Debunking myths about sustainable remediation

Abstract

Sustainable remediation concepts have evolved during the decade 2007-2017. From the establishment of the first Sustainable Remediation forum (SURF) in 2007, to publication of ASTM andISO standards by 2017. Guidance has been developed around the world to reflect local regulatory systems, and much has been learned in applying sustainability assessment to contaminated site management projects. In the best examples, significant improvements in project sustainability have been delivered, including concurrent reduction of the environmental footprint of the remediation program, improved social performance, and cost savings and/or value creation. The initial advocates for the concept of sustainable remediation were quickly supported by early adopters who saw its potential to improve the remediation industry's performance, but they also had to overcome some inertia and scepticism from other parties. During the debates and discussions that occurred at numerous international conferences and SURF workshops around the world, various opinions were formed and positions stated. Some proved to be correct, others not so. With the recent publication of ISO Standard 18504 and the benefit of a decade's-worth of hindsight on sustainable remediation programs implementation and project delivery, this paper summarizes a number of myths and misunderstandings that have been stated regarding sustainable remediation and seeks to debunk them. Sustainable remediation assessment shows us how to manage unacceptable risks to human health and the environment in the best, that is to say the most sustainable, way. It provides the contaminated land management industry a framework to incorporate sustainable development principles into remediation projects and deliver significant value for affected parties and society more broadly. In dispelling some myths about sustainable remediation set out in this paper, it is hoped that consistent application of ISO18504/SuRF-UK (or equivalently robust guidance) will facilitate even wider use of sustainable remediation around the world.

A sustainability assessment of an in situ ultrasonic reactor for remediation of PFAS‐contaminated groundwater

“…Regardless of who pays, and even if they are willing to pay a relatively large sum, the ideal scenario still minimizes costs. According to Smith (2019), historically, when human health is concerned, public pressure has often meant no remediation system can be implemented quickly enough, even if the system is not fully optimized for the site or has environmental impacts greater than those it relieves. For emerging contaminants with high levels of public scrutiny these situations are more apt to occur.…”

Greening the Browns: A Bio-Based Land Use Framework for Analysing the Potential of Urban Brownfields in an Urban Circular Economy

“…Despite being quick and safe in terms of contaminant removal, conventional remediation processes may cause a lot of secondary negative impacts due to the remedial activity, e.g., traffic risks due to transport, emissions of CO 2 , noise, and the consumption of non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels and gravel as refilling material [51][52][53]. The international consensus on promoting alternative, more sustainable methods and low cost, low impact remedial measures for bringing abandoned brownfields back into use is growing [53][54][55]. For example, the UK Sustainable Remediation Forum (SuRF-UK) framework adopts a multiple stakeholder approach to assess the sustainability of remediation action by reviewing and evaluating a wider set of benefits and impacts [56].…”

Sustainability assessment framework and indicators developed by SuRF‐UK for land remediation option appraisal

“…It is based on the precedent that previous Superfund decision‐making had already considered social and economic factors. Hence, just taking its rationale on “face‐value”, outside of the Superfund context it is an incomplete treatment of sustainability as social and economic elements are not fully considered (Smith, 2019). A recent review of several case studies in Sweden suggests that the wider economic and social effects of remediation can have a strong impact on practical decision‐making over remedial choices (Anderson et al, 2018).…”

“…It ensures a balanced decision is taken which achieves the best solutions to land contamination risk management. Additionally, the mitigation of potential harm to receptors should be broadly beneficial and not lead to unacceptable secondary impacts (Smith, 2019). The SuRF-UK Indicator Set for Sustainable Remediation (CL:AIRE, 2011a), which grouped sustainability indicators across 15 headline categories (Table 1).…”

“…It ensures a balanced decision is taken which achieves the best solutions to land contamination risk management. Additionally, the mitigation of potential harm to receptors should be broadly beneficial and not lead to unacceptable secondary impacts (Smith, 2019).…”