Remediation projects dealing process International evolution and experiences Jurgen BUHL (Cornelsen Umwelttechnologie GmbH, Germany) Introduction According to recent estimates Soil contamination requiring clean up is present at approximately 250,000 sites in the EEA (European Environment Agency) member countries. Potentially polluting activities are estimated to have occurred at nearly 3 million sites. The total number of sites requiring remediation by 2005 is estimated to be around 400,000. Corresponding costs for remediation are expected to amount to 109 billion euro. The annual cost per citizen amounts to some 10 euros (3). The numbers which have been highlighted above show that there are many problems requiring solutions and that it is a big business for consultants and remediation companies. Due to the significance of contamination to the value of an estate and/or for the municipal budget, rules, contracts and regulations are required and research into cost efficient solutions and effective results is clearly most important. Fig 1: Annual (2005-2006) national expenditures for management of contaminated sites per unit of GDP (as ) Remediation contracts Remediation of contaminated sites (focus: groundwater) can involve several parties: the site owner, the previous site owner, the local environmental agency, neighbours, lawyers, the state or national environmental agency, insurance companies, consultants or remediation companies, to mention just a few. As such this mixture of politics, economics, the environment and justice leads to different interests and opinions. The environmental agency is interested in achieving results which are compliant with the law whereas, however, site owners are often interested in spending the least acceptable money and completing the remediation at the highest residiual acceptable concentration. It is therefore necessary to get all parties focussed achieving both an effective and compliant site remediation and yet within the financial capacity of the site owner. An effective and efficient remediation project firstly requires sufficient information on the nature, extent and severity of the contamination and associated groundwater chemistry from which a remediation design can be prepared (by the consultant). This is the absolute foundation of a successful remediation project. Insufficient investigations are very likely to lead to the wrong decisions, especially with regard to the selected remediation technology and/or strategy. The manner in which remediation projects are undertaken varies from one country to another or as in the UK for example may be dependant of the capabilities of the Consultant or the requirements of the End Client. The three most common profiles for site remediation in Europe can be described as follows: 1) In some countries in Europe such as Germany the remediation process is strictly separated into those companies that undertake the investigation, the remediation design and the supervision of the project and those companies that supply and operate the treatment plants. 2) Another common configuration, though not in Germany, is for the consultant to select and hire the remediation technology and then operate it by themselves. This is often described as Turnkey. This is quite common within the UK for example. 3) The third model is for the remediation to be undertaken by a Turnkey Remediation Contractor. This is quite common in some countries such as Italy, Spain and the UK. Usually these Contractors are using the data obtained by the Consultant (and contained within the tender documentation), however, importantly under this model, the Turnkey Remediation Contractor has made the remediation design and will take the risk to achieve the remediation target. The Consultant may still be retained by the End Client to oversee the project.
The Tendering Process All three of the above models would typically include a tender process, although not necessarily. Unfortunately there is a strong tendency for the cheapest quotation to be selected. In the case of Profiles 1 and 3 this may indeed be outside the control of the Consultant who may have recommended a stronger technical bid. Obviously the cheapest quotation doesn t automatically lead to the most cost efficient remediation either because of high operating costs or simply because of poor technology/ expertise/quality/reliability. Clearly even within Option 2 the Consultant may also choose the lower quality bid based on price. In almost every case and for all the above models, a poor choice made only on price is the result of inexperience. A highly experienced and technically competent Consultant, Systems specialist or Turnkey Contractor will always benefit from a client who is able to understand and interpret the quality of the quotation provided to them. This is the smart client. Crucially also, however, the End Client will benefit from being a smart client. The Remediation Contract In model 1 the remediation is very often carried based on a simple contract. The End Client will, supported by a consultant, initiate a tendering process for the remediation system. In this case the consulting firm will make the remediation design and will select and specify a suitable treatment plant for the project. This specification is then issued within the tender document. The successful remediation company will then receive the order, however, this order is normally (e.g. Germany) not orientated on treatment results but on the rental or purchase of a remediation plant. Such a configuration requires effective and efficient project management from the End client and/or from the Consultant because very often the remediation companies are not interested in any acceleration of the treatment process. Often, when there are different parties involved, such as may occur in groundwater treatment projects due to the migration of contaminations together with the groundwater flow and/or when the remediation is financed by public money (fund) the contract may be entered into under Public Law. In such a contract the expectations of all parties and the remediation targets are clearly specified and this can avoid much confusion including roles and responsibilities. In these kinds of projects it is common for either the Consultant to win an order to oversee the installation and run the system/manage the remediation contractor. It is also not uncommon that the consultant and supplier of the remediation technology will receive separate contracts. That can vary from country to country and within the country. In Model 2, the specification of the remediation system lies entirely with the Consultant, however, in many cases the Consultant will open discussions with their preferred Systems Specialist(s) and develop the design and quotation in an open team orientated manner. This can save a lot of wasted time for both parties and properly reflects the fact that the Consultant may not have the Process or Electro/Mechanical Expertise to correctly specify the plant. Without the costs of the tender process, this approach can often be more cost effective even when the contractor s rates are not their absolutely most competitive. Of course tenders are also common in this model of contract. In any case, the Contract is between the supplier and the Consultant. The responsibility for remediating the site to any agreed target lies clearly with the Consultant. Model 3 is quite different. The nature of these contracts is such that the successful Contractor will undertake the remediation based on the site investigation reports for a fixed price. Such a configuration requires experienced players on both sides of the table (client, contractor) because in the worst configuration the Contractor goes bankrupt, the money was spent and the site still requires clean-up. Client s expectations What are client s expectations? That depends on the project configuration and the client. It is quite typical that the Client is focussed on achieving the treatment targets within the shortest possible timeframe. Sometimes, however, the Client is busy running his normal business process (production) and may want to undertake the site remediation with the lowest acceptable effort. In other projects for example in groundwater contamination caused by chlorinated solvents it will be a long lasting project anyway which can lead to the Client focussing on the lowest annual operating costs.
Fig 2: Soil Treatment Techniques in selected European Countries Naturally the end use of the site plays a large part in the Client s expectations. This proposed end use will also control the regulatory standard applied to the remediation process and therefore the remediation target. In European countries there are national lists on which contaminants and corresponding acceptable concentrations are specified. For soil contamination it is important whether the contamination is on a children play ground or an industrial site. Furthermore the type of soil will influence the acceptable concentration level. A contamination in the soil caused by arsenic for example will require further action at the following concentration levels (2): play ground 25 mg/kg parks 125 mg/kg residential area 50 mg/kg industrial sites 140 mg/kg Actually achieving treatment targets can of course be problematic, especially if those targets are based on regulatory standards that take no account of risk modelling. A detailed quantitative risk assessment is a vital tool for developing achievable remediation targets based on real risk to human health, the environment or the local amenity. Equally without a thorough understanding of the geology, hydrogeology and the fate and transport of the contaminants, any remediation treatment targets can be wholly unachievable by any reasonably cost effective remediation technology. The performance of a remediation pilot test may be crucial to help this process. Groundwater remediation targets can be especially problematic to meet. The reasons for that include various factors: Groundwater flow takes place mainly in layers within the aquifer which show a higher permeability, however, the concentration of contaminants is typically much higher in less permeable layers. Furthermore very often the concentration is again higher in the capillary fringe. Only high groundwater levels can dissolve contaminants from this area of the aquifer so other technologies may need to be employed simultaneously such as soil vapour or multiphase extraction. There are many other factors which influence the groundwater treatment. Remediation budgets Site remediation is very often not number one on the priority list of a site owner as there is rarely a substantial return on the investment. Therefore small and mid size companies tend to postpone the starting point of remediation activities. Very useful for achieving this is the need for further analytical results of various sampling campaigns. Such behaviour gets supported by authorities who are not strict enough or too busy with more problematic sites. In the worst case the polluter-pays principle which is the common principle in most European countries cannot be employed because the company that was legally responsible for the pollution either no longer exists or is insolvent. Due to that and other reasons (e.g. World War II) on average approx. 35 % of total expenditure derives from public budgets (1). Public budgets can be financed by the government (taxes) or by an extra charge on contaminated waste or other systems. In the last few years a lot of money has been spent on the social sector by the cities in Germany. The proportion on the public budget has become higher and higher each year. As a result of this cities looked for savings in other sectors (e.g. site remediation). Furthermore many companies were interested in erecting new buildings and branches on greenfields. Former industrial sites were not very attractive for industrial or residential buildings. That caused a strong tendency of postponing site remediation. In the UK, however, Government policy has placed strict requirements on planners to require the development of new housing, for example, on Brownfield land (formerly developed land).
Fig 3: Estimated allocations of public and private expenditures for management of contaminated sites by country (2005) Remediation results As noted above, a thorough site remediation does not always lead to the treatment concentrations which have been specified at the beginning. Groundwater pump and treat projects for example, while often successful, can also often drag on for many years due to continued re-dissolution contaminants from the soil back into the groundwater at the water-table fluctuates. Naturally this can lead to considerable additional expenditure. If the remediation can t achieve the required concentrations then in practise the company which is responsible for planning and/or doing the remediation will strive for the remediation targets by optimising the remediation and the plant if necessary. But at a later stage of the remediation process the company and the environmental regulator may come to an agreement at slightly higher concentration level which considers the circumstances (risk, effort, groundwater velocity, cost efficiency, etc.) in an appropriate way. That requires a lot of very serious investigations, evaluations and calculations on the potential risk for third parties (e.g. down gradient the contaminated site) and an appropriate monitoring period afterwards to verify the evaluations. Of course there may remain the contractual obligations of the Consultant or Turnkey Remediation Contractor with the End Client/Site Owner. Failure to achieve the target could be the ruin of the Consultant/Contractor as this may constitute breach of Contract or indeed claims made on their Professional indemnity insurance. Within the UK we know of no cases wherein legal action has led to a bankruptcy. This is quite surprising as it is actually not uncommon for Turnkey Remediation Contractors (usually the only companies willing to take on a fixed price guaranteed remediation contract) to fail to achieve their targets. There are often very good reasons for this, however, sometimes the failures are due to insufficient technical competence, experience, equipment or simply the commercial pressure to use what equipment they have and get the project done as quickly as possible. There have been two quite significant Professional Indemnity claims in the last couple of years in the UK. To be fair such failures also occur amongst all the other remediation project models described above. Conclusions A fixed priced remediation has some obvious advantages to the client in theory and may be very successful. However, it does remove the End Client from the decision making process as new information comes to light during the remediation process. The decisions made by the fixed price contractor cannot help but be commercially biased and may not be to the best long term advantage of the End Client even if the targets initially set are achieved. A success story requires all parties including the End Client, Consultant, Regulator and the Remediation Contractor to be thoroughly experienced and to have approached the remediation process in a pragmatic and team orientated way and have planned for the need to optimise the remediation process. It is very typical that more than one technology is required for a site either simultaneously or sequentially. Quite often the technology being used at the end of the remediation is different to that used at the beginning. Site remediation and especially groundwater remediation is very often not a simple issue. Good project management, regular meetings and optimisation of the treatment strategy and the treatment plant at the right time will lead to a cost efficient site remediation. Site remediation always requires the question: How can I improve it?
Bibliography (1) EEA (2006): Progress in management of contaminated sites (CSI 015) Assessment Draft created Jul 2006.- www.themes.eea.europa.eu (2) Germany: Bundes-Bodenschutz- und Altlastenverordnung (BBodSchV).- www.gesetze-iminternet.de (3) SYKE (2004): Costs for remediation of contaminated sites now estimated in Finland.- www.environment.fi