wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs) in Soil, Winnipeg, MB.
9. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2008. Canada-Wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs) in Soil-Technical Supplement, Winnipeg, MB.
10. Cookson, J.T., Jr. 1995. Bioremediation Engineering, Design and Application. McGraw-Hill, New York.
11. Diamond, M.L., Page, C.A., Campbell, M., McKenna, S., and Lall, R. 1999. Life-cycle framework for assessment of site remediation options: method and generic survey. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18,788-800.
12. Dobson, R., Schroth, M.H., Schuermann, A., and Zeyer, J. 2004. Methods to assess the amenability of petroleum hydrocarbons to bioremediation. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 23, 929-937.
13. Edwards, D.A., Andriot, M.D., Amoruso, M.A., Tummey, A.C., Bevan, C.J., Tveit, A., Hayes, L.A., Youngren, S.H., and Nakles, D.V. 1997. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Criteria Working Group Series Vol. 4-Development of Fraction Specific Reference Doses (RfDs) and Reference Concentrations (RfCs) for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), Amherst Scientific Publishers, Amherst, MA.
14. Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable (FRTR). 2002. Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide, Version 4.0. http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/section1/toc.html, accessed Nov 2008.
15. Godin, J., Ménard, J.F., Hains, S., Deschênes, L., and Samson, R. 2004. Combined use of life cycle assessmentandgroundwatertransportmodelingtosupportcontaminatedsitemanagement.Hum. Ecol. Risk. Assess. 10, 1099-1116.
16. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador (HOANL). 2003. Newfoundland and Labrador regulation 65/03-Environmental Control Water and Sewage Regulations, St. John's, NL.
17. Humbert, S., Margni, M., and Jolliet, O. 2005. IMPACT 2002+: User Guide Draft for version 2.1, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland.
18. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 2006. ISO 14040-Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Principles and Framework, Geneva, Switzerland.
19. Jacques Whitford Environment Ltd (JWEL). 2003. Final Report Tier II/III Risk Assessment RCMP Property, Hopedale, Labrador, St. John's, NL.
20. Jolliet, O., Margni, M., Charles, R., Humbert, S., Payet, J., Rebitzer, G., and Rosenbaum, R. 2003. IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int. J. LCA 8, 324-330.
21. Margesin, R., Zimmerbauer, A., and Schinner F. 2000. Monitoring of bioremediation by soil biological activities. Chemosphere, 40, 339-346.
22. Misselbrook, T.H., Sutton, M.A., and Scholefield, D. 2004. A simple process-based model for estimating ammonia emissions from agricultural land after fertilizer applications. Soil Use Manage. 20,365-372.
23. Namkoong, W., Hwang, E.Y., Park, J.S., and Choi, J.Y. 2002. Bioremediation of diesel-contaminated soil during composting. Environ. Pollut. 119, 23-31.
24. Page, C.A., Diamond, M.L., Campbell, M., and McKenna, S. 1999. Life-cycle framework for assessment of site remediation options: case study. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18, 801-810.
25. Pouliot, Y., Pelletier, J.P., and Castonguay, P. 2007. Cleaning up and remediating Canadian Arctic contaminated sites: Current and future challenges. In: Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sites in Arctic and Cold Climates (Biggar, K., Guidard, S., Mullick, A., and Nahir, M., eds.), May 6-8, 2007, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB pp. 41-46.
26. Russell, A.J. 2006. Human and ecological risk assessment and life cycle assessment: Iitersections, collisions, and future directions. Hum. Ecol. Risk. Assess. 12, 427-430.
27. Sanscartier, D., Zeeb, B., Koch, I., and Reimer, K. 2009. Bioremediation of diesel-contaminated soil by heated and humidified biopile system in cold climates. Cold Reg. Sci. Technol. 55, 167-173.
28. Snape, I., Riddle, M.J., Filler, D.M., and Williams, P.J. 2003. Contaminants in freezing ground and associated ecosystems: key issues at the beginning of the new millennium. Polar Record. 39, 291-300.
29. Suer, P., Nilsson-Paledal, S., and Norrman, J. 2004. LCA for site remediation: a literature review. Soil Sediment Contam. 13, 415-425.
30. Tellez, G.T., Nirmalakhandan, N., and Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. 2004. Kinetic evaluation of a field-scale activated sludge system for removing petroleum hydrocarbons from oilfield-produced water. Environ. Prog. 24, 96-104.
31. Toffoletto, L., Deschênes, L., and Samson R. 2005. LCA of ex-situ bioremediation of diesel-contaminated soil. Int. J. LCA 10, 406-416.
32. Toffoletto, L., Bulle, C., Godin, J., Reid, C., and Deschênes, L. 2007. LUCAS-A new LCIA method used for a Canadian-specific context. Int. J. LCA 12, 93-102.
33. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2005. NONROAD Model. Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/nonrdmdl.htm, accessed July 2008.
34. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008a. Integrated Risk Information System. Washington, DC. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.cfm, accessed Sept 2008.
35. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008b. ECOTOX Database. Duluth, MN. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/, accessed Sept 2008.
36. Volkwein, S., Hurtig, H.W., and Klopffer, W. 1999. Life cycle assessment of contaminated sites remediation. Int. J. LCA 4, 263-274.