Keynote Paper Contaminated Sites Waste MINZ Nelson 2003

Keynote Paper: Contaminated Sites Waste. MINZ, Nelson 2003 K 8 Historic part: Managing Contaminated Sites in Europe from a Dutch Perspective; Application Part: Moving from Selling Certainties to Managing Uncertainties 1

Background Drs Ben Keet K 8 Free University of Amsterdam : Physics & Hydrogeology Work experience • • • Ø Ø 5 years Ass. Lect. Physics & Groundwater Models 5 years Shell International : UK, Algeria, Gabon, London 16 years Geo & Hydro: New Zealand, Australia, US, Europe Proj. manager 2500 site assessments, 1500 remediations Design & manage : 400 in situ & biological remediations 2

Europe K 8 • Site identification progressing • Development of investigation and remedial tools • Integration – Partnering with project developers – Sustainable Land Management • Emerging emphasis shift Macro Micro contaminants 3

K 8 Holland Lekkerkerk made 1980 year ‘ 0’ Year No. Sites Costs ‘clean’= 1981 4, 000 400 Million “A” 1988 111, 000 11 Billion “A” 1997 350, 000 36 Billion “A” 18 Billion “S – I“ 1999 4

K 8 NZ 1997: 7000 2002: 70. 000+ Plate from Bateman Contemporary Atlas New Zealand 5

Aim of Remediation • • • 1980 1984 1989 1993 1995 • 2003 K 8 “B” level (at discretion of govt. ) “A” level (standard guideline) Isolate or “A” level Re-use of A+ cont. soil permitted Aim = make site fit for intended use & add Active Soil Management Decision model dep. on land use 6

Role of Government • 1980 • • 1985 1996 2002 K 8 Organizes, Finances, Manages and makes Legislation Decentralization to Reg. /City councils intro: Polluter Pays Principle Govt still pays 75% of all remediation Large (and complex) subsidy schemes set up to encourage private participation 7

Industry Participation K 8 • Remedial action based on financial incentive • Area schemes – Historical areas: mining / tanning /zinc smelting • Branch related actions – Fuel SUBAT – Railways – Gasworks 8

Example trade scheme: SUBAT K 8 • Project Management Organization (Co-op) • Contracts all consultants & contractors • Own central expertise • Funded by members + extra fuel tax • 10 year ‘life’ 1991 – 2001 • Closed / Remediated 1000 service stations • Total cost 1. 5 Billion $NZ 9

K 8 Uncertainties What we know is not much What we know we don’t know is limited But what don’t we know we don’t know ? 10

Groups of Uncertainties K 8 1. Initial conditions § § Heterogeneity : soil / contaminants / time ESA not made with alternative remediation in mind 2. Effect of chosen remedial technique(s) 3. Quality of implementation 4. Changes in legislation 11

Detection limit ‘Contamination only exists when it can be analyzed K 8 EVOLUTION OF DETECTION LIMIT 10 10 E-9 micro 1 10 E-12 nano , 1 10 E-15 pico 10 E-18 femto , 01 , 001 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 12

ES K 8 PFOS: perfluorooctanesulfonate 13

Phase-out of PFOS K 8 • 3 M recently announced its phase-out of Scotchgard products after it was found that its primary ingredient - a fluorinated compound called perfluorooctanyl sulfonate (PFOS) - was found in all tested blood bank examinations. 3 M research had found that the substance showed strong tendencies to persist and bioaccumulate in animal and human tissue. • average concentrations fish blood surface waters Lake biwa 345 µg/L 7. 4 ng/L • Tokyo Bay 172 µg/L 26 ng/L • Osaka Bay 100 µg/L 12 ng/L • Seto Inland Sea 29 µg/L <4. 3 ng/L • Ariake Bay 28 µg/L 9. 0 ng/L 14

Composition of organic wastewater contaminants in surface waters in the U. S. in 1999 -2000 K 8 Insect repellent Pesticides /herbicides Solvents Fire retardants PAH's Reproductive hormones Other prescription drugs Fragrances Antioxidants Disinfectants Antibiotics Nonprescription drugs Detergent metabolites Plasticizers Steroids Are we looking at the right compounds ? 15

Risk evaluation K 8 16

K 8 17

Coffee and chocolate K 8 18

Caffeine degradates K 8 19

incorporation K 8 20

A humus molecule K 8 21

INVENTORIES OF CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES K 8 22

Ranking Uncertainties K 8 First consider the Action options: Any uncertainty can only be: Removed Reduced Accepted 23

Characterizing Uncertainties K 8 Main properties: Nature Hardness Size Essence 24

Teken cirkel Nature of Uncertainties K 8 Example: Legal Procedural Technical Economical Split further (e. g. . Technical) Distribution of Contaminants Heterogeneity of Soil Remedial Techniques 25

Hardness of Uncertainties K 8 Determined by amount of effort to solve it May require: • Lots of time • Lots of resources • Lots of money • Types: Hard - Half Hard - Soft 26

Size of Uncertainties K 8 Is order of magnitude of uncertainty Often depends on given ranges: 1000 – 10. 000 is large uncertainty 1000 – 1100 is small uncertainty When small often accepted as “calculated risk” 27

Essence of Uncertainties K 8 Level of essence of uncertainty: Essential: Less essential: Not essential: of vital importance of minor importance only nice to know Given graphically as position of uncertainty relative to center 28

K 8 Presentation Procedure = = HARD = SOFT Legal Technical = HALF HARD = HARD AND SMALL Economie = HARD AND LARGE 29

K 8 Example Legal Technical Procedural Uncertainty Disk applied to Remedial Decisions 30

K 8 31

Q&A spel How to use in practice ? K 8 • Estimate the size of uncertainties Ask the experts • The ' worst case' scenario approach • Decision making in the presence of doubt = a learning process 32

Conclusion K 8 • NZ is well placed due to existing o/s experience • Uncertainties will be part of every decision process • Aim of remediation and verification methods need to be very clear before projects start • Poorly understood are: – Effects on Nature (incl. ourselves) – Assistance from Nature – Hidden Risks – Perception of Risk 33

Future K 8 Key elements of Contaminated Site Management will be: • Integration in town and country planning • Demonstrable action to the public • Cost-effectiveness of solutions • Sustainable land management 34