Analysis of strengths, weaknesses and gaps
WP2 Management of contamination and reuse of soils and debris
WP2_SWG analysis
page 1 of 36
CONTENT
1. Introduction............................................................................................................. 4 2. Description of objectives and associated practices ............................................ 5 2.1. Objective 1: To reduce negative environmental impacts on the site and on the neighbourhood including human health risks ................................................................ 5 2.1.1. PRACTICE : TO UNDERTAKE SUFFICIENT MEASUREMENT TO ASSESS ALL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .................................................................... 6 2.1.2. PRACTICE : TO SET UP RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT LIMITS FOR DUST AND NOISE ..................................................................................... 7 2.2. Objective 2:To minimise waste and maximise recycling and reuse of soil and debris 2.2.1. Practice : To implement an on site waste management platform .............. 10 2.2.2. Practice : To adopt a waste management plan to optimise recycling and reuse of soil and debris ................................................................................................ 11 2.2.3. Practice : To use the economies of scale to deal with non-economic size (cluster approach) ................................................................................................. 13 2.2.4. Practice : To minimise transport needs of contaminated soil and waste material ie to manage slightly contaminated material on site or nearby.......................... 15 2.3. Objective 3: To ensure cost effectiveness and technical feasibility .................... 17 2.3.1. Practice : To apply a model procedure for verification of the entire remediation process ................................................................................................................. 18 2.3.2. Practice : To use a Directory of Costs and Services for contaminated sites redevelopment.......................................................................................... 21 2.4. Objective 4: To improve social acceptance through identification of all stakeholders and risk communication ........................................................................................................... 22 2.4.1. Practice : To set up efficient public communication (provisory title) .......... 23 2.5. Objective 5: To provide decision support tools for risk based land management 24 2.5.1. Practice : To adopt effective decision support tools for risk based land management ................................................................................................................. 26 2.5.2. Practice : To adopt a site investigation and evaluation step wise procedure30 9
WP2_SWG analysis
page 2 of 36
2.5.3. Practice : To use standard risk assessment and option appraisial procedures
31
2.5.4. Practice : To Implement digital soil masses modelling in order to reduce soil transport ................................................................................................................. 34 2.5.5. Practice : To use GIS / GPS as a tool for limiting site owner's liability with time once the site has been re-used ......................................................................... 35
WP2_SWG analysis
page 3 of 36
1. Introduction
The target is to present good practices in terms of sustainable management of contamination and reuse of soils and debris within the process of brownfield redevelopment. The following chapter deals with the planned or adopted procedures, processes and results, which have been adopted in the eight case study projects. From them, the good practices, in the context of work package 2, are derived. For this, the analysis focuses on the 'how': How was dealt with the project specific facts / problems and potentials? It is checked, if there are strengths (particularly innovative and successful) in terms of sustainable management of contamination and reuse of soils and debris and the feasibility of the objectives, or if they do not promote or even if they contradict them (weakness). From this, good practices are derived and described. And as good practices should be transferable, the analysis focuses on the effectiveness of the practice, its usability regarding existing local regulation, and its economical viability. To be developed The sustainability objectives serve as a framework for this investigation. They operate and specify the definition of contamination management and reuse of soils and debris on brownfield sites and are therefore the standard whereof the data have to be checked. This method guarantees also a structured and purposeful approach, assessing all case studies against the yardstick which has been elaborated in RESCUE. The indicators, operating the objectives, serve as a first easy clue to assess the case studies. But generally it is intended to regard the objectives as the assessment standard. Therefore strengths, weaknesses and gaps are mentioned, relating to the concrete information asked by the indicators as well to the more general objectives. If necessary, the presentation of good practices within the case studies are supplemented by the 'external examples'. Eight case studies are not representative to show the process of brownfield regeneration in the four participating countries and in Europe. Therefore additional projects and practices also from other countries have been analysed, including processes and aspects, which contribute to implement the objectives of sustainable contamination management and reuse of soils and debris, and the fulfil the indicators. It is important to note, that this classification into strengths and weaknesses does not pursue the target of assessing the case studies in terms of sustainability or of ranking them. That is not the aim of RESCUE.
WP2_SWG analysis
page 4 of 36
2. Description of objectives and associated practices
2.1. OBJECTIVE 1: TO REDUCE NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON THE SITE AND ON THE NEIGHBOURHOOD INCLUDING HUMAN HEALTH RISKS
(during rehabilitation works)
An important objective of a sustainable brownfield development is to improve the environmental situation on the site and in the neighbourhood affected by the site. The environmental amelioration can have a wide range of effects. To achieve all of these effects as far as possible is one of the objectives of this work package. One of the most direct coherence with the environmental situation is to the health and well being of humans as well as to animals and plants. Harmful substances or noise on or from the site can be a serious threat for human health and can lead to a deterioration of the natural environment. In minor amount these emissions can at least worsen the quality of life on the site and in its surroundings. Furthermore, the concern about an unknown or uncertain risk situation, which can also be due to a lack of communication, can impose a psychological burden for potentially affected persons, leading to social disadvantages. These effects can also lead to a deterioration of the site's image, which makes the site less attractive for potential users and investors on the site and in its neighbourhood. Another aspect is to achieve the environmental improvement in an efficient way, due to a good risk management. To control the achievement of these objectives there is plenty of experience which can be used. This includes the control of harmful substances in solid matter, water and air as well as the control of noise emissions. Furthermore there is an extensive set of experiences which help to assess the quality of risk management methods. Also the impact on social communication and on the site's image can be investigated. Indicator 2.1 Pressure on Neighbourhood : Number of complaints and incidents per year
The indicator is the comparison of the amount of public complaints and known incidents per year to local authorities before and after site redevelopment. This indicator enables evaluation of the sustainability of the management of the contamination and waste from a general point of view. Indicator 2.2 Ambient noise level : Time percentage of excessive noise
The level of ambient noise is measured at the closest occupied building façade or building hosting employees working in the tertiary sector. This indicator enables evaluation of the reduction of the impacts on the neighbourhood Indicator 2.3 Dust and air quality impact : Number of complaints during characterisation and remediation of the site
This indicator reflects changes in air quality and is one of the environmental indicators enabling the measurement of redevelopment progress.
WP2_SWG analysis
page 5 of 36
2.1.1.
PRACTICE : TO UNDERTAKE SUFFICIENT MEASUREMENT TO ASSESS ALL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
UNITED KINGDOM 1. Abstract description of the practice Refer to 'standardised' Text from exSite for three UK site examples (Markham, Gateshead, Basford), which will apply to all three cases and will follow a 'standardised' format. 2. Description of the implementation of the practice within the case study project illustrating its effects on the project Using Standards generally set by the UK construction Industry and UK legislation to back this up, Gateshead Quays would seem to have applied these practices with professional support on Site. The location was essentially one with no close neighbours, but there were some more problematic adjacent Sites. Therefore the disturbance caused during Works would be minor in any event, unless river traffic/quality was impacted during the Bridge construction. No known deviations from the required Standards have been reported, or found anecdotally for the various projects here, although there must be occasional impacts during Construction. As certain new UK regulations came into force around the time of preliminary design activities on the Quays, it might be possible (with more work) to highlight any differences in approach that GC adopted during the mid-1990's design phases. Indicator 2.1 Number of Complaints and incidents per year - STRENGTH?
No complaints have been indicated, but the Site itself was not populated, with the exception of a 'traveller's' camp in the early stages. All industrial and commercial activity had ceased, save for one garage for car repairs. During remediation, apparently no complaints were noted either; but remediation was not extensive and was mostly taking away contaminated land to landfill on lorries. Indicator 2.2 Number of measures of excessive noise - STRENGTH (but 'standard' for UK)
No evidence of complaints. Contract Documentation set working hours and maximum allowable noise limits, but does not seem to have been a systematic recording system on all Sites. There was sheet-piling Works for the river crossing, but no anecdotal record of noise disturbance was given. Indicator 2.3 Number of complaints during characterisation and remediation (Dust/Air) - GAP
No information available, and contract documentation silent. Indicator 2.4 Surface and Groundwater management plan - GAP (because not a priority need)
No significant groundwater impacts, as no significant underground receptor in the area. No surface water bodies on Site; sloping valley side with river in base of gorge. Area already covered by sewers system, surface water discharging to Tyne.
WP2_SWG analysis
page 6 of 36
Works in the (tidal) river, including contaminated silt removal, were carried out under supervision and harbour Regulations. Some dredging caused silt mobilisation, but Tyne fairly fast flushing at this point. Indicator 2.5 Existence & Scope of Risk Management Framework - STRENGTH Go to Obj. 2.5
Check List for Indicator 2.5 indicates a series of compliances, evidenced by the Investigation Report and Construction design detail. The risk management Framework is, however, tightly specified in the UK by the Environment Act 1995 and a host of Regulations, and the Environment Agency is a statutory consultee for all Planning Applications (who will want to see a conceptual risk model). 3. Estimation of the transferability of the practice to other European Countries The risk Framework provided in the UK by the 1995 Environment Act and the Construction & Design Management (CDM) Regulations should perpetuate good practice especially with a Public client. These should be Referenced, and brought forward as Best Practice, if not done in France/Germany. 4. References / contact www.Gateshead.gov.uk Information exhibited by Interview at Council, or provided later by Document inspection and telephone. To add the relevant UK references to CDM (recent, this month, CIRIA publications) and HSE website.
2.1.2.
PRACTICE : TO SET UP RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT LIMITS FOR DUST AND NOISE
FRANCE 1. Abstract description of the practice Reference values to get from regulation 2. Description of the implementation of the practice within the case study project illustrating its effects on the project Compulsory regulation within the authorised Installation Law 3. Estimation of the transferability of the practice to other European Countries Such recommended or compulsory values should exist in other countries, within home regulation : potentially best practise
WP2_SWG analysis
page 7 of 36
4. References / contact Ministry for Environment 20, avenue de Ségur, F 75302 Paris SP www.environnement.gouv.fr
POLAND 1. Abstract description of the practice 2. Description of the implementation of the practice within the case study project illustrating its effects on the project 3. Estimation of the transferability of the practice to other European Countries 4. References / contact
WP2_SWG analysis
page 8 of 36
2.2. OBJECTIVE 2:TO MINIMISE WASTE AND MAXIMISE RECYCLING AND REUSE OF SOIL AND DEBRIS
An important objective of sustainable brownfield regeneration is to apply waste re-use strategies, as suggested by European and International decisions at many conferences & summits. Most EU countries have adopted such strategies nationally for all waste streams, although the effort on soil re-use is more intensive in countries where the soil is seen as a resource/asset rather than a discard/waste; this is mostly a cultural barrier. The use of the 'waste hierarchy' decision tool is generally common through Europe. Waste minimisation of construction and demolition spoil (C&D waste) by means of good recycling techniques will speed up the process of brownfield redevelopment, as long as there are no threats to health & safety in the environs, due to hazardous waste. However, hazardous waste may also be dealt with in the locality (by encapsulation or immobilisation), and therefore reduce external disturbances and risks, such as traffic movements and dust impacts. Re-use can significantly bring down regeneration costs, and make other environmental improvements that have less firm economic 'values'. The impact of recycling and re-use of soils should also take into account the effects from a reduction in quarrying, treating and transporting 'virgin' aggregate upon the environment; this may have national and international consequences, rather than local. The soils may also be used within the development for landscape and amenity issues, rather than fulfilling a defined constructional purpose for which they are unsuitable. Debris may be transformed into re-usable material, crushed for secondary aggregate, or returned into the local marketplace through secondary providers. Information to assess the re-use/recycling gains should comprise both definable market economic costs and less directly certain social and environmental costings. Indicator 2.6 wastes, soils and debris management : Existence of a waste management plan, recycling and reuse of soils and debris.
Existence of a rationale for dealing with all wastes arising such that the provisions of the "waste hierarchy" are considered with disposal as the last resort. This indicator provides a measure of the effectiveness of the recycling strategy and of the effectiveness of the waste management strategy
Checklist for indicator 2.6 Waste, soils and debris management All relevant possibilities concerning waste minimisation considered All relevant possibilities concerning reuse maximisation considered All relevant possibilities concerning recycling maximisation considered All relevant possibilities concerning landfill on site considered
WP2_SWG analysis
page 9 of 36
All relevant possibilities to prefer reused matter from the site instead of imported matter considered All relevant possibilities considered to import and reuse recycled materials Strengths and weaknesses in this context are : A STRENGTH is if there is a Record or Procedure for the Project which illustrates that the effects and arisings from ALL construction activity have been considered as Resources. This has then led to a rational and structured decision, not solely based on economic factors, as to how those resources are utilised, and how final waste generation can be minimised. This MUST have a Site validation record. A GAP is if there is no rational consideration of the alternatives for soil & debris utilisation at the design stage, and/or if there is no evidence of continuation of minimisation or recycling opportunities during Site realisation. There must be a visible process by which the concepts are realised in reality, not just 'fine words'. A weakness is if :
2.2.1.
Practice : To implement an on site waste management platform
FRANCE 1. Abstract description of the practice A technical platform allowing on site debris processing (crushing, sorting and cleaning) is implemented in order to minimise volume of exported waste, and maximise recycling. 2. Description of the implementation of the practice within the case study project illustrating its effects on the project The waste management step is conceived with sustainable development in mind, as the goals are : All relevant possibilities concerning waste minimisation should be considered All relevant possibilities concerning reuse maximisation should be considered All relevant possibilities concerning recycling maximisation should be considered All relevant possibilities concerning landfill on site should be considered All relevant possibilities to prefer reused matter from the site instead of imported matter should be considered All relevant possibilities considered to import and reuse recycled materials
WP2_SWG analysis
page 10 of 36
To achieve this, a technical platform dedicated to debris crushing, sorting and cleaning has been implemented on site. Raw debris were were driven to that platform, where they were treated, and then either reused on site as land filling material, or resold as raw material (iron, concrete, wood) or as land filling material. Only the soiled residues obtained after debris cleaning had to be disposed off in genuine treatment or storage facilities. The consequence of this practice was no import of fresh new raw material for land filling, a strong decrease in waste production (less volume = costless and less nuisance due to local traffic), and a reduction of overall cost. 3. Estimation of the transferability of the practice to other European Countries This practice is potentially transferable in any country : Potentially best practice 4. References / contact Drocourt Management : M. Jean BRAYER, Technical Manager, 06 19 57 21 26
2.2.2.
Practice : To adopt a waste management plan to optimise recycling and reuse of soil and debris
UNITED KINGDOM 1. Abstract description of the practice To optimise recycling and reuse of soil and debris, the adoption of a comprehensive waste management plan is a pre-requisite. By means of such adoption, it is possible to not only manage waste created by an individual brownfield development, but to contribute to wider local waste recycling needs. Brownfield sites, particularly very large ones, can offer scope for using significant volumes of recycled waste, both for traditional construction purposes and for less obvious applications. A waste management plan provides the means to consider and evaluate the contribution that waste recycling and reuse can provide to an individual project and to the local environment and economy. 2. Description of the implementation of the practice within the case study project illustrating its effects on the project The strategy and design of Markham Willows (and all of the following phases) is that no materials will be exported from site to landfill or any other disposal facility (with one exception – dioxin contaminated soil – for which there is no known recycling process). All ground slabs and foundations will be crushed, screened and reused on site. All surplus excavated material will be retained on site for landscaping purposes. The spoil heaps will consume processed organic waste in the surface layers, sourced initially from an external waste producer and eventually from a sitebased supply (an anaerobic digester is being commissioned at Markham to consume green waste, packaging waste and food waste from the wider development). The added fertility that the processed organic waste(s) will provide to the surface layer will promote growth in biomass crops that will form a renewable energy plantation of some 60 Hectares. The energy that will be generated using this biomass will be used in wood fuel boilers within the adjacent commercial
WP2_SWG analysis
page 11 of 36
development and/or in local community buildings. This “virtuous circle” would be unachievable without the use of a waste management plan. 3. Estimation of the transferability of the practice to other European Countries Country UK Germany France Poland Viability YES YES YES YES Effectiveness YES YES YES YES Usability YES YES YES YES
Within the RESCUE definitions, this practice is PROMISING BEST PRACTICE Seems transferable to me 4. References / contact Tool Waste Management Plan Source available from exSite www.exSite.org in March 2004
FRANCE
1. Abstract description of the practice A waste management plan has been set up, taking into account not only the waste expected from the rehabilitation works, but also the waste deriving from unused raw material and unsold coke and derived products. The main features of this plan were : Site material cleaning not only reduces recourse to external natural material for land filling, but also provides commercial resource On site re use of bricks, concrete and ground leads to cost reduction for waste treatment, transportation (less material gets out of site, but less material is also imported, what makes also environmental benefit), and allows to leave a clean, flat ground which can be sooner re used ; Careful dismanteling prevent from aggravating soil contamination, hence allows cost reduction for DRA to come next, and for soil treatment (indirect benefit) Long term adaptation of industrial activity to achieve "zero raw material / zero unsold product" by the end of activity. 2. Description of the implementation of the practice within the case study project illustrating its effects on the project A detailed list of all types of potential waste has been set and the amounts quantified, prior to beginning remediation procedure. To start with, careful planning of production has been defined, in
WP2_SWG analysis
page 12 of 36
order not to stop activity with end products still on stock. The same has also been done for raw material. As a consequence, not only environmental experts, but also commercials and operation managers should be implied in the process of ultimate waste reduction. On sites where waste management has been taken into account as part of the remediation procedure, the amount and cost of ultimate waste generated have dropped down dramatically : most material could be reused on site as landfill (either without or after prior on site cleaning step), or recycled as raw material (concrete, iron), or even marketed. The overall benefit has proven both environmental and economic 3. Estimation of the transferability of the practice to other European Countries Practice relies on careful historical research, and internal data compilation. The practice can easily be transferred to other countries (Promising best practice) 4. References / contact Drocourt Management : M. Jean BRAYER, Technical Manager, 06 19 57 21 26
2.2.3.
Practice : To use the economies of scale to deal with non-economic size (cluster approach)
UNITED KINGDOM 1. Abstract description of the practice Small sites present major difficulties when considering sustainable options for ex-situ decontamination. The cost of mobilising and demobilising equipment is too large to amortise over the small volumes that need to be dealt with on single sites. The unit cost of decontamination is invariably much higher than the cost of landfill disposal and subsequent replacement with imported clean soil. The CLUSTER project seeks to address this barrier by using multiple small sites to create a critical mass that can share the mobilisation and demobilisation costs of equipment on one of the sites that can be used to decontaminate all of the sites in the group.
WP2_SWG analysis
page 13 of 36
2. Description of the implementation of the practice within the case study project illustrating its effects on the project A full feasibility study has been completed (December 2003). This study has undergone peerreview by industrial and regulatory consultees with a view to carrying out a full-scale field project with a real cluster of sites in 2004. The anticipated outcome of this initiative is a new option that can provide a reduction of approximately 80% of landfill disposal volumes from small sites. A concomitant reduction in road haulage and imported soil volumes is also anticipated.
3. Estimation of the transferability of the practice to other European Countries Country UK Germany France Poland Viability YES YES YES YES Effectiveness YES YES YES YES Usability YES ? ? ?
The CLUSTER concept is technically and economically transferable to other European states where there is no current infrastructure of fixed offsite soil treatment plants. Flanders and the Netherlands have such an infrastructure, whereas the rest of Europe has not. The most significant barrier to transferability is the classification of contaminated soil as waste within the European Waste Framework Directive. This has profound implications upon the possibility of adoption of the CLUSTER concept as it is essential that cleaned soil should be declassified as waste and be classified as “fully recovered”. In some states it may be impossible and it is becoming acknowledged by e.g. the UK Government (and the EU – see the ETAP* website) that this situation must resolved if soil recycling and reuse is to flourish.
WP2_SWG analysis
page 14 of 36
Within the RESCUE definitions, this practice is PROMISING BEST PRACTICE 4. References / contact Report on Feasibility available from exSite in March 2004. *Environmental Technologies Action Plan (ETAP) http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/etap/#issue
2.2.4.
Practice : To minimise transport needs of contaminated soil and waste material ie to manage slightly contaminated material on site or nearby
UNITED KINGDOM Practice is fairly close to the cluster model 1. Abstract description of the practice 2. Description of the implementation of the practice within the case study project illustrating its effects on the project 3. Estimation of the transferability of the practice to other European Countries 4. References / contact
GERMANY 1. Abstract description of the practice The former State Waste Law of North-Rhine Westphalia (enforced in 21. Juni 1988) contained a paragraph (§ 31) which describes the role of a legally binding remediation plan. This may be set up for a contaminated site and can substantially inprove the legal certainty for all stakeholders and processes involved at brownfield development. Furthermore, the existence of a remediation plan offers the possibility that slightly contaminated soil material dug out from a contaminated site does not require to be treated as contaminated waste but can be reintroduced on site if a was set up. This may reduce remediation costs substantially.
WP2_SWG analysis
page 15 of 36
2. Description of the implementation of the practice within the case study project illustrating its effects on the project In the Hamm-Radbod case study this possibility to keep uncontaminated and slightly contaminated soil and rubble on site helped considerably to reduce costs. Uncontaminated and very slightly contaminated material was incorporated into the landfill layers used to create a plane surface; (6.000 m³ of) slightly to medium contaminated material was dumped on a sealed and controlled landfill on site; only matter exceeding certain threshold concentrations had to be carried to external waste deposits. 3. Estimation of the transferability of the practice to other European Countries The cited content of this paragraph was later adopted by the Federal Soil Protection Act (BundesBodenschutzgesetz) of 17th March 1998. France : to be checked UK : yes Poland ? In my opinion an innovative practice. If it can be proved that it is an efficient practice it is possible to start the discussion about adopt it into law. IGWR (public work of Rotterdam) sees possibilities to start the discussion with national government about adopting innovative and not (yet) legal practices. 4. References / contact LAGA-Ordinance for the introduction of a european waste catalogue (EAK) Verordnung zur Einführung des Europäischen Abfallkatalogs - EAK-Verordnung [EAKV], Editor: Länder Cooperation Waste (Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Abfall (LAGA)) - used for soil disposal / reuse classification text: http://www.hera-herne.de/pdf/EN_AbfKoBiV.pdf (in English) background: http://www.basel.int/centers/conferencesworkshops/bratislava10/e_eu_waste_list2.pdf (in English) http://www.abfallberatung.de/gesetze/nw2.htm ff. http://www.stua-mi.nrw.de/Pdf/LAbfG.pdf _________________
WP2_SWG analysis
page 16 of 36
2.3. OBJECTIVE 3: TO ENSURE COST EFFECTIVENESS AND TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
The handling of the contamination on a brownfield is a typical showcase of balancing sustainability aspects as the amendment of the ecological situation is strongly intertwined with the economical burden (i. e. costs), which depends on the efficiency of the remediation approach. Also a reasonable approach of reusing soil and debris (contaminated or not) can affect considerably the economical and ecological balance of the site development. Many experiences have shown1 that the economical of a project itself aspect is a crucial issue deciding if a brownfield will be redeveloped (and cleaned up) or not. During the past decades the methods for the contamination assessment and remediation have been developed considerably, resulting in a more efficient amelioration of the envirionmental impact and at the same time using the financial resources more efficiently - mostly resulting in substantially reduced costs. However, in each project different approaches are being applied and often some of them are less advanced than others. Furthermore in the European member countries standard approaches (if existing at all) may differ significantly. Therefore the dissemination of best practice approaches may be helpful to improve the overall standard of the efficiency of the contamination management. Best practices concerning an optimised management of contamination and reuse of soils and debris may for example include the application of approaches or tools which help to apply more cost efficient and environmentally profitable methods of risk assessment and remediation, to get an overview over financing resources or to make a more reliable cost estimation (reducing the financial risk). (A measure to improve this efficiency can be the performance of validation reports after the remediation. The existence of such reports is recommended to indicate the effectiveness and technical feasibility of the contamination management. ) Indicator 2.7 Remediation post-validation : Existence of a "post-remediation validation report"
The post validation study is paramount in the evaluation of the technical feasibility and cost effectiveness. This indicator documents the degree of success or failure in the remediation process. Checklist for indicator 2.7 Remediation post-validation Post-validation budget and report ? QA/QC procedures followed and updated regularly ? Existence of validation reports (records of results for each phase of the remediation) showing that the objectives have been achieved or problems encountered ? Existence of post remediation monitoring data about water, air, soil, etc. to validate the remediation objectives ? Existence of information detailing residual risks and land use constraints ? Dissemination of the validation information ? Feed back from stakeholders properly recorded ?
WP2_SWG analysis
page 17 of 36
Strengths and weaknesses in this context are : a „strength" is if: an approach has been applied which helped to optimise the efficiency of the management of contamination and / or of the reuse of soils and debris, which helped to improved the environmental and / or ecological balance or reduced the economical or ecological risk. a „weakness" is if: an approach has been applied which lead to an unefficient management of contamination and / or of the reuse of soils and debris. This deteriorated or put at risk the environmental and / or ecological balance. a „gap" is if: no approaces worthwile to disseminate have been found in the RESCUE case studies. In this case best (or good) practices (and possibly bad practices) from external examples were provided.
2.3.1.
Practice : To apply a model procedure for verification of the entire remediation process
UNITED KINGDOM 1. Abstract description of the practice The draft Model Procedures (DEFRA 2003) state that the purpose of verification is to: Design the remediation treatment and ensure that the design is fully compatible with other aspects of the project Carry out the remediation in a safe and effective manner Verify that the remediation has been completed in accordance with the design and any subsequent amendments Ensure that the requirements of regulators, insurers and funders are met.
The key outputs of the verification are: The final form of the design; including design drawings, specifications & other contract documents; health and safety plan for remediation works Necessary regulatory permits Contracts for all parties involved Verification plan and verification report; CDM health and safety file Monitoring and maintenance plan
2. Description of the implementation of the practice within the case study project illustrating its effects on the project
WP2_SWG analysis
page 18 of 36
Verification activities began with the development of a verification plan, as part of the overall implementation planning, and will lead eventually to a verification report as an output. The verification plan sets out the detailed data requirements including the sampling, measurement and analytical activities necessary to satisfy the lines of evidence to demonstrate that the remediation criteria are being met. The verification plan encompasses any necessary permitting and licensing. Remediation activity started on 23rd February 2004 and reporting of results is therefore premature. The output of the verification report will incorporate all site test data and measurements of quality-critical parameters, as well as records of management of materials from the site, including those which have been redeposited on site, recovered for reuse or taken off site for disposal. The report will demonstrate that the remediation treatments have complied with relevant legislation and that the outcome of the project has met its remediation objectives and criteria. Where monitoring and/or maintenance of remediation treatment is required, the verification report will be only a snapshot in time. In these circumstances post-contract monitoring reports will complement the verification report.
3. Estimation of the transferability of the practice to other European Countries The draft Model Procedures that have been used on the Markham project are tailored for use within the UK legal and regulatory framework. To be adopted elsewhere in Europe, adaptation and development of the procedures would be necessary. Country Viability Effectiveness Usability UK YES YES YES Germany ? ? ? France ? ? ? Poland ? ? ? Within the RESCUE definitions, this practice is PROMISING GOOD PRACTICE In my opinion an innovative practice. Especially the combination (urban) design and remediation is interesting and important. It's also a sustainable approach (Not clean up the soil 100% but only as far as necessary for the urban design is the policy in the Netherlands) I think it is transferable in the Netherlands, I do not know if the regulatory framework would have to change. 4. References / contact Tool Draft Model Procedures Source http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/commondata/105385/model_procedures_5 50969.pdf
FRANCE 1. Abstract description of the practice A post remediation report is compulsory. The aim of this report is to inform the administration in charge of site management which has asked for remediation that works has been done according to what has been prescribed.
WP2_SWG analysis
page 19 of 36
If the kind of report is enough for the administration to ensure that requested works has been properly done, it is not enough to guaranty that what has been done was with sustainable development in mind. Thus it is important to keep record of how things have exactly been made, and to make it visible the effort done towards sustainable management. The document provided in the external case study goes far beyond the compulsory requirements, as it is intended to detail each step (organisationnal and technical) of the operation, not only the means and results. 2. Description of the implementation of the practice within the case study project illustrating its effects on the project The post remediation report is being prepared by the former site owner, in charge of the dismantling and site preparation works, for the future site owner, in charge of further reclamation works if necessary, depending upon final usage of site. This report is contractual within a shared partnership between both partners The main goals of this report are : To present the methodology used for site risk assessment and waste management To detail site investigation strategy and results To describe works made for decontamination To assess residual risk level
A copy of this document will be available by March, 2004, and its exact content better documented 3. Estimation of the transferability of the practice to other European Countries Post remediation validation report can easily be transferred to other countries. The exact content of such document should be adapted to the different national contexts Seems very important to do! I do not know for sure but I think it's policy in Rotterdam 4. References / contact Drocourt Management : M. Jean BRAYER, Technical Manager, 06 19 57 21 26 Detailed information on post remediation documents to be forwarded to the administration can be found at : www. environnement.gouv.fr
WP2_SWG analysis
page 20 of 36
2.3.2.
Practice : To use a Directory of Costs and Services for contaminated sites redevelopment
GERMANY 1. Abstract description of the practice This directory lists the costs for the investiation, planning and realisation of a contaminated site remediation. It shall serve planners and authorities as a tool for a better and easier cost estimation. This directory was compiled by the evaluation of more than 300 brownfield related services. The structure of the directory is adapted to a German standard service description structure (StLB). The first edition of this directory was published in 1998 by the State Environmental Agency of North Rhine-Westphalia. Meanwhile much has changed in this sector, due to legal, regulatory, technical and scientific changes as well as to price changes, so that an extended update is being realised which shall be published at the end of 2003. The creation of the new directory is based on a much larger set of information and is accompanied by a nationwide working team of representatives from administration, brownfield redevelopment and planning practice. The development of a computer program for cost estimation is intended. 2. Description of the implementation of the practice within the case study project illustrating its effects on the project As this instrument is quite new it was not used in the case studies (as far as known).
3. Estimation of the transferability of the practice to other European Countries The insecurity about financial risks. The insecurity of cost calculations is much higher in projects affected by soil contaminations than on „greenfields", which makes the insecurity about financial risks a major obstacle in brownfield redevelopment. Therefore this tool is expected to be very helpful for redevelopment projects. This applies especially for Germany, as the directory is adapted to German standards, laws and prices but it may also be helpful for other countries. Transferable to other countries : Promising best practice 4. References / contact Directory of 1998: http://www.lua.nrw.de/veroeffentlichungen/malbo/malbo5_web.pdf (in German) Project description and parts of the new directory (online): http://www.leistungsbuch-altlasten.de (in German)
WP2_SWG analysis
page 21 of 36
2.4. OBJECTIVE 4: TO IMPROVE SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE THROUGH IDENTIFICATION OF ALL STAKEHOLDERS AND RISK COMMUNICATION
A good communication is essential to keep the public informed during the different steps of the redevelopment of the site (planning, characterisation, remediation, etc.) and to gather input from their reaction in order to match the regeneration process. The community is concerned not only with the benefits associated with redevelopment (reduction of risk to public health) but also by any potential impact encountered during the restoration process. The risk associated with brownfield redevelopment is mainly the potential risk of chemical exposure of the community surrounding the site. The social acceptance will highly be related to the manner the risk is presented, interpreted and the level of trust the public places in the project actors. This good communication is a key point for the sustainability of the project but also during an emergency response action. Risk is not an easy concept to understand and education and involvement of the public are of paramount importance for the acceptance of the site cleanup, and reuse plans. The acceptance of a risk depend on many factors, and risk assessment has its inherent limitations such as the remaining uncertainties, but filling the gap between the experts and the public is a main objective of the risk communication (voluntary or involuntary exposure to risks, cost-benefit appraisal, etc.). The communication strategy and citizen participation is fully covered by the WP5 but one can mentioned at the WP2 level during the site characterisation the two-way communication including risk communication should be maintained to keep the public aware of the site activities and chain of events and this communication will become crucial at the remediation step which will involve transportation of contaminated material, emission of gases and dust, etc. Indicator 2.8 Documented strategy : existence of an informative public approach strategy
The involvement of the public during the regeneration process by means of an information approach will be documented. During the field works it is important to explain about the activities and associated risks, and to verify that the public is informed about the process that is taking place
Checklist for indicator 2.8 Documented strategy Stakeholders have been identified and their relationship to the project evaluated ? Public participation plan (exceeding the level required by law) has been completed ? Realisation of a public survey before the beginning of the project? Anybody clearly responsible for public information since the first stage of the project ? Evaluation of the efficiency of public information ? Existence of dissatisfactions, conflicts with and between stakeholders during these phases of the project (characterisation and remediation) ? Existence of a risk communication ? Existence of a management of these conflicting issues since the start of the project?
WP2_SWG analysis
page 22 of 36
Strengths and weaknesses in this context are : A strength is if : A weakness is if :
2.4.1.
Practice : To set up efficient public communication (provisory title)
WP2_SWG analysis
page 23 of 36
2.5. OBJECTIVE 5: TO PROVIDE DECISION SUPPORT TOOLS FOR RISK BASED LAND MANAGEMENT
Decision support being defined (CLARINET 2002) as "the assistance for, and substantiation and corroboration of, an act or result of deciding; typically this deciding will be at determination of optimal or best approach". It has proven very useful to use proven tools which provide a time- and cost- efficient way for coming to the right decisions in brownfield development. Based on well-tried devices and experiences, some of them - e. g. as a kind of expert systems - can also be an important help to prevent wrong or inefficient decisions. Using electronic data processing these tools can also facilitate to manage, communicate and distribute relevant data. These tools are available for a large range of tasks like risk assessment, process management, technical / economical optimisation or the management, concise presentation and visualisation of data. These tools can be provided in various ways, e. g. in the form of data bases, handbooks, checklists, geographical information systems (GIS). An objective for sustainable brownfield development is not only the use of available tools but also its intelligent application Indicator 2.9 Decision support tools: use of decision support tools
As in practice many decision support tools use several techniques to assist environmental decision-making, the indicator allowing to identify the best practice approach is the following is named "decision support tools" with an attached checklist . The objective is to understand and evaluate the decision making process. To check if the techniques of for example risk assessment, GIS, etc. have been applied. To evaluate the validity of this use.
Checklist of indicator 2.9 Decision support systems Decision support tools used at each stage of the site characterisation (investigation) and remediation ? Application or introduction of tools during characterisation (database, GIS, hydrological, hydrogeological and air models, presentation and visualisation) ? Application or introduction of decision support tools for comparison of options or alternatives (risk assessment, etc.) ? Application or introduction of decision support tools for strategy development (multicriteria analysis) ? Application or introduction of decision support tools for the type of remediation techniques (cost benefit tools) ? Application or introduction of decision support tools for cost benefit / cost effectiveness ? Application or introduction of decision support tools for waste management (disposal and reuse of soils and debris) ?
WP2_SWG analysis
page 24 of 36
The wider impact of the remediation (sustainable development) was considered in all decisions ? Evidences of decisions agreed ? Evidences of decisions enforced ?
Indicator 2.4 Surface and groundwater quality control : Assessment of surface and groundwater management plan
This indicator is one of the environmental indicators that enables assessment of the quality of the surface and ground water system put in place on the site. This indicator assesses the water quality control related to groundwater and surface water (drainage pattern, treatment, monitoring, etc.)
Check list for indicator 2.4 Surface and groundwater quality control Existence of a surface water and groundwater monitoring (quality, flow) ? Existence of a drainage system around the site ? Existence of a retention basin or emergency system to store storm water overflow or accidental pollution ? Water quality control before its discharge to the environment ? Possibility of contaminated surface water to contaminate an aquifer ?
Indicator 2.5 Risk management framework : Existence and scope of a risk management framework
This indicator takes into account the tools already developed for assessing the potential risk The definition of risk is a key step in the redevelopment process
Checklist for indicator 2.5 Risk management framework Existence of a toxicity assessment of all chemicals ? All potential ecological exposure pathways evaluated (source, pathway, receptor) ? All potential human exposure pathways evaluated (source, pathway, receptor)? Complete evaluation of current risks and potential risks ? All acceptable risks considered ? All site development constraints identified ? Complete uncertainties analysis done ? Convincing validation by third party ? Sufficient reassessment of the initial risk assessment at later stages ? Sufficient risk communication to all stakeholders ? Strengths and weaknesses in this context are : A strength is if :
To establish a risk assessment procedure
WP2_SWG analysis
page 25 of 36
Within the management of contamination and reuse of soil and debris this can be achieved most effectively by means of a co-ordinated approach to analysing and managing environmental risks; involving planning, adequate insurance and minimizing risks to vulnerable communities by: a) Identifying and understanding the nature and extent of environmental risks in site and surroundings; b) Ensuring that existing and future developments are not exposed to unacceptable risks; and c) Ensuring that works and development do not increase the risk for the rest of the community. Procedure favours Sustainable Development, and / or a majority of relevant check-list items are met; it means that the use of decision support tools allow to facilitate the decision making process and to make this process transparent, robust, documented and reproducible A weakness is if :
There is no a risk assessment procedure elaborated in the project and if the impacts on the surroundings are not taken into consideration. Objective that does not favour or that goes against sustainable development, meaning that contaminated land management has not been optimised (higher cost), or uncertainties have not been taken into account, or transparency and communication have not been improved due to the absence or misuse of these tools is a weakness.
2.5.1.
Practice : To adopt effective management
decision support tools for risk based land
FRANCE Abstract description of the practice Use of decision making tools has been on in the external case study only. The used tools are in complement of the contaminated sites assessment tools in order to help to manage sites after risk assessment (either SRA or DRA) The tools presently available are : A simplified risk assessment approach (SRA), aiming at identifying those sites that might be potentially hazardous for human health from those sites that are not a potential threat to human health.
WP2_SWG analysis
page 26 of 36
Guide pour la mise en œuvre de servitudes applicables aux sites pollués (Guidelines to implement usage restrictions to contaminated lands) Especially for (urban) designers an important information Guide à l'attention des mandataires judiciaires et de l'inspection des installations classées (Guidelines towards attorneys and authorised installation inspectorship) Guide méthodologique pour la mise en place et l'utilisation d'un réseau de forages permettant d'évaluer la qualité de l'eau souterraine au droit ou à proximité d'un site (potentiellement) pollué (Methodology to implement piezometric net to monitor ground water nearby a (potentially) contaminated site) Mode d'emploi des outils méthodologiques applicables aux sites et sols pollués (Instruction for use of the methodological tool set for the assessment of contaminated sites)
2. Description of the implementation of the practice within the case study project illustrating its effects on the project The complete set of available methodological tools has been used at the external case study. This has allowed to : Delineate highly contaminated places and less or no contaminated places (cartography) : this provided clues on the managing actions to take, on the organisational structure and planning of the works in order not to spread contaminated material to uncontaminated places, and to focus remediation efforts on the contaminated zones only, instead of on the entire site; Implement an ad hoc piezometric net to monitor ground water quality and to ensure the absence of impact of remediation works on water; Select the most sensible substances to take into account Propose quality criteria for soil and debris to leave on site (with or without previous processing)
The reference to accepted tools has helped acceptance by the administration of the choices made, and made it easier the communication to the local authorities. Last, recourse to normative procedures for implementing piezometres, sampling (soil, (ground)water, sample preservation and analysis is recommended, but should be made compulsory, in order to be able to interpret analytical data. 3. Estimation of the transferability of the practice to other European Countries Decision support tools developed in France are intended to help people in charge of risk based land management to take appropriate decisions, according to the principles retained in the French national methodology. Some of the available tools are too specific to be considered as fully transferable. However, the existence of a national methodology allowing to evaluate sites against a known accepted national reference should be considered as a best practise Note that the technical parts of the methodology, such as site investigation step-wise approach, strategies for ground water monitoring, technical guidance for solid, liquid or gaseous sampling... are not regulatory dependant and could easily be transferred to other countries. Part of those documents rely on technical documents published abroad. Risk based land management is also applied in the Netherlands. I do not know if there is a national methology.
WP2_SWG analysis
page 27 of 36
4. References / contact Ministère de l'Aménagement du Territoire BRGM Drocourt Management : M. Jean BRAYER, Technical Manager, 06 19 57 21 26 Weblinks http://www.environnement.gouv.fr http://fasp.info http://www.brgm.fr http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/ISOOnline.frontpage http://www.cenorm.be/cenorm/index.htm http://www.afnor.fr/portail.asp
GERMANY Contaminated Site Management Method of Saxony 1. Abstract description of the practice To use the methodology of contaminated site management of Saxony Since about 1995 the management of contaminated sites in Saxony is organised by certain standards and orders - the Contaminated Site Management Method of Saxony (Sächsische Altlastenmethodik SALM). This method regulates a stepwise procedure of investigation, risk assessment and decisions concerning further steps, including remediation and monitoring. It also includes the application of manuals and electronic databases for this purpose. This is strength only if the methodology is put in place, necessity like we have in France of having an external expertise template with a set of questions (kind of checklist) to check the content of the risk assessment The principle of this method seems to be similar to that of the Contaminated Site Management Method in France. Of course I don't know if it is better than the french method or of any other method. Anyway, as I state below, mean-while there are more advanced approaches in Germany (e.g. the LABO-Paper). 2. Description of the implementation of the practice within the case study project illustrating its effects on the project Although the Espenhain site is regulated by Mining Law (which is less specific on environment issues), the SALM method was applied there since 1995 (according to interviews). As a huge amount of investigation and remediation measures at Espenhain has been realised it is not possible to state specific effects concerning the restoration process. However, according to general experience the following state-ments are possible:
WP2_SWG analysis
page 28 of 36
By following the stepwise, systematic procedure of SALM with its associated manuals and tools (including e. g. a risk assessment database (GEFA)) serious gaps at inves-tigation or risk assessment will probably be avoided. This means that for example the the investigation gaps (surface water and groundwater - see „bad practice example") which were found at Radbod probably would had been avoided if the SALM proce-dure (or a similar systematic procedure) would have been followed. The SALM pro-cedure also includes a largely standardised, systematic contamination risk categori-sation, which has been criticised of being too simple and possibly misleading if used without sufficient scientific experience. 3. Estimation of the transferability of the practice to other European Countries Not transferable as such to the other German Länders or other countries This SALM method is deduced largely identically from a method („Altlastenhand-buch") used in the state of Baden-Württemberg since 1988. Since the Federal Soil Protection Act has become effective some parts of the SALM method (e. g. risk assessment criteria) have become obsolete, but the general ap-proach of SALM and its associated tools are still being used in Saxony. Meanwhile there are more recent, generally acknowledged guidelines for contami-nated site management (e. g. the Manual for Quality Assurance for Contaminated Site Management „Arbeitshilfe für die Qualitätssicherung bei der Altlastenbearbei-tung" created in May 2002 by the federal and states working committee (Bund/Länder-Arbeitsgemeinschaft Bodenschutz - LABO)). However the systematic procedure of SALM (or of its model in the state of Baden-Württemberg) and its asso-ciated manuals and tools may be quite appropriate for the procedure in other European countries. 4. References / contact SALM Stepwise procedure (in German): http://www.umwelt.sachsen.de/de/wu/umwelt/lfug/lfug-internet/salfaweb/salfaweb-nt/fzg/frm.html SALM Manuals for contamination management (Handbuch zur Altlastenbehandlung) (in German): http://www.umwelt.sachsen.de/de/wu/umwelt/lfug/lfug-internet/salfaweb/salfawebnt/fzg/pub_hb.html Associated manuals and tools (in German): http://www.umwelt.sachsen.de/de/wu/umwelt/lfug/lfuginternet/salfaweb/salfaweb-nt/fzg/pub_mat1.html Manual of the corresponding method of Baden-Württemberg 1988 (updated version 2002, in German: http://www.xfaweb.baden-wuerttemberg.de/alfaweb/berichte/s-bewert/bewertContents.html ) LABO tool for Quality Management 2002 (in German): http://labo-deutschland.de/labo-arbeitshilfequalitaetssicherung-12-12-2002.pdf
GERMANY 1. Abstract description of the practice To apply site contamination management guidelines
WP2_SWG analysis
page 29 of 36
Contaminated Site Manual The LMBV, responsible for the contaminations at the Espenhain site ordered the setup of a handbook for the handling of contaminated sites. This folder-size „manual contaminated sites" ("Arbeitshilfe Altlasten") was compiled by an external contractor (CUI Halle) and delivered in 1997/98. This manual takes advantage of the experiences from a large number of contaminated LMBV but includes also information from other sources. It contains a detailed description about production processes, contaminant properties and remediation methods of all LMBV sites. It was mainly used to inform and instruct contractors involved in site investigation and remediation. The manual is steadily being updated. A comparison of the LMBV assessment procedure with those of the Länder Baden-Württemberg / Saxony and Lower Saxony is in preparation. 2. Description of the implementation of the practice within the case study project illustrating its effects on the project As the case study sites Espenhain and Hamm-Radbod both were / are mining sites during the brownfield redevelopment process here the soil-related act and ordinance did not apply. However, since the time the above described federal soil regulations became effective, both are generally regarded as a guideline, as these regulations will come into effect as soon as the redevelopment process is finished. At Espenhain case study this manual helped to fill up the gap of general experiences and guidelines at that time and helped to provide a standard of quality of the work of LMBV staff as well of its contractors. 3. Estimation of the transferability of the practice to other European Countries This instrument was specifically designed for LMBV sites, but might also be helpful for comparable sites. However, meanwhile there are other, generally available and generally acknowledged guidelines (chiefly: the Manual for Quality Assurance for Contaminated Site Management „Arbeitshilfe für die Qualitätssicherung bei der Altlastenbearbeitung" created in May 2002 by the federal and states working committee (Bund/Länder-Arbeitsgemeinschaft Bodenschutz - LABO)3: 4. References / contact Arbeitshilfe für die Qualitätssicherung bei der Altlastenbearbeitung: deutschland.de/labo-arbeitshilfe-qualitaetssicherung-12-12-2002.pdf (in German) http://labo-
2.5.2.
Practice : To adopt a site investigation and evaluation step wise procedure
FRANCE 1. Abstract description of the practice The implementation of the French national methodology for (potentiallt) contaminated sites is accompanied by a set of practical tools aiming at helping for site investigation. This set of tools allow to deal with a large diversity of cases : derelict lands for which wich we do not dispose of
WP2_SWG analysis
page 30 of 36
much preliminary information, small sites to large sites, simple activity or multi activity sites. Those tools allow step wise progression to deal with complicated cases : Guide de visite préliminaire (Site preliminary visit guidelines) : guidelines for conducting site visit aiming at gathering the first information and the most easily available, in order to help defining the extent of future actions. It allows also to quickly determine if immediate risks should be dealt with, prior to undertake long term studies Guide du diagnostic initial (Initial investigation guidelines) : This tool allows to quickly gather basic information on the site, its past and present activities, and environment, in order to identify where what are the sources of contamination, which possible routes may be active to transfert contamination towards the different exposure media. Guide du diagnostic approfondi (Detailed investigation guidelines) : This tool apply if one exposure medium is actually threatened (or already affected) by contamination. It aims at precisely evaluating the extent of the threat or damage, in order to determine the most appropriate corrective action to undertake.
2. Description of the implementation of the practice within the case study project illustrating its effects on the project The application of a step wise procedure for site investigation has allowed to rapidly delineate highly contaminated zones and less or non contaminated zones. This has allowed to quickly adapt ground water monitoring strategy. In addition, as only those actually threatening zones had to be assessed in detail, time and money were spared. 3. Estimation of the transferability of the practice to other European Countries Site step wise investigation tools can easily be transferred 4. References / contact Ministère de l'Environnement et du Développement Durable (Ministry for Environment and Sustainable Developpement) www.environnement .gouv.fr BRGM www.brgm.fr
2.5.3.
Practice : To use standard risk assessment and option appraisial procedures
UNITED KINGDOM 1. Abstract description of the practice
WP2_SWG analysis
page 31 of 36
A standardised risk-based approach is emerging in the UK, applying the risk assessment and options appraisal mechanisms suggested in the draft Model Procedures (Environment Agency 2003). http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/commondata/105385/model_procedures_550969.pdf (in English)
The practice uses the following criteria to evaluate risk management options (based on Bardos et al. 2002) within the Model Procedure approach.
Project boundaries and goals. Risk management Technical suitability Stakeholder perceptions Sustainable development Costs and benefits Feasibility
2. Description of the implementation of the practice within the case study project illustrating its effects on the project The spatial scale – 360 Ha - of the overall Markham project, together with its ten year multi-phase programme, has meant that the strategy and design of the remediation and recycling elements will continue to evolve over time. On the one hand, this means that the full picture is as yet unavailable but, on the other hand, as each design phase is finalised the quality of the approach is clearly and increasingly governed by sustainability principles. Adherence to the draft Model Procedures (Environment Agency 2003) ensures that consistency is applied at each step of the process.
The three simultaneous objectives of the Markham Willows sub-project are: • • • Use of processed organic waste to enhance the fertility and stability of minespoil. Production of biomass on the surface of the minespoil for local use as a renewable fuel. Management of contamination and erosion within the minespoil.
Satisfaction of these objectives will: ◙ Provide two income streams, one from “gate fees” for organic wastes imported to the site, and the other from “green energy” generated by use of the harvested biomass. These income streams will offset the annual maintenance costs associated with abandoned minespoil. ◙ Create an enhanced physical landscape ◙ Add value to the adjacent commercial development site ◙ Manage physical (erosion) and chemical (contamination) issues within the minespoil area.
WP2_SWG analysis
page 32 of 36
To enable this approach to be used with confidence, and adopted elsewhere, its performance will be evaluated over a ten year period by use of a bespoke Risk Management Model. This approach involves a combination of detailed quantitative risk assessment with localised remedial action to demonstrably break pollutant linkages which pose unacceptable risks to human health, controlled waters or the environment.
3. Estimation of the transferability of the practice to other European Countries Country UK Germany France Poland Viability YES ? ? ? Effectiveness YES ? ? ? Usability YES ? ? ?
As far as I can see it is transferable into the Netherlands. Within the RESCUE definitions, this practice is GOOD PRACTICE.
4. References / contact Tool Draft Model Procedures Risk management model Source http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/commondata/105385/model_procedures_5 50969.pdf Available from exSite www.exSite.org in March 2004
FRANCE 1. Abstract description of the practice Since 1993, the management of contaminated sites in France is organised in a stepwise procedure based on a risk assessment approach. The two main steps of the procedure are : A simplified risk assessment approach (SRA), aiming at identifying those sites that might be potentially hazardous for human health from those sites that are not a potential threat to human health. A detailed risk assessment approach (DRA), aiming at actually quantifying the level of risk of those sites potentially threatening human health, and at defining the decontamination level to reach in order lower the actual risk down to regulatory acceptable levels. The strong point of a risk based assessment of contaminated sites is that future use of site may not expose population to unacceptable risk level. 2. Description of the implementation of the practice within the case study project illustrating its effects on the project
WP2_SWG analysis
page 33 of 36
The risk assessment approach has allowed to optimise site rehabilitation : In focusing on those actually contaminated zones only In defining standards and conditions of on site waste debris re using In helping to define the limit values for accepted residual contamination In adapting ground water monitoring strategy
3. Estimation of the transferability of the practice to other European Countries Site step wise investigation tools can easily be transferred The methodology retained in France is not transferable to any other country, unless similar approach is retained. 4. References / contact Ministère de l'Environnement et du Développement Durable (Ministry for Environment and Sustainable Development) www.environnement .gouv.fr BRGM www.brgm.fr
2.5.4.
Practice : To Implement digital soil masses modelling in order to reduce soil transport
GERMANY 1. Abstract description of the practice Digital soil masses modelling is a good practice to manage soil masses in order to organise excavations, soil separation, soil relocations on site and off-site and soil reuse on site. In general it can be described by the following steps: Collection of data of the 3-dimensional position of the existing infrastructure and of soil descriptions from surface measurements and borehole logs; spatial compilation of soil types; data input to GIS system; creating a digital model with discrete soil strata profiles using an adapted additional program; calculation of several variants of the future site surface and soil masses distribution; data input into GIS/CAD program; drawing of precise CAD engineering maps for execution. (It turned out to be difficult to estimate soil masses because of the unknown amount of underground structures due to the long mining history. ) 2. Description of the implementation of the practice within the case study project illustrating its effects on the project According to the interview, in Hamm-Radbod the management of soil masses deals with about 60% of total project costs, so that even this more sophisticated method was comparably cheap (in comparison the contamination management deals with about 5...10% of total costs). It turned out
WP2_SWG analysis
page 34 of 36
to be more cost saving to keep and reuse as much soil an debris as possible on site and to minimise the amount of soil to be carried to or from the site (some inappropriate or contaminated soil had to be deposited or dumped off-site). The GIS system applied was ESRI ArcView, the GIS/CAD program was CADdy. 3. Estimation of the transferability of the practice to other European Countries The contractor responsible for soil management has applied this practice for the first time in the project at Hamm-Radbod. Of course meanwhile there may be other procedures available which come to a good result following the same principle. IGWR also makes 3D drawings of the buildings and contamination in some projects. 4. References / contact Contractor in charge: Erdbaulaboratorium Ahlenberg, Dipl.-Ing. Gerald Mansel-Rudolph, phone: +49-2330-8009-0, info@ea-herdecke.de Publication about soil management herdecke.de/body_bodenmanagement.htm procedure and background: http://www.ea-
2.5.5.
Practice : To use GIS / GPS as a tool for limiting site owner's liability with time once the site has been re-used
FRANCE 1. Abstract description of the practice / instrument : In the framework of the EU regulations related to contaminated sites, site owner's responsibilities are not limited with time. Wherever the polluter is at hand or known, the "polluter pays" principle is strictly applied. The current chain of liability is: the last industry or, by default, the last owner.
Problems can occur and questions related to former contamination can be posed by the new settlers once the site has been rehabilitated and re-used. The combination of GIS and GPS tools can be used during the brownfield rehabilitation process for recording and archiving sampling sites and field analysis in order to be in a position to come back at any moment on the final cleaned-up status of the former site and to compare it with the new status imposed by the land use. 1. Description of the implementation of the practice within the case study project, illustrating the effects on the project (including the project specific background): The site X located in the Paris urban area covers more than 40 ha and corresponds to former heavy industrial activities having generated soil and groundwater contamination. More than 60 000 analysis were performed on about 10000 sampling points in order to assess the contaminated areas and to control the results of the remediation processes. This huge amount of data have
WP2_SWG analysis
page 35 of 36
been managed along the operation life through the use of databases and GIS. One of the objective was to record the results of the remediation programme area by area in order to provide arguments and explanations in the case of possible complaints and questions submitted by the residents or the municipality of the new developed facilities. 2. Estimation of the transferability of the practice to other European Countries This "good practice" consisting of : Using available databases and GIS tools to manage and record different types of data related to a brownfield site status (before remediation and after decontamination process took place), Making available the data and the accurate location of sampling sites for future uses in view of preventing possible site owner liability,
can be applied to other countries without particular constraints. Its implementation is easy, provided that the process is set up at the beginning of the project. The practice fully supports the conditions of transferability in terms of effectiveness, viability and usability. It is considered as a "Best practice". 3. References / contacts Interview only.
Validation Almut Röwekamp, Public works of Rotterdam The text is comprehensive. As a landscape architect working with remediation-specialists I see the named practices as key-practices but because of my professional background I can not say if a practice is economic viable or legal. The information is in my opinion relevant, especially/also for non-soil experts who take part in remediation projects.
WP2_SWG analysis
page 36 of 36