Swedish Geotechnical Institute - new role in soil remediation - Dan Berggren Kleja
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Swedish Geotechnical Institute
- new role in soil remediation
Dan Berggren Kleja
dan.berggren.kleja@swedgeo.se
Final Conference for BECOSI, Norrköping, 25 September 2013 1
A governmental agency conducting research
in the geotechnical and geo-environmental
field, disseminates knowledge and provides
geotechnical advice to authorities and the
civil engineering sector.
2
3
Geotechnical & Geo-
environmental research
Research staff at SGI:
65 technical experts
22 PhD:s
4 PhD students
3 Guest researchers
Research facilities:
Geotechnical laboratory
Environmental laboratory
Test fields
GIS-support
Library & dissemination support
New misson
• SGI has the from 1 January 2010 the national
responsibility for R&D regarding remediation of
contaminated land (+10 MSEK/yr)
– earlier Swedish EPA
• Intention
– To speed up remedial work in order to achieve
the national goal of a non-toxic environment
5
Prioritized research areas
– develop more effecient strategies and
methods for investigating contaminated sites
– improved risk assessment models
– Improved soil remediation methods (in-situ,
on-site)
6
A new initiative to promote R&D on
contaminated land remediation
• A platform for national research and development
programs dealing with contaminated land
• Promoting collaboration between universities,
institutes, companies and authorities.
• Research question to be defined by a societal need.
contact: yvonne.ohlsson@swedgeo.se
7
• Upcoming research call in corporation with
Formas (probably October 2013)
• 7 MSEK / year during three years
• Risk assessment, risk evaluation, risk
management, remediation
Mötesnamn etc 8
Example of R&D projects on
Risk Assessment
• ImaHG – Enhanced knowledge in mercury fate and
transport for improved management of Hg soil
contamination (France, Belgium, Great Britain,
Sweden). SNOWMAN 2012-2013.
• IBRACS – Integrating Bioavailability in Risk
Assessment of Contaminated Soils: opportunities
and feasibilities (Sweden, Belgium, France).
SNOWMAN 2012-2014.
9
Example of SGI R&D projects on
Remediation Techniques
• SMOCS – Sustainable management of contaminated
sediments (Baltic See region, EU). 2007-2013
• UPSOIL – Sustainable Soil Upgrading by Developing
Cost-effective, Biogeochemical Remediation
Approaches (EU, FP7). 2009-2012
• Rejuvenate – Crop Based Systems for Sustainable
Risk Based Land Management for Economically
Marginal Degraded Areas (SNOWMAN). 2010-2012
10IBRACS
Integrating Bioavailability in Risk Assessment
of Contaminated Soils: opportunities and
feasibilities
Period: Oct 2011-Sep 2014; Total founding: € 654 236
National founders: Formas & SGI (Sweden), ADEME &
INRA (France), OVAM (Flanders), DGARNE (Wallonia)
Dan Berggren Kleja (coordinator), Swedish Geotechnical Institute (SGI)
/ (IVL on subcontract)
Jurate Kumpiene, Luleå University of Technology (LTU)
Gerard Cornelissen, Stockholm University (SU) / (NGI on subcontract)
Erik Smolders, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (KUL)
TITEL
Philippe Sonnet, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCL)
Thibault Sterkeman, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique
(INRA)Bioavailability? “Bioavailability is the degree to which chemicals present in the soil (or sediment) may be absorbed or metabolized by human or ecological receptors or are available for interaction with biological systems” (ISO 11075:2005)
Varies between soils and experimental conditions wheat barley respiration pH, clay, organic matter, black carbon (soot)
Why account for bioavailability? • To improve accuracy in risk assessments giving more reliable decisions on how much soil that needs to be remediated. • To open up for site specific management options based on immobilization of contaminants (reducing bioavailablity). • Risk-based management approaches based on bioavailability principles have a potential to be more cost effective than conventional approaches based on total concentrations.
Aims IBRACS • The overall aim of IBRACS is to provide policymakers, authorities and companies with guidelines on how bioavailability tests can be used for risk-based management decisions on contaminated land. • Focus ecological risk assessment (soil function)
Bioavialablity approaches in
ecological risk assessments
1. Adjusting total concentrations with factors
related to soil properties like pH, organic
matter, clay, cation exchange capacity (eCEC)
Used today in Flanders
for Soil Quality Criteria
low eCEC high eCECBioavialablity approaches in
ecological risk assessments
2. Using soil chemical tests as index for
bioavailability; e.g. pore water concentration,
”extractable” concentration (Tiers 2 & 3)
Total concentration The perfect method
R R
3
2
1
NOEC 1 2 3 total 1=2=3 “available”
concentration concentrationProject structure IBRACS
WP1. Project management
WP3. Comparison of WP4. WP5. Uptake of
existing risk assessment Ecotoxicity and pollutants by
models for soil with bioavailability plant and
focus on bioavailability testing bioavailability
Cu, Zn, Ni, Cu, Zn, Ni, PAH PAH
Cd, PAH
WP6. Recommendations on the
use of bioavailability concepts
in risk assessment frameworks
(Tier 1) PAHs - Enchytraeidae
test
WP6. A a guidance paper on Metals - plant test
how to use chemical test
methods in risk assessments
(Tiers 2 & 3)
WP2. Dissemination and ExploitationSoil chemical tests - metals • Validation of simple and robust chemical tests for metal ecotoxicity (extractants, leaching test, DGT-analysis) • Calibration on plant toxicity experiments with field contaminated and spiked soils (Cu, Zn, Ni), in total 20 dose-response curves. • Use an existing data base for metals ecotoxicity (>500 tests) in evaluations
Example results – metals
Soil chemical tests - PAH
Total
concentration
poor predictor of
toxicity
Toxicity to
Hyalella azteca
Pore water
concentration
better predictor of
toxicity
Photo credit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hyalella_azteca.jpg Hawthorne et al. ES&T 2007Soil chemical tests - PAH
Validation of passive sampler method for determining
porewater concentration / bioavailablityof PAHs
Anal. Chem. 2011;83(17):6754-61
Simple method!
2 g soil + 0.2 g POM
+ 20 ml H20
shake for 1 month, extract
POM (membrane)
Cpw = Kpom * CpomFollow IBRACS on http://projects.swedgeo.se/ibracs/
FP7 EU project
2009-2012
General aim: develop and test smart in-situ
remediation methods
contact: lennart.larsson@swedgeo.se
24Sustainable Soil Upgrading By Developing Cost Effective, Project co-funded by the EC
Biogeochemical Remediation Approaches within the Seventh Framework
Programme (2009-2012)
WP4
• WP leader: SWEDISH GEOTECHNICAL INSTITUTE
• Partners: DEKONTA, DELTARES, ECOREM, EJLSKOV, ENACON,
GEOCISA, IETU, SGI, TECNALIA, VITO, WUR
General aim
Develop and test a Membrane Interphase
Probe and injection delivery system (MIP-IN)
for in-situ remediation of organic contaminantsSustainable Soil Upgrading By Developing Cost Effective, Project co-funded by the EC
Biogeochemical Remediation Approaches within the Seventh Framework
Programme (2009-2012)
Traditional approach: 2 phases
Approach with new innovative MIP-IN system: 1 phase
Data collection/investigation and remediation/injection performed
at the same time in each investigation spot (direct-push technique)The new MIP-IN probe Sustainable Soil Upgrading By Developing Cost Effective, Project co-funded by the EC
within the Seventh Framework
Biogeochemical Remediation Approaches
Programme (2009-2012)28
29
Sustainable Soil Upgrading By Developing Cost Effective, Project co-funded by the EC
Biogeochemical Remediation Approaches within the Seventh Framework
Programme (2009-2012)
Full-scale test site
3 Injection points -> 2 to 7 m bgl
2m Injection of: 332 kg NaMnO4 as a 8%
solution (app. 4,2 m³)
Distance Injection -> MW: 1 – 3 m
2m
MW filters (1 m) in the depth interval
2 – 8 m b.g.l.
1.5 m
Monitoring equipment:
1m
1m
1.5 m 3m
3mSustainable Soil Upgrading By Developing Cost Effective, Project co-funded by the EC
Biogeochemical Remediation Approaches within the Seventh Framework
Programme (2009-2012)
Multi-logger response
MW1A
Oxidant first arrival after injection 1m from MW1A
Electric conductivity
Temperature
Flashy response
15 minutes after injection started March 17 April 6
Clear response on injection!Sustainable Soil Upgrading By Developing Cost Effective, Project co-funded by the EC
Biogeochemical Remediation Approaches within the Seventh Framework
Programme (2009-2012)
Ethylbensene levels decreased
ca 5 m
Ethylbensene (µg/l) Ethylbensene (µg/l)
in groundwater in groundwater one
before MIP-IN test week after MIP-IN
testSustainable Soil Upgrading By Developing Cost Effective, Project co-funded by the EC
Biogeochemical Remediation Approaches within the Seventh Framework
Programme (2009-2012)
Conclusions from WP4
The MIP-IN technique was tested on a highly
contaminated BTEX site
NaMnO4 was the most appropriate oxidant
Full-scale MIP-IN test was proven successful
The MIP-IN system has been patented by Vito
and Eljskov
http://www.upsoil.eu/Project manager Göran Holm goran.holm@swedgeo.se
Background • Dredging of fairways and ports have to be made and several million m3 of sediments have to be dredged in the coming years • A considerable part of the dredged sediments is contaminated with non-organic and/or organic contaminants (e.g. heavy metals, dioxins, PCBs, PAHs, TBT) • Dump of sediments at the sea normally not allowed • Land disposal expensive • Initial projects show large potential for innovations regarding beneficial use of treated contaminated sediments (e.g. the stabilisation/solidification method)
SGI Lead Partner Budget 3,465 MEuro SGI Budget 681 500 Euro
Outcomes • Guideline for management of contaminated sediments including handling alternatives • Tool-box of treatment technologies, tools for assessment of sustainablity, decision support tools • Field tests to validate, demonstrate and communicate emerging treatment methods under various conditions • Permanent network for the management of contaminated sediments of Baltic Sea Region
Beneficial use BenB
The process of beneficial use of
contaminated dredged material
Dredging environmentally friendly
Transport
Process stabilisation/solidification
Beneficial use as construction/fill
material in port areasstabilisation/solidification with mass stabilisation
Stegeludden,
Oxelösund,
Sweden (2009)Field tests • Port of Gävle, Sweden • Port of Kokkola, Finland • Port of Gdynia, Poland • Port of Klaipeda, Lithuania
Lab Test on 365 days field
stabilized sediments
Sum 7PCB Sum 16PAH
2 500
1,8 SEDIMENT STABILISERAT SEDIMENT 450 SEDIMENT STABILISERAT SEDIMENT
393
1,6 400
1,4 1,24 350
μg/kg TS
μg/kg TS
1,2 300
1 250
0,8 200
0,6 150 108
0,26 0,33
0,4 0,16 100 62
0,2 0,083 50 1,6 7,8 1,6 1,9Major conclusions • Heavy Metals - Lower leachability of most metals • PAH, PCB - All cases, significant reduced leachability • Strength and permeability - Required strength obtained and very low permeability in all cases • Samples from field test show lower leachability than laboratory made samples
http://smocs.eu/
Mini Info 2013-09-11 Göran Holm45
You can also read
