A new era of enlightenment

Warren Nelson

, CEO & Co-Founder

October 22, 2026

Newsletter · Published monthly on LinkedIn

We are entering what I would call a new era of enlightenment in environmental remediation. We’re seeing a growing recognition that permanently addressing contamination deserves serious consideration, and more governments and organizations are taking these possibilities seriously.

A changing mindset

For a long time, contaminated materials have been excavated, transported and deposited in designated disposal facilities. Other sites have been managed through containment, isolation or long-term monitoring. Economics, available technology and the need to control exposure have all shaped those decisions.

These approaches have played an important role in protecting human health and the environment. They continue to be appropriate in many circumstances. Treatment, disposal and containment each have a place, depending on the material, the site and the requirements that apply.

There is still an important question to ask: when we move or contain contaminated material, what happens to the contaminants over the longer term? Have we reached the right endpoint, and have we understood the responsibilities that remain?

That question is getting more attention as we confront persistent contaminants, including PFAS and PCBs, alongside hydrocarbon contamination and metals such as hexavalent chromium. These are different problems requiring different responses. Organic contaminants may be destroyed under suitable treatment conditions; metals cannot be destroyed and instead require approaches such as recovery, separation or stabilization.

Signs of progress

Consider what’s happening in Canada. The federal government has approved $1.48 billion for Phase V of its Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan, covering 2025 to 2030. Since the program began in 2005, remediation has been undertaken at approximately 3,000 federal sites, with assessments completed at roughly 11,000.

These are substantial commitments. They reflect a recognition that contaminated sites represent environmental responsibilities that must be addressed. Remediation undertaken is a measure of work performed, rather than a claim that every one of those sites has reached closure.

In the United States, the conversation is particularly important around PFAS, the family of persistent chemicals used in industrial materials and firefighting foams. On April 20, 2026, the US Environmental Protection Agency issued updated interim guidance on PFAS destruction and disposal for public comment.

The guidance discusses thermal treatment, landfills and underground injection, including the evidence, uncertainties and potential for environmental releases. It is non-binding guidance, rather than an endorsement of every treatment system or a guarantee of destruction. The operating conditions, waste stream and verification evidence matter.

Europe offers another example. The European Union’s Soil Monitoring Law, formally the directive on soil monitoring and resilience, entered into force on December 16, 2025. It establishes a framework for soil monitoring and the risk-based management of contaminated sites.

Taken together, these developments suggest an evolution in environmental thinking, with more attention to evidence, public expectations and the responsibilities attached to contaminated land.

Progress depends on the site

Some governments and industries are moving quickly to evaluate lasting remediation solutions. Others are moving more cautiously. Not every site lends itself to the same treatment. Technical feasibility, environmental risk, regulatory requirements and economics all influence the decision.

It is worth looking at the whole operating picture: trucking distances, fuel use, transportation risks, treatment requirements and the management of any remaining residues. Corporate responsibility and public sentiment are part of that picture too. The strongest decisions account for all of these factors rather than assuming the familiar approach is automatically the best fit.

Expanding horizons

The change is partly legislative, partly social and partly technological. We can evaluate more treatment and recovery options than before. That changes the horizon of possibilities: alongside excavation, disposal and containment, we can ask where permanent treatment and useful material recovery are technically appropriate.

The conversation has gained momentum with growing awareness of PFAS persistence in the environment and its presence in human tissue. It makes contamination personal for stakeholders who may previously have seen it as a distant industrial issue.

With PFAS, the chemical stability that makes these substances useful in many commercial applications also makes them difficult to destroy. Technologies that separate PFAS from water or other materials can reduce exposure, but may create concentrated waste streams that still require management. Separation and destruction are different outcomes, and we need to be clear about which one a process achieves.

More options, with evidence

At Nelson, we’re continuing to advance our mobile thermal treatment capabilities for PFAS, building on more than three decades of hydrocarbon remediation experience. Our PFAS work is pilot-validated, and Nelson is a NATO STO test-bed participant. That is a foundation for further evaluation, rather than a blanket claim about every PFAS compound, material or operating condition.

What matters is that scientific progress is giving environmental managers more options to evaluate. Treatment selection still needs to be supported by material characterization, appropriate operating conditions, emissions and residuals management, and verification of the result. Useful outputs are another opportunity where the treated material meets the requirements of its intended use.

A responsibility to future generations

I don’t believe environmental remediation should be measured solely by how much contaminated material we remove, how many sites we close or how quickly a task is completed. There’s a bigger picture we all live with and need to confront.

What about tomorrow?

We should consider what happens to the contaminants themselves, and what responsibilities remain for the generations that come after us. What we leave them with matters.

The thought that our reach should exceed our grasp also applies to remediation. To me, the reach is a lasting, verified outcome. There will always be practical limits at every site. But we should not presuppose limitations that aren’t there. We should genuinely weigh the benefits and risks of each decision, and ask whether we can achieve a better outcome for the people who come next.

Subscribe on LinkedIn

Sources and further reading

Government of Canada: Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan

US EPA: 2026 interim guidance on PFAS destruction and disposal

European Commission: Soil Monitoring Law

US EPA: A citizen’s guide to incineration

Nelson’s NATO STO PFAS test-bed record

Mobile thermal technology configurations

The Hub: contamination maps and source records

Strategy Navigator