K8K8 ©2003 K8 Ltd slide 1 Keynote Paper: Contaminated Sites WasteMINZ, Nelson 2003 Historic part: Managing Contaminated Sites in Europe from a Dutch Perspective;

©2003 K8 Ltd slide 1

K8

Keynote Paper: Contaminated SitesWasteMINZ, Nelson 2003

Historic part: Managing Contaminated Sites

in Europe from a Dutch Perspective;

Application Part:Moving from Selling Certainties

to Managing Uncertainties


K8Background Drs Ben Keet

Free University of Amsterdam : Physics & Hydrogeology

Work experience• 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


K8Europe

• Site identification progressing

• Development of investigation and remedial tools

• Integration– Partnering with project developers – Sustainable Land Management

• Emerging emphasis shift Macro Micro contaminants


K8

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”

1999 18 Billion “S – I“


K8

NZ 1997: 7000 2002: 70.000+NZ 1997: 7000 2002: 70.000+Plate from Bateman Contemporary Atlas New Zealand


K8Aim of Remediation

• 1980 “B” level (at discretion of govt.)

• 1984 “A” level (standard guideline)

• 1989 Isolate or “A” level

• 1993 Re-use of A+ cont. soil permitted

• 1995 Aim = make site fit for intended use

& add Active Soil Management

• 2003 Decision model dep. on land use


K8Role of Government

• 1980 Organizes, Finances, Manages

and makes Legislation• 1985 Decentralization to Reg./City councils• 1995 intro: Polluter Pays Principle• 1996 Govt still pays 75% of all remediation• 2002 Large (and complex) subsidy schemes

set up to encourage private participation


K8Industry Participation

• Remedial action based on financial incentive• Area schemes

– Historical areas: mining / tanning/zinc smelting

• Branch related actions– Fuel SUBAT– Railways– Gasworks


K8Example trade scheme: SUBAT

• 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


K8

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 ?

Uncertainties


K8Groups of Uncertainties

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


K8

Detection limit

2010200019901980197019601950,001

,01

,1

1

10

EVOLUTION OF DETECTION LIMIT

micro

nano

pico

femto

10E-9

10E-12

10E-15

10E-18

‘Contamination only exists when it can be analyzed


K8

ESEMERGING SUBSTANCES

ENDANGERED ENVIRONMENTS

Surface watersGround waterDrinking waterFood chain

ENDANGERED PRODUCTS

toys & children care articles (Flame retardants,plasticizers)textiles (flame retardants; PFOS)pesticidespersonal care productspharmaceuticalsbuilding materials and furniturebiocides (disinfectants)industrial products (detergents, lubes and greases)

SO-F

FF

F

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FO

OLi+

PFOS: perfluorooctanesulfonate


K8

Phase-out of PFOS

• 3M 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. 3M research had found that the substance showed strong tendencies to persist and bioaccumulate in animal and human tissue.

• average concentrations fish blood surface watersLake 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

SO-F

FF

F

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FO

OLi+

Concentrations in blood of students and workers at Yokohama Universities (2001):

range: <1.3-4.8 µg/L whole bloodaverage: 1.7 µg/L whole blood (n=26)


K8

Insect repellentPesticides /herbicides

SolventsFire retardants

PAH'sReproductive hormones

Other prescription drugsFragrances

AntioxidantsDisinfectants

AntibioticsNonprescription drugs

Plasticizers

Steroids

Detergent metabolites

Composition of organic wastewater contaminants in surface waters in the U.S. in 1999-2000

Are we looking at the right compounds ?


K8

Risk evaluation


K8


K8Coffee and chocolate

N

N N

N

O

O

caffeine (1,3,7-trimethylxanthine)

HN

N N

N

O

O

theobromine (TB) 3,7-dimethylxanthine

in coffee and thea in chocolate


K8

Caffeine degradates

N

N N

N

O

O

N

N N

N

O

O

N

N NH2

N

O

O

HN

N N

N

O

O

N

N H

N

N

O

O

N

N N

H N

O

O

N N H

O

O

HN

N

N H

O

O

N

N N H

N

O

O

HN

N N

H N

O

O

N

N H

N

H N

O

O

HN

N H

N

N

O

O

N

N N

N

O

O

N

N N

N

O

O

N

N N H

H N

O

O

HN

N N

H N

O

O

OO

caffeine (1,3,7-trimethylxanthine) 3,7-dimethylaminouracil

(3,7-DAU)1,7-dimethylaminouracil (1,7-DAU)

5-acetyl-6-amino-3-methyluracil (AAMU)

1-monomethyluric acid (1-MU)

O

7-monomethyluric acid (7-MU)

1,3,7-trimethyl uric acid (1,3,7-TMU)

N H

6-amino-5-(N-formylmethylamino)-1,3-dimethyluracil (1,3,7-TAU)

paraxine (PX) (1,7-dimethylxanthine)

theobromine (TB) 3,7-dimethylxanthine

O

theophylline (TP) 1,3-dimethylxanthine

1,7-dimethyluric acid (11,7-DMU)

O

O

1-monomethylxanthine (1-MX)



HN

N N

NH2

O

O

1,3-dimethyluric acid (1,3-DMU)

5-acetylamino-6-formylamino-3-methyluracil (AFMU)

O

OO


K8

incorporation

OH

Cl

Cl

O

OH

O

OH

+

2,4-dichlorophenol syringic acid

OH

Cl

Cl

O

OH

O

OH

Cl

Cl

O

OH

O

OO

OH

OH

Cl

Cl

O

OH

O

O

O

O

HO

O

OH

Cl

Cl

O

OH

O

OO

OH

OH

O

O

Scheme of oxidative coupling products resulting from the combined incubation of syringic acid, a humic acid monomer, and 2,4-dichlorophenol with a laccase from Rhizoctonia praticola [2]


K8

A humus molecule

O

(CH3)0-3O

OH OH

O OHHO O

OH

O

O HOO OH

OH

O

O

OH

N H

(CH3)0-3

OH

HO O

HO

O OH

OH

HO O

N(CH3)0-2

OHO

O OH

OH

O OH

HO

O

N

O OH

OH

O

O

HO(CH3)0-3

N H

(CH3)0-3

CN

OH

OH

OH

O

OH

OH

O

OH

O

O

O

OH

O

OH

O

OH

OH

O OH

O

CH2OHOH

O

O

O

(CH3)0-3

HO

OHO OH

O

O

HO

OH

O

OH

HO

OH

O

O

OH

O

O

OH


K8

INVENTORIES OF CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES

ELINCSEuropean List of New Chemical Substances (± 4000)

EINECSEuropean Inventory of Existing Commercial Chemical Substances (± 105.000)

ECICSEuropean Customs Inventory of Chemical Substances (± 24.000)

CASRNChemical Abstracts Services Registry Numbers (±20.000.000)


K8Ranking Uncertainties

First consider the Action options:

Any uncertainty can only be:

Removed

Reduced

Accepted


K8Characterizing Uncertainties

Main properties:

Nature

Hardness

Size

Essence


K8Nature of Uncertainties

Example:Legal

ProceduralTechnical

EconomicalSplit further (e.g.. Technical)

Distribution of ContaminantsHeterogeneity of SoilRemedial Techniques

Teken cirkel


K8Hardness of Uncertainties

Determined by amount of effort to solve it

May require:• Lots of time• Lots of resources• Lots of money

• Types: Hard - Half Hard - Soft


K8Size of Uncertainties

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”


K8Essence of Uncertainties

Level of essence of uncertainty:

Essential: of vital importance

Less essential: of minor importance

Not essential: only nice to know

Given graphically as position of uncertainty relative to center


K8Presentation

Economie

Technical

Procedure

Legal

= = HARD

= SOFT

= HALF HARD

= HARD AND SMALL

= HARD AND LARGE


K8Example

PROCEDUREEL

JURIDISCH

TECHNISCH/ ECONOMISCH1

23

5

4

Figuur 2 : Enkele voorbeelden van onzekerheden

Legal

Technical

Procedural

Uncertainty Disk applied to Remedial Decisions


K8Nr Description of uncertainty Characterization of uncertainty Decision

1 Will the regulatory authority approve the remediation plan?

This uncertainty is essential, technical / economic in nature, small and soft. It is easy solved by a meeting with the relevant people.

We will opt for solving the uncertainty

2 How well do we know the distribution of contamination on this old industrial site?

The uncertainty is essential technical / economic in nature and fairly hard to solve. The further investigation costs determine partly the willingness to carry it out.

If further investigation is likely to gain a lot of relevant data do it, if expecting more of the same don’t.

3 After the remedial plan was written a new type of contaminant has been encountered: it is unclear if a new plan is required, as the contaminant is not listed on the national priority list.

The uncertainty is procedural in nature, and half-hard to solve, as the parties involved in decision-making are not clear. Expect to spend quite some time to solve this.

If time available start discussion. If no time proceed with original plan and just send letter mentioning the extra contaminant will be removed as well.

4 The analysis of many of the duplo samples gives totally different results. Who is going to pay for extra sampling and analysis?

The uncertainty is not essential, large but soft.

Re-sampling and analysis will need to be done. Claim cost from lab if new duplo’s are similar.

5 Different sampling methods for anaerobic samples were used giving different results.

The uncertainty is not essential, small but hard to solve.

A discussion with several technical parties may solve this.


K8How to use in practice ?

• Estimate the size of uncertainties

Ask the experts

• The ' worst case' scenario approach • Decision making in the presence of doubt

= a learning process

Q&A spel


K8

Conclusion

• 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


K8 Future

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

Documents

K8K8 ©2003 K8 Ltd slide 1 Keynote Paper: Contaminated Sites WasteMINZ, Nelson 2003 Historic part: Managing Contaminated Sites in Europe from a Dutch Perspective;