Table 1 : Underpinning Principles
The balancing of environmental, social and economic costs and benefits in identifying the optimum remediation solution needs to be carried out while complying with this set of key principles, which should be considered by practitioners in the design, implementation and reporting of sustainable remediation schemes.
1
Protection of human health and the wider environment. Remediation [site- specific risk management] should remove unacceptable risks to human health and protect the wider environment now and in the future for the agreed land- use, and give due consideration to the costs, benefits, effectiveness, durability and technical feasibility of available options.
2 3
Safe working practices. Remediation works should be safe for all workers and for local communities, and should minimise impacts on the environment.
Consistent, clear and reproducible evidence-based decision-making. Sustainable risk-based remediation decisions are made having regard to environmental, social and economic factors, and consider both current and likely future implications. Such sustainable and risk-based remediation solutions maximise the potential benefits achieved. Where benefits and impacts are aggregated or traded in some way this process should be explained and a clear rationale provided.
4
Record keeping and transparent reporting. Remediation decisions, including the assumptions and supporting data used to reach them, should be documented in a clear and easily understood format in order to demonstrate to interested parties that a sustainable (or otherwise) solution has been adopted.
5 6
Good governance and stakeholder involvement. Remediation decisions should be made having regard to the views of stakeholders and following a clear process within which they can participate.
Sound science. Decisions should be made on the basis of sound science, relevant and accurate data, and clearly explained assumptions, uncertainties and professional judgment. This will ensure that decisions are based upon the best available information and are justifiable and reproducible.
The framework highlights the importance of incorporating sustainability issues right at the forefront of the remediation and redevelopment process and it aims to set the benchmark for improved remediation and developing better places on brownfield land.
The framework identifies opportunities for considering sustainability at a number of key points in a site’s (re) development or risk management process. It encourages the inclusion of sustainability issues in local planning strategies, project planning, design of remediation strategies, options appraisal, implementation and verification. In doing so, the report highlights how an essential link between the principles of sustainable development and the key criteria (environmental, social and economic) in selecting land use design with sustainable remediation strategies and treatments is identified. The framework allows the following to be done: • Place remediation at the heart of sustainable development;
• Use sustainability indicators to optimise remediation decisions;
• Measure the costs and wider benefits of remediation projects; and
|104| ENVIRONMENT INDUSTRY MAGAZINE
• Speed up decision-making by using a framework developed jointly by industry, regulators and other experts.
While legislation and good practice guidance have encouraged remediation to contribute to sustainable development goals, no formal and authoritative framework has previously been published to guide such an assessment. To ensure a robust and reproducible approach to sustainable remediation decision making is possible, SuRF-UK has identified three fundamental ideas:
1. Decisions and assessments should be considered in a structured way;
2. Consistent boundaries must be used in decision making and sustainability assessment;
3. Assessing sustainability is essentially a subjective process; it needs to be accepted as such.
These concepts have ensured that the framework developed is directly linked to existing UK good practice for contaminated land management, as set out in the Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (Environment Agency and Defra, 2004).
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152