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 Broekpolder Steendijkpolder temporary storage basins Slufter depot

Inventory lead paint sites (1985-1987) identified: • 25 sites (1 site missing) all sites outside old city center • bad smell now urban: • 1850-1920 • in renovation

40.000 contaminated point sources ?!

Urgent contaminated point source sites activity activity expected contaminants period mercury, cyanides, oils, PAH’s, borates >1850 wood preservation plants >1700 printing factories >1970: chlorinated solvents oil, BTEX, PAH’s, other (Cl -)chemicals >1864 oil processing industry 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 >1890: heavy metals, organo- metals, PAH’s, oils, >1600 ship building/repair asbestos heavy metals, oil, PAH’s, BTEX, fenoles, CN 1824 - 1967 gasworks (coke plants) oil (benzine+diesel), BTEX, (PAH’s) >1900 petrol stations heavy metals, oils, BTEX, PAH’s, ftalates, 1900 -1970 municipal/chemical waste dump sites 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 Don’t remove any polluted soil, but level - 1 Remove all contaminated soil and groundwater, unless … up with soil cover and/or pavement, unless … 2 Remove as much as possible, so Remove as much of the polluted as no further spreading occurs, unless necessairy for making a soil cover or … pavement, unless … 3 Remove so much pollution, as to Remove more polluted soil for the ensure no further spreading <30 contruction of building pits, etc., unless years, unless … … 4 Install lining or geohydrological Remove all polluted soil for the barrier tot avoid spreading of the construction of building pits or because it pollution by groundwater is cost-effective Goal: maximal removal; Goal: minimal removal; minimal aftercare 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 • urban areas with sensative land-use • harbour sludge sites • redevelopment of industrial sites • large industrial sites • small point sources • large diffuse contaminated sites • small waste dumps • big mobile sources • small diffuse contaminated sites • sandwich soil cover system (mobile) • excavate contaminated soil layer and • soil cover of 1 m clean soil (immobile) replace it with clean soil/sand • pavement and/or liner 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 2 3 5 no remaining contamination small remaining 4 contamination big remaining contamination isolation all source removal contamaination only risks and limitions risks contained no risks none none none limitation land use no limitation land use spreading (by groundwater flow) spreading contained + stationary < 30 yrs + not stationary + no spreading stationary <30 yrs monitoring monitoring monitoring Aftercare when remediation work is completed passive active none control + containment registration control 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 redox-situation limiting Major regions in the substances in the (sub)soil parameters Netherlands MTBE very oxidized [O 2 ] > 5 mg/l, not existent pe > +1.000 mV mineral oils, volatile oxidized [O 2 ] > 1 mg/l, Veluwe, dune areas, aromatics surface sand-layers pe ≈ +820 mV volatile aromatics, nitrate reducing [NO 3 ] < 1 mg/l river floodplain areas, mono-Cl-hydrocarbons river estuaries pe ≈ +740 mV pe ≈ +520 mV mono-Cl-hydrocarbons mangan reducing peri-mariene areas [VOCl, drins (?), Cl- iron reducing [Fe II ] > 2 mg/l surface peaty soil fenoles/benzenes] layers pe ≈ -50 mV VOCl, drins (?), Cl- sulfate reducing [SO 4 ] < 20 mg/l semi-confined aquifers, fenoles/benzenes clay layers Pe ≈ -220 mV VOCl, drins (?), Cl- methanogenic [CH 4 ] > 1 mg/l Confined aquifers, peat fenoles/benzenes -clay layers subsoil

No biodegradation ! substances remarks • poly-F-tensides: no half-life time known under any redox condition PFOS, PFOA, etc. • dioxins, DDT/DDD/DDE • MTBE, ETBE required oxidized situation not present in Dutch soils • mineral oils, PAH’s in anaerobic soils • VOCl soil is not anaerobic enough (pe < -50 mV) and/or insufficient “fuel” present (DOC > 3 • Cl-fenoles/benzenes mg/l) • [drins] • cyanides under both aerobic and micro-aerobic conditions ? • heavy metals no biodegradation, however sorbtion in soil matrix (SOM, clay minerals, Fe/Al-oxides) • phosphate