Remediation JournalVolume 32, Issue 1-2 p. 129-132 COMMENTARY Sustainable remediation column: Sustainable remediation tools Jonathan Smith, Jonathan Smith Shell Global Solutions (UK) Ltd, London, UKSearch for more papers by this authorPaul Bardos, Paul Bardos r3 Environmental Technology Ltd, Reading, UKSearch for more papers by this authorFrank Evans, Frank Evans National Grid Properties, Warwick, UKSearch for more papers by this authorAlan Thomas, Alan Thomas ERM Ltd, Oxford, UKSearch for more papers by this authorHayley Thomas, Hayley Thomas Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappij B.V., Rotterdam, The NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this authorGerlinde Wolf, Corresponding Author Gerlinde Wolf gerlinde.wolf@ramboll.com Ramboll UK Ltd, London, UK Correspondence Gerlinde Wolf, Ramboll UK Ltd., London, UK. Email: gerlinde.wolf@ramboll.comSearch for more papers by this authorJoe Ricker, Joe Ricker WSP, USASearch for more papers by this author Jonathan Smith, Jonathan Smith Shell Global Solutions (UK) Ltd, London, UKSearch for more papers by this authorPaul Bardos, Paul Bardos r3 Environmental Technology Ltd, Reading, UKSearch for more papers by this authorFrank Evans, Frank Evans National Grid Properties, Warwick, UKSearch for more papers by this authorAlan Thomas, Alan Thomas ERM Ltd, Oxford, UKSearch for more papers by this authorHayley Thomas, Hayley Thomas Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappij B.V., Rotterdam, The NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this authorGerlinde Wolf, Corresponding Author Gerlinde Wolf gerlinde.wolf@ramboll.com Ramboll UK Ltd, London, UK Correspondence Gerlinde Wolf, Ramboll UK Ltd., London, UK. Email: gerlinde.wolf@ramboll.comSearch for more papers by this authorJoe Ricker, Joe Ricker WSP, USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 11 March 2022 https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.21709Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume32, Issue1-2Spring 2022Pages 129-132 RelatedInformation

The scale of land-contamination problems, and of the responses to them, makes achieving sustainability in contaminated land remediation an important objective. The Sustainable Remediation Forum in the UK (SuRF-UK) was established in 2007 to support more sustainable remediation practices in the UK. The prevailing international consensus is that risk assessment is the most rational approach for determining remediation needs and urgency. Sustainability in this context is related to the effectivedeliveryof whatever risk management is necessary to protect human health or the wider environment. SuRF-UK suggests that decisions made at the project planning stage, and also in the choice of remediation approach used to reach particular objectives decided upon, are both opportunities for sustainability gain. In 2011, SuRF-UK issued a set of wide-ranging indicators to support sustainability assessments made during project planning and remediation option appraisal. This advice was reviewed over 2018-2020 and new guidance on process and indicators has been released. Within this guidance, SuRF-UK has provided a checklist of possible sustainability indicators/criteria that can be used to benchmark the scope of sustainability assessment for remediation projects. These indicators are divided into 15 overarching ("headline") categories, divided in a balanced way across the three elements of sustainability: Environmental (emissions to air, soil and ground conditions, groundwater and surface water, ecology, and natural resources and waste); social (human health and safety, ethics and equity, neighborhoods and locality, communities and community involvement, and uncertainty and evidence); and economic (direct economic costs and benefits, indirect economic costs and benefits, employment and employment capital, induced economic costs and benefits, and project lifespan and flexibility). The majority of this study explains these categories and their various considerations in more depth and provides the supporting rationale that led to their inclusion in the revised SuRF-UK guidance.

This paper compiles a detailed set of in situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) lessons learned pertaining to design, execution, and safety based on global experiences over the last 20 years. While the benefits of a "correct" application are known (e.g., cost effectiveness, speed, permanence of treatment), history also provides examples of a variety of "incorrect" applications. These provide an opportunity to highlight recurring themes that resulted in failures. ISCO is, and will continue to provide, an important remedial tool for site remediation, particularly as a component of a multifaceted approach for addressing large and complex sites. Future success, however, requires an objective understanding of both the benefits and the limitations of the technology. The ability to learn from the mistakes of the past provides an opportunity to eliminate, or at least minimize, them in the future. Over the last 25 years of ISCO application, process understanding and knowledge have improved and evolved. This paper combines a thorough discussion of lessons learned through decades of ISCO implementation throughout all aspects of ISCO projects with an analysis of changes to the ISCO remediation market. By discussing the interplay of these two themes and providing recommendations from collective lessons learned, we hope to improve the future of safe, cost-effective, and successful applications of ISCO.

Sustainability considerations have become widely recognised in contaminated land management and are now accepted as an important component of remediation planning and implementation around the world. The Sustainable Remediation Forum for the UK (SuRF-UK) published guidance on sustainability criteria for consideration in drawing up (or framing) assessments, organised across 15 headline categories, five for the environment element of sustainability, five for the social, and five for the economic. This paper describes how the SuRF-UK indicator guidance was developed, and the rationale behind its structure and approach. It describes its use in remediation option appraisal in the UK, and reviews the international papers that have applied or reviewed it. It then reviews the lessons learned from its initial use and the opinions and findings of international commentators, and concludes with recommendations on how the indicator categories might be further refined in the future. The key findings of this review are that the SuRF-UK framework and indicator guidance is well adopted into practice in the UK. It is widely recognised as the most appropriate mechanism to support sustainability-based decision making in contaminated land decision making. It has influenced the development of other national and international guidance and standards on sustainable remediation. However, there is room for some fine tuning of approach based on the lessons learned during its application.

Fatty acid methyl esters (FAME) are a group of organic compounds that can be synthesized through the process of esterification of fatty acids with methanol. With the increasing use of FAME in biodiesel, there is interest in the fate and effects of FAME in the environment. Single FAME compounds are of low aqueous solubility, low volatility and low mobility but the mechanisms of autoxidation and hydrolysis may result in the generation of more mobile but equally biodegradable components. The FAME types that have been studied in the peer-reviewed literature do not appear to enhance the solubility of hydrocarbons. FAME are widely reported to be readily biodegradable under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions, although rates may vary from site to site. In the majority of studies, biodiesel FAME biodegradation occurred more rapidly than petroleum diesel biodegradation. At sites with limited electron acceptors and macronutrients, microorganisms that degrade FAME have the potential to deplete available electron acceptors and nutrients, resulting in an extended time for diesel biodegradation. As with other labile biofuels, anaerobic biodegradation of FAME may result in significant methane generation. Overall, natural attenuation would appear to be significant in controlling the fate, behaviour and potential risks posed by biodiesel.

Verification approaches for source treatment in-situ remediation projects vary significantly dependant on scale of remediation, technology applied and regulatory requirements but typically involve demonstration that either maximum technically achievable mass has been removed using the most cost effective technology or that specific target concentrations have been attained at agreed monitoring points for a given period of time following remediation.At present there are significant challenges with respect to ensuring consistent remediation performance can be robustly demonstrated, given the wide range of acceptable verification approaches and increasing use of more diverse in-situ technologies.ERM's experience is that the use of innovative site characterisation techniques provides more confidence in the remediation process and hence improves certainty and reduces verification costs.