Soil contamination in the Netherlands EIONET workshop, Barcelona, May 2003 Aaldrik Tiktak –...

Soil contamination in the NetherlandsEIONET workshop, Barcelona, May 2003

Aaldrik Tiktak – Environmental Assessment Agency

2Soil contamination in the Netherlands | Aaldrik Tiktak

Outline

• Point source contamination– Cleary defined sources– Mining, industrial facilities, landfills

• Diffuse pollution– Mainly from agricultural sources


Contamination by Point-Sources

• 200,000 sites known to exist, which is more than in any other EU country– High population density– Intensive soil use– Different perspective due to public awereness after

‘Lekkerkerk’ 1980

• Estimated costs for clean-up higher than in any other EU country– NL: 35 billion EUR– UK: 25 billion EUR– B: 6 billion EUR


Clean-up costs of contaminated sites

Estimated total clean-up costs for soil contamination

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Netherlands

UK

Belgium-Flanders

Sweden

Switzerland

Germany-Bavaria

Austria

Denmark

Finland

Spain

Italy

in thousands of millions EUROS


Original ambition in the Netherlands

• Clean-up all contaminated sites to minimal residual values

• Multifunctional land-use

• All should be done within one generation

• Expensive!


BEVER reconsideration

• Clean-up to realistic values related to the current use of the soil, instead of multifunctional use

• Decentralization of the controlling action to the provincial and municipal level

• Joint funding of soil clean-up from all parties of interest (75% funded by private parties)

• Historical seriously contaminated sites to be under control before 2023

• New contamination (after 1987) to be restored immediately


Monitoring of point scale contamination

• In 2004 an inventory of contaminated sites must be ready– Helps to define the total workload– Allows for better planning of the coming actions

• Progress of the remediation is monitored independently– Annual progress reports– Size, grade of pollution and priority for remediation– Position in an area (dynamic or static developments)– Size and remidiation goals– Destination of soil and costs


Overview of data to be monitored

Monitoring Soil Remediation

Survey of workload of suspected sites

Progress of investigations

Progress of remediation

Results of remediation

Use of management instruments

Nr of sites

Grade of contamination

Expected costs

Nr of sites

Grade of contamination

Priority for remediation

Static or dynamic site

Nr of sites

Surface and volume

Completely remediated

Partly remediated

Nr of sites

Remediation goal realized

Destination of soil released

Annual spendings

Average spendings per site

Co-funding


Policy adopted: only 52% multifunctional

Remediation goals 2001 (on basis of the number of sites)

Multifunctional 52%

Topsoil: Soil use value (a)

23%

Combination (a)+(b) 7%

Not classified 10%

Everlasting care 4%

Underground: Stable situation (b)

4%

Total of 1097 sites


But government is still largest investorDistribution of costs of soil surveys and remediation

Private parties -registrated

13% Government59%

City renewal program4%

Private parties- additional estimation

24%

Estimated total costs354 million EUROS


Conclusions point-scale pollution• 560 new cases detected

– But only 15% remediated

• Total number of 8500 sites remediated– 50% multifunctional– 35% functional– Speed of remediation has not increased

• Government spent 50% of the total 5 billion EUR– Below target of 75%

• With current speed, targets will not be met by 2023


Diffuse Pollution

• Large areas of land involved– Remediation not possible– Prevent at the source

• Agriculture is the most important actor!

• Diffuse pollution is usually also NPS pollution

• Major pollutants– Nutrients (N and P)– Heavy metals (primarily Cd, Zn, Cu and Pb)– Pesticides– Persistent Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)


Diffuse pollution in NLHeavy metal contents are usually below the target value. However, accumulation is still going on.

Acidification and eutrophication of nature in. Slight improvement.

70% of land area P-saturated. No improvement.

Heavy metals in groundwater above target values in SE NL; above intervention value under forest.

High heavy metal contents in SE NL and peat areas due to historic sources

Values of persistent pesticides like DDT, HCB and Drins above target value. Not admitted anymore.

Pesticides in groundwater???

PAHs above target value in SW NL

N in groundwater under sandy soils >> 50 mg/L. Decreasing slightly.


NationalSoil QualityMonitoringNetwork (LMB)• 200 locations

• Agriculture

and nature

• Once per 5

years

• Soil and

upper

groundwater


Sampling soil quality


Sampling groundwater quality


Example 1: Heavy metals in agricultural soils

Percentage of samples above target value


Example 2: Nitrate in the groundwater

Nitrate in the groundwater (2000)(5-15 m)

% of samples with a concentration > 50 mg/L


Example: The eutrophication problem

• The Netherlands has a serious eutrophication problem

Number of livestock per hectare

Livestock per hectare


Dutch and European legislation

• EU Nitrate directive:– Prescribes both the target and the measure– Concentration in the groundwater should be 50 mg/L– Surface water quality should be good– Maximum application of N in manure is 170 kg/ha

• Dutch Nutrient Law (MW) implemented in 1996:– MINAS: Maximum loss rates instead of maximum

application rates– Soil and crop dependent– Implemented at the farm level– Inforced by penalties (levies)


N surplus decreases...

N surplus in dairy farms

ClayPeatOther sandDry sand

170 kg/ha


But nitrate in groundwater under sandy soils is still too high...

Measured

Corrected value

Corrected for fluctuations in precipitation and groundwater level

SandClayPeat

Sand

Nitrate in the shallow groundwater


Phosphate saturation• 75% of Dutch sandy soils are phosphate saturated

• Current loss rate enforced (20 kg/ha) still leads to accumulation

• Further reduction to 1 kg/ha foreseen in 2030

• Manure surplus increases– Alternative processing– Export– Reduction of lifestock


• To be implemented in national policy in 2003

• Good chemical and ecological quality– Nutrients– Toxic substances

• Targets must be met in 2015

• Social consequences....

Waterframe directive


Consequences of agri-environmental plans

Volume change 1990 - 2002

Dairy farms

Pig farms

Cows per farm

Pigs per farm

Production

Added value


Additional measures required:

• Reform of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) gives opportunities– More money for Rural Development Plans– Possibilities to use EU budget for national ambitions– Funding of overall farm management systems (such as organic

farming)– Set-aside of agricultural sector; avoid agriculture in sensitive areas.


Common Agricultural Policy

Rural development plansIncome support related to hectaresSupport to agricultural prices


Organic agriculture is still a small market

Organic agriculture in European countries

Area in 2002 Consumption in 2002


Conclusions diffuse pollution

• Diffuse contamination widespread due to agricultural sources

• Avoid agriculture in specific areas

• Transition of agriculture necessary to reach targets– Extensification of existing agriculture– Good Farming Practice– New production methods such as organic farming– Multi-functional use of agricultural soils (recreation, ‘green services’)


Recommendation for working group

• Consider both diffuse and point source contamination

• Tackling the diffuse pollution problem is not possible without transition towards sustainable agriculture– Investigate socio-economic consequences– Investigate alternatives (organic farming, green services, …)– Investigate where agriculture is possible at low environmental

costs

Soil contamination in the Netherlands EIONET workshop, Barcelona, May 2003 Aaldrik Tiktak –...

Documents

Transcript of Soil contamination in the Netherlands EIONET workshop, Barcelona, May 2003 Aaldrik Tiktak –...