Soil sanitation in the Netherlands; from multifunctionality to doing - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Soil sanitation in the Netherlands; from multifunctionality to doing nothing ?!

Anton Roeloffzen

There is no future without lessons from the past !

• the beginning of soil remediation
• bad surprises: policy shift 1
• stagnation and (local) policy shift 2
• practical problems: (national) policy shift 3
• the BEVER-process: policy shift 4
• new techniques offer new possibilities
• loss of ambition: policy shift 5 ?
• new concepts for the future

7-7-2014

The beginning in 1979: Lekkerkerk

• 15 September 1979: drinking water main failure
• urban quarter build on chemical waste dump
• June – December 1980: soil remediation
• complete removal alle contaminated waste “soil”
• remediation cost: ± € 325 million (price level 2014)

Immediate action: policy shift 1 !

• [1970: first draft Soil Protection Act]
• [1976: Broekpolder scandal, Vlaardingen]
• 1979: Lekkerkerk scandal
• 1980: Landfill inventory  > 350 sites

and some gasworks, industrial sites ……

• 1981: [secret?] list A-B-C-assessment values
• 1983: Interim Soil Sanitation Act adopted
• removal of all soil contamination < 5 years !
• State pays, but cost recovery on polluters
• Provinces will do the remediation works
• 1986: Soil Protection Act
• 1993: Soil sanitation paragraph

But the problem was underestimated

Point source contamination: more than landfills

• [municipal] gasworks
• many former/existing industrial sites
• Underground storage tanks
• laundry shops ….

Diffuse contamination:

• soils in older (pré-war) urban areas
• lead-paint ind. (Rotterdam, Zaandam, Schoonhoven)
• harbour sludge sites + river sediments in flood plains
• glasshouse horticulture + old fruit orchards

Harbour sludge sites 1925-1991

temporary storage basins

Slufter depot

Broekpolder

Steendijkpolder

Inventory lead paint sites (1985-1987)

identified:

• 25 sites

(1 site missing) all sites outside

• ld city center
• bad smell

now urban:

• 1850-1920
• in renovation

40.000 contaminated point sources ?!

Urgent contaminated point source sites

activity period activity expected contaminants >1850 wood preservation plants mercury, cyanides, oils, PAH’s, borates >1700 printing factories >1970: chlorinated solvents >1864

• il processing industry
• il, BTEX, PAH’s, other (Cl-)chemicals

1895 - 1990 phosphate fertilizer plants heavy metals, sulfuric acid, phospho-gypsum 1600 - 1905 lead-paint industry heavy metals (lead), solvents, resins >1850 paint factories heavy metals, solvents, oil, resins 1870 - 1993 asbestos cement industry asbestos >1600 ship building/repair >1890: heavy metals, organo-metals, PAH’s, oils, asbestos 1824 - 1967 gasworks (coke plants) heavy metals, oil, PAH’s, BTEX, fenoles, CN >1900 petrol stations

• il (benzine+diesel), BTEX, (PAH’s)

1900 -1970 municipal/chemical waste dump sites heavy metals, oils, BTEX, PAH’s, ftalates, asbestos, nutrients, chlorides, sulfates, borates >1790 chemical laundries <1935: white spirit, petroleum >1935: chlorinated ethylenes

Sources diffuse soil contamination

Main sources in Rotterdam As Ba Cd Cr Hg Cu Pb Zn PAK pest cristalglass/glazing [x] X urban waste fertilization X X X [x] building/war debris X X X X [x] (lead-)paint industry X re-use urban waste [x] X X X X metal industry [x] X X X X [x] coal-ashes X X X X gasworks X X X X traffic X [x] [x] glass horticulture X X X X [harbour] sludge X X [x] [x] [x] X X X [x] X

More setbacks ….

• lack of remediation techniques

 “dig and dump”  “soil burning”

• lack of dump sites for contaminated soil

 NIMBY !

• 1988: High Court decision on liability of polluters
• not liable < 1975
• no legislation on soil or waste <1975

 so, no one could know it was important

• lack of public funding
• ever growing magnitude soil problem

1985: local soil policy shift 2: functional remediation

step Mobile soil pollution Non-mobile soil pollution 1 Remove all contaminated soil and groundwater, unless … Don’t remove any polluted soil, but level- up with soil cover and/or pavement, unless … 2 Remove as much as possible, so no further spreading occurs, unless … Remove as much of the polluted as necessairy for making a soil cover or pavement, unless … 3 Remove so much pollution, as to ensure no further spreading <30 years, unless … Remove more polluted soil for the contruction of building pits, etc., unless … 4 Install lining or geohydrological barrier tot avoid spreading of the pollution by groundwater Remove all polluted soil for the construction of building pits or because it is cost-effective Goal: maximal removal; minimal aftercare Goal: minimal removal; sufficiant reduction of risk

1987: national soil policy change 3: remove it all or isolate it all

Isolate it all Remove it all

• Land-fills/waste dump sites
• harbour sludge sites
• large industrial sites
• large diffuse contaminated sites
• big mobile sources
• urban areas with sensative land-use
• redevelopment of industrial sites
• small point sources
• small waste dumps
• small diffuse contaminated sites
• sandwich soil cover system (mobile)
• soil cover of 1 m clean soil (immobile)
• pavement and/or liner
• excavate contaminated soil layer and

replace it with clean soil/sand

EMK-site, Krimpen a/d IJssel:

• all contamination isolated: € 70 million
• sheet pile wall and asfalt pavement
• aftercare costs very high: €/yr 200.000
• no land-use possible (5,2 ha) !

Soil remediation Steendijkpolder

Fierce discussions on soil policies !

Ministry of Environment Amsterdam+Rotterdam 1989: Consoil, Berlin

• UK, VS, Australia, Germany: MF is not feasable !
• Dutch cities: functional approach needed !

Daily realities:

• stagnation urban redevelopment
• companies complain about high remediation costs
• Provincies don’t remediate “totally MF”
• lack of funding
• no soil re-use possible

> 1995: national shift of soil policies 4

BEVER-process:

• functional approach adopted ….., with modifications
• “guilty land-owner” and/or beneficiary must pay for

remediation

• re-use of “slightly contaminated soil” becomes possible

NOBIS (SKB) research program:

• development innovative soil remediation techniques
• in-situ soil remediation
• new soil cleaning techniques (biological, washing, etc.)
• concept of “Natural Attenuation”
• Management of large-scale contaminated sites

Remediation scheme mobile pollution

stable endsituation (<30 yrs) non-stable endsituation 1

no remaining contamination

2

small remaining contamination

3

big remaining contamination

5 4

isolation all contamaination source removal

• nly

no risks no limitation land use no spreading risks and limitions risks contained limitation land use spreading contained + monitoring none none none spreading (by groundwater flow) stationary <30 yrs stationary < 30 yrs + monitoring not stationary + monitoring Aftercare when remediation work is completed none passive active registration control control + containment measures

Incentives for doing nothing (policy shift 5 ?)

• it is cheaper
• stakeholders are not willing to pay
• ambitions of the competent authorities ?!
• soil problem is still growing

 inventory urgent sites

• mobile substances: NA does the job for us ?!
• we can relocate drinking water wells under threat
• but often no “sensitive objects” in spreading zone
• priority for remediation of urgent human risk sites
• remediation eco-urgent sites = ecosystem destruction
• risk avoidance by land-use management

Or else: source removal only !  definition “source” ?

Biodegradation in the subsoil ?

biodegradating substances redox-situation in the (sub)soil limiting parameters Major regions in the Netherlands MTBE very oxidized [O2] > 5 mg/l, pe > +1.000 mV not existent mineral oils, volatile aromatics

• xidized

[O2] > 1 mg/l, pe ≈ +820 mV Veluwe, dune areas, surface sand-layers volatile aromatics, mono-Cl-hydrocarbons nitrate reducing [NO3] < 1 mg/l pe ≈ +740 mV river floodplain areas, river estuaries mono-Cl-hydrocarbons mangan reducing pe ≈ +520 mV peri-mariene areas [VOCl, drins (?), Cl- fenoles/benzenes] iron reducing [FeII] > 2 mg/l pe ≈ -50 mV surface peaty soil layers VOCl, drins (?), Cl- fenoles/benzenes sulfate reducing [SO4] < 20 mg/l Pe ≈ -220 mV semi-confined aquifers, clay layers VOCl, drins (?), Cl- fenoles/benzenes methanogenic [CH4] > 1 mg/l Confined aquifers, peat

• clay layers subsoil

No biodegradation !

substances remarks

• poly-F-tensides:

PFOS, PFOA, etc.

• dioxins, DDT/DDD/DDE

no half-life time known under any redox condition

• MTBE, ETBE

required oxidized situation not present in Dutch soils

• mineral oils, PAH’s

in anaerobic soils

• VOCl
• Cl-fenoles/benzenes
• [drins]

soil is not anaerobic enough (pe < -50 mV) and/or insufficient “fuel” present (DOC > 3 mg/l)

• cyanides

under both aerobic and micro-aerobic conditions ?

• heavy metals
• phosphate

no biodegradation, however sorbtion in soil matrix (SOM, clay minerals, Fe/Al-oxides)

New soil remediation and/or management strategies

• The Hague: groundwater recirculation via bioreactors
• n laundry sites in a dune sand area
• Waterplan Apeldoorn: stepwise re-use of large scale

contaminated groundwater

• Biowash-machine Utrecht: large scale groundwater

remediation with water-recirculation for energy storage (Citychlor)

• Large scale groundwatermanagement in the

Rotterdam Port area: source removal and (enhanced) NA

• Bioscreen-concepts
• Sustainable landfilling

Questions/discussion ?