95-0387 Contaminated Soil and Ground Water

Shell International Exploration and Production B.V.
Contaminated Soil
and Groundwater
EP 95-0387
HSE
MANUAL
Revision 0: 9 October 1995

EP HSE Manual Amendment Record Sheet
Section Number: EP 95-0387

Section Title: Contaminated Soil and Groundwater
Rev. Chapter Description of amendment Date Amended

Nos. by
No. dd/mm/yy
0 All Original hard copy and CD-ROM issue 10/10/95 EPO/62

Contents
CONTENTS 6.1 The Elements of a Soil Information System 29

6.2 Guidance on Completing Soil Information
Summary iii Data 29
6.2.1 Site information 29
1 Introduction 1 6.2.2 Hydrological system 29
1.1 Background 1 6.2.3 Surface water 29
1.2 Objectives of Contaminated Soil 6.2.4 Groundwater contamination 30

Management 1 6.2.5 Hydrological information 31
1.3 The Current Approach and Need for a Soil 6.2.6 Soil contamination 31
Framework Plan 1 6.2.7 Type of soil 31
1.4 NAM Soil Clean-up Policy 3 6.2.8 Urgency category 31

6.2.9 Measures 31
2 The Instruments of Soil 6.2.10 Negative value of soil contamination 31
Management 5
3 Measuring and Recording 7 Appendices
3.1 Determination of Soil Quality 7 I Hydrological Systems 33
3.1.1 Basis of surveys 7

II Sample Proforma for Soil Information
System 41
3.1.2 Contamination expected at oil sites 7
3.1.3 Contamination expected at gas sites 8
3.1.4 Drainage as a transport route 8
Abbreviations 43
3.2 Types of Soil Contamination Surveys 9
3.3 Data Needed for Risk Evaluation 9 Glossary 45
3.4 The Design of Monitoring Systems 11
4 Risk Evaluation 13
4.1 The Risk Evaluation Process 13
4.2 The Hazards 14
4.2.1 Health 14
4.2.2 Damage to underground systems 14
4.2.3 Environmental spread 15
4.3 Determination of Exposure Category 17
4.4 Determination of Spread Category 20
4.5 Determination of Urgency Category 23
4.6 Determination of Priorities Within Urgency
Categories 24
5 Control Measures in the Event of

Soil Contamination 27
5.1 Measures in the Event of Incidents 27
5.2 Measures as Part of Normal Site
Management 27
5.3 Measures at Abandonment or Handover 28
6 Soil Information System 29
EP 95-0387 Revision 0 9 October 1995 i

HSE Manual EP 95-0387 Contaminated Soil and Groundwater
This page intentionally left blank
i EP 95-0387 Revision 0 9 October 1995

Summary
SUMMARY
This document is adapted from the English translation of the NAM documents 'Raamplan Bodem
NAM: Algemene bescrijving en Handleiding voor bodembeheer op NAM-lokaties'. (NAM Soil
Framework Plan: General Description and Manual for Soil Management at NAM Locations). The
original translation was issued as EP 93-0341. The work described in this document was done by
NAM to provide a framework for dealing with contaminated sites, focusing on setting priorities for
site remediation. It has been adopted as section EP 95-0387 of the HSE Manual to provide Opcos with
an example of a pragmatic approach to setting priorities for contaminated sites. The practical value of
this work has been demonstrated by the NAM, enabling the company to pursue a scientifically sound
and cost effective approach to site remediation, which is fully endorsed by relevant competent
authorities in the Netherlands. The approach described in this report was developed against a
background of evolving legislation within the Netherlands, both at the national and local level, and
therefore reflects the regulatory regime of that country. However, the underlying principles of the
approach are applicable to all EP Opcos, with a clear focus on risk-based site assessment, coupled
with unequivocal criteria for setting priorities. Indeed, this approach is advocated throughout the
Group for dealing with contaminated soil and groundwater. The report should be interpreted in this
context, building on the principles of risk-based site assessment and the use of clear criteria to set
priorities for site remediation, but with Opcos assessing the relevance of more specific aspects to their
own circumstances. In this context, Opcos should always ensure that any plans they formulate to
address potential soil and groundwater contamination issues are thoroughly discussed and agreed with
local competent authorities. Finally, this report complements EP 95-0385 Environmental Quality
Standards - Soil and Groundwater and EP 95-0386 Monitoring Soil and Groundwater.
EP 95-0387 Revision 0 9 October 1995 ii

iii EP 95-0387 Revision 0 7 September 1995

1 Introduction
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The work group in NAM responsible for strategic clean-up and operational criteria were given the
task of drawing up a framework plan for cleaning up contaminated soil at NAM sites, in which
operational decision-making criteria for tackling soil contamination are specified. As part of the
framework of environmental protection, it became evident at the start of the project that a systematic
approach to soil contamination was needed (ie a soil management approach instead of ad hoc clean-
ups).
1.2 Objectives of Contaminated Soil Management

The aim of the framework plan can be formulated as follows:
 positioning the soil clean-up policy within the context of environmental management.
This means placing remedial soil management alongside preventive soil management and
making soil clean-up operations an integral part of business operations.
 establishing a basis for a planning and budgeting system for (remedial) soil management
 harmonising operational decision-making criteria within the business units
 providing third parties (authorities and other involved parties) with an insight into the company's
approach to soil contamination.
1.3 The Current Approach and Need for a Soil Framework Plan
The current approach to soil contamination in the Netherlands can be characterised by the fact that
every contaminated site is treated as a separate project. This is also the case for NAM, except that the
various sites are compared systematically with each other. The sequence of steps involved in
assessing contamination is described in Figure 1.1.
EP 95-0387 Revision 0 9 October 1995 1

Figure 1.1 The sequence of steps in assessing contamination
In terms of the current approach, the following points should be noted in conjunction with this
sequence:
1. Cross-section surveys have been carried out in all areas and on the basis of these surveys, the
initial situation and the potential contamination sources estimated.
2. Procedures have been drawn up to obtain an individual picture of soil quality at each site. The
exploratory and detailed surveys, clean-up survey/plan and actual clean-up are established phases
of this procedure. The first two phases (the surveys) are carried out fairly uniformly within NAM,
but the remainder are tailored to each site.
3. Each survey phase is followed by a decision step to determine whether or not to proceed with the
next phase and, if so, with what priority.
4. Criteria for the first decision step and prioritisation for detailed surveys were developed in NAM
in 1987. The methodology is based on the source-path-object model. A score is obtained by use
of weighting factors.
5. No instrument is currently available for the second decision step (determining the priority for
clean-up surveys). In practice it has been carried out using qualitative risk assessment and
priorities set on the basis of this evaluation, internal logistics and third-party interests.
6. There is no instrument available for the third decision step and this has been assessed by
individual business units.
The magnitude of the soil contamination problem reveals the following concerns:
1. NAM's implementation is not uniform and consequently decision-making is dependent on local
government.
2. There is no instrument by which to weigh up where and when to carry out a clean-up.
3. There is no instrument to enable soil clean-up operations to be clearly planned and budgeted.
4. The costs of soil clean-up are so high that it is being questioned with increasing urgency whether
these measures are cost effective.
1.4 NAM Soil Clean-up Policy

This approach to contaminated soil management should be seen in the context of NAM's strategic
environmental plan for soil. This can be summarised as:
 prevention of contamination due to current activities
 restoration of soil quality at industrial sites to an 'acceptable' standard.
For NAM an 'acceptable' standard is generally interpreted within and outside sites as follows:
 within sites
A concentration giving an acceptable risk for personnel working on the site and for the
underground systems.
 outside sites
For both surface and deeper soils, this is taken to mean clean soil (since NAM cannot influence
the behaviour of soil users and cannot therefore assume a concentration for which there is zero
risk).
2 EP 95-0387 Revision 0 9 October 1995

1 Introduction
The practical objectives of these principles can be summarised for the different stages as follows:
1. When acquiring a site, establish soil quality by means of a soil survey.
2. For an operating a site, establish the soil quality by means of a soil survey (if not already done in
1 above) and monitor soil quality.
3. For an operating site, avoid soil contamination (eg by impermeable floors to contain leaks,
prompt clean-up in the event of spillages etc).
4. When leaving a site, restore soil quality to an acceptable level.
Soil management is an integral part of site management and should take place with the same degree of
efficiency and effectiveness, including the final process of site restoration.

2 THE INSTRUMENTS OF SOIL MANAGEMENT

The instruments available for soil management comprise the following:
 measuring and recording soil quality
 risk evaluation (if soil contamination is encountered)
 measures for risk control or soil-quality remediation
 the soil information system.
The first three instruments form the key elements in the soil management cycle, with the soil
information system as the binding instrument (Figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1 The instruments of soil management

2 The Instruments of Soil Management

3 MEASURING AND RECORDING
3.1 Determination of Soil Quality
3.1.1 Basis of surveys

A thorough knowledge of the soil quality, by carrying out soil surveys, is a prerequisite for effective
soil management. This should be done on a systematic basis with an understanding of the
contaminants that can be expected and a comprehensive set of documentation and measurements.
Expected contaminants are outlined in 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 below; Table 3.1 gives a checklist of data and
measurements for soil survey assessments.
Table 3.1 Checklist for soil survey assessments
SUBJECT INFORMATION
Contamination situation  zone map and assessment of soil and groundwater contamination
 measurements of contaminated soil
 contamination concentrations
 organic substance
 lutum content
 concentrations of heavy metals (influence choice of clean-up
method)
 measurements of contaminated groundwater
 contamination concentrations
 pH
 EC
 chloride
 iron and manganese
 measurements around the zone (for assessing reliability of extent)
 soil air measurements
Hydrological data  soil structure
 piezometric head measurements and estimate of groundwater flow
 interpretation of soil profile
 soil permeability (estimate)
 seepage/infiltration
 regional extractions
Data for risk evaluation  use of surroundings
 site
 surface water
 groundwater
3.1.2 Contamination expected at oil sites

The following contaminants can be expected at oil sites:
 old drilling mud in the ground (barium, chromium and oil)
 oil contamination (oil, sometimes with aromatics)

3 Measuring and Recording
Depending on the type of oil, the oil is usually found in the soil, or also in the groundwater
around the soil contamination. The latter is especially the case if aromatics are present in the oil.
 chloride contamination in the groundwater (salt)
 used chemicals occasionally found as individual contaminants, (eg corrosion inhibitors).
Two types of contamination occur at oil sites:
 a heavier oil in the soil, with no oil contaminants in the groundwater
 oil and aromatics (whether added or not) with a small quantity of contaminated groundwater
near the soil contamination.
Chloride contamination in the groundwater:
 can give rise to problems for plants and can affect freshwater stocks
 is difficult to clean up
 extraction of groundwater can cause more damage than that caused by the contamination
 health risks of chloride contamination are zero.
3.1.3 Contamination expected at gas sites

The following contaminants can be expected at gas sites:
 old drilling mud (barium, chromium, mineral oil, salt)
 condensate contamination (aromatics), found particularly in the groundwater
 mercury contamination in the ground and in ditch mud
 used chemicals
 mercaptans (only for sour gas)
 glycol, methanol.
Aromatic hydrocarbons in the condensates:
 are fairly soluble and can easily spread via the groundwater.
Mercury also deserves particular attention at gas sites. Until recently, it seemed as if this problem
could be localised quite well, since mercury is not mobile if the ground remains undisturbed. Recent
information has, however, shown that mercury can in principle occur at all gas sites. Mercury has also
been found in the sludge of a few site ditches. It is not yet clear how it gets there.
3.1.4 Drainage as a transport route

The drainage of some sites (via site ditches or via the corner tank to the ditches around the site) forms
a transport route for contaminants. Although this water is normally clean, recent data show that in the
event of incidents the surrounding ditches can easily become contaminated. In addition, insufficient
research has been carried out to enable a good estimate to be made of contaminants at injection wells
and along pipelines.
3.2 Types of Soil Contamination Surveys

Surveys can take place at different times in the life of a site:
 at acquisition (zero-value survey)

The aim is to establish the soil quality in the interests of legal liability.
 at operating sites (exploratory and detailed surveys and in the event of incidents)
The aim is to determine the risk and collect information relating to future control measures or in
the case of incidents to collect data to aid the immediate removal of the soil contamination.
 at abandonment
The aim is to collect data for the removal of the contamination.
For guidance on soil and groundwater surveys see EP 95-0386.
The minimum requirements for the parts of soil surveys to be undertaken at the stages of acquisition,
during operation and at abandonment are summarised in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Types of soil surveys
Acquisition Operating Abandonment
Zero-value Exploratory Detailed Soil survey Exploratory Detailed

survey survey survey in events of survey survey
incidents
Historical survey x x x x
Hydrogeological survey (x) x x (x) x
Determination of nature x x x x x x
of contamination
Determination of extent of x x x
contamination
Demonstrate x x x
uncontaminated parts
Investigation into x x x
processing of
contaminated soil
Soil air measurements x
3.3 Data Needed for Risk Evaluation

Interpretation of the resulting data from soil surveys results in a simplified model of the real
contamination situation in the soil. At sites contaminated by oil or condensate it is possible to
represent the contamination situation in the form of one or more 'contamination zones'. With a few
exceptions, these do not determine the contamination risk in its totality. The following definitions
have been adopted for the most common contaminants:
 a soil contamination zone
This is assumed to exist if a concentration above the detection limits given below is encountered
in at least three adjacent observations:
– mineral oil (IR) 50 mg/kg solid matter
– benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene and xylene (BTEX) 0.01 mg/kg solid matter
– mercury 0.2 mg/kg solid matter.

 a groundwater contamination zone

This is assumed to exist if a concentration above the detection limits given below is encountered
in at least three adjacent observations:
– mineral oil (IR) 50 µg/l
– BTEX 0.2 µg/l
– mercury 0.2 µg/l.
 a groundwater contamination source
This is understood to be that part of the zone with the highest concentrations of contaminants in
the groundwater. As an (arbitrary) limit of the zone, 100 per cent of the maximum measured
concentration is taken. This means that groundwater with the same concentrations may belong
to the source in one zone but not in another. This definition means that the number of
observations in a source can be limited to one. In many cases, the groundwater contamination
source will overlap the soil contamination. No distinction is made in soil contamination between
a zone and a source, since it is assumed that spreading does not take place via the soil, but via
the groundwater.
Soil contamination by condensate can best be described with the aid of groundwater analyses for
volatile aromatic hydrocarbons (VAH) in the saturated zone and soil analyses and soil-air
measurements for VAH in the unsaturated zone.
Oil contamination can best be defined by soil and groundwater analyses for mineral oil and possibly
VAH in the saturated zone, and soil analyses for mineral oil and possibly VAH in the unsaturated
zone.
Mercury contamination can be typed visually and with the aid of soil analyses for total mercury.
Research is still in progress into optimum typing of mercury contamination.
Table 3.3 shows the data needed as a basis for the risk evaluation for the three hazards of health,
attack on underground infrastructure and environmental spread. The three categories are expanded in
detail in Chapter 4.

Table 3.3 Data needed for evaluating risk
Information to be entered for determining risk
Soil measurements Groundwater measurements
Health risk
 Oil Max concentration BTEX Average concentration BTEX in source

 Condensate Max concentration benzene Average concentration benzene in source
 Mercury Max concentration total Hg
Underground infrastructure
 Oil No risk No risk

 Condensate Max concentration benzene Zero concentration benzene in source
 Mercury No risk No risk
Environmental spread
 Oil Not applicable Extent and position of groundwater plume

 Condensate Not applicable Extent and position of groundwater plume
 Mercury Not applicable Not applicable
Notes:
1. Oil, condensate and mercury contamination are considered to determine the risk of soil
contamination. On the basis of the present data, glycol, chloride and corrosion inhibitors
produce no or negligible additional risk over and above the first three contaminants.
2. It is assumed that the measurements of mineral oil and VAH (especially BTEX) are a measure
of an oil contamination. Since aliphatic hydrocarbons are not a health risk at the maximum
conceivable exposure arising from the soil contamination, BTEX can be considered as a
yardstick for the risk arising from an oil contamination. The benzene measurement is considered
a yardstick for condensate contamination: it is the most mobile component, the most toxic and is
always present in condensate.
3. Soil-air measurements can aid health risk assessment, since exposure via the air is the
determinative exposure route for condensate. In the supporting report, the soil-air concentrations
are calculated at various soil concentrations.
3.4 The Design of Monitoring Systems

The design of monitoring systems should consider the following elements:
 where and how many observation filters should be installed
 a sampling and analysis plan
 data storage and processing
 criteria for selecting a triggering value at which action must be taken.
Two monitoring systems are distinguished:
 base monitoring (for checking that preventive measures are effective)
 specific monitoring (for monitoring a known contamination source over time).

A remaining problem is the reliability of the monitoring system. There is still insufficient insight into
the relationship between sample representativeness, the observation network density, the sampling
frequency and the reliability of the monitoring system as a whole.

4 RISK EVALUATION
4.1 The Risk Evaluation Process

The sequence of steps in the risk evaluation process is:
 ranking of the contamination in zones
 determination of the exposure category
 determination of the spread category (groundwater zone)
 determination of the urgency category
 ranking of priorities within a category (if necessary).
Three types of hazards need to be distinguished in the evaluation of risk:
 health hazards for persons on the site
The determining factor is the calculated exposure for a given contamination zone relative to the
total daily intake (TDI) standardised by the government and standards for air (MAC) and
drinking water standards.
 attack on underground systems by soil contamination
The determining factor is the presence of free condensate in the soil, since this can attack
plastics and bitumen protection.
 environmental spread
The determining factor is the time at which the contamination passes the boundary fence.
There are two instances when risk evaluation is irrelevant:
 when there is contamination outside the fence that gives rise to potential use restriction
This is unacceptable under basic soil policy principles.
 on abandonment
This is unacceptable under the policy principle that the soil quality will then be restored
(although in certain cases it may be desirable to outline residual risks).

4 Risk Evaluation
4.2 The Hazards
4.2.1 Health
Calculation of exposure
The determining factor for health is the probability of persons being exposed to contaminants in the
soil (the top three metres of soil are the most important) to such an extent that this amounts to a
hazard. Various standards are available for assessing the exposure, although only for a limited number
of substances. By calculating the exposure to a contaminant for a defined behaviour and for a certain
degree of soil contamination, exposure figures can be linked to concentrations in the soil. This
concept has been developed for oil, condensate and mercury with the aid of the HESP exposure model
developed by SIPM (HSE/3).
Assessment of exposure
This framework plan divides the degree of exposure into a number of categories:
 daily exposure above the standard applying to the general population
The probability of employees receiving an exposure above the standard is then unacceptably
high.
 daily exposure only above the standard in extreme activity scenarios
The probability of employees receiving an exposure above the standard only exists under special
circumstances, such as excavating work.
 daily exposure for each scenario below the standard
The probability of employees receiving an exposure above the standard as a result of the soil
contamination is then zero.
 no question of exposure
This is made on the basis that there is no contamination in the top three metres of soil.
Exposure levels for establishing health risk are given in Table 4.1.
4.2.2 Damage to underground systems

It is known that soil contamination can damage underground systems. However, the relationship
between the degree of contamination and the probability of damage is not known, nor are the factors
that promote or hinder attack.
If a concentration is measured for which pure product is expected and if plastic pipes or externally
coated pipes run through a contamination zone, the zone is put in the first exposure category even if
this would not have been the case on the basis of the exposure calculations. In all other cases the
exposure category is retained. The risk for the underground systems is then no longer included in the
classification into urgency categories. In future, this general assumption will have to be replaced by
more specific problem-related knowledge.

Table 4.1 Exposure levels for establishing health risk

Category Condensate Mineral oil Hg
Contaminant Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes Hg
Exposure level Soil, GW, Soil, GW, Soil, GW, Soil, GW, Soil, GW,
mg/ g/l mg/ g/l mg/ g/l mg/ g/l mg/ g/l
kgdm kgdm kgdm kgdm kgdm
Detection limit 0.2 0.01 0.2 0.01 0.2 0.01 0.2 0.01 0.2 0.2
ABN-TDI spec 2.5 600 18 1400 13 400 1.3 35 2.5 10
ABN-TDI norm 100 25,000 700 55,000 500 6000 50 1400
Attack 125 30,000 115 9000 100 3000 120 3000 6.0 25
ABN-D 200 50,000 700 55,000
ABN-MAC 300 70,000
ABN = Actual Exposure Level

ABN-TDI spec = TDI under special conditions
ABN-TDI norm = TDI under normal conditions
Attack = Attack of pipes and cables possible
ABN-D = Contamination of drinking water in HDPE pipe possible
ABN-MAC = Exceeding of MAC value possible
4.2.3 Environmental spread

The spread of contaminants depends on the chemical properties of the type of contamination, the soil
structure and the groundwater flow. In order to estimate the order of magnitude of the spread, a
classification into hydrological systems has been made and a brief description is given below:
Classification into hydrological systems

Basically, five hydrological systems can be distinguished:
 local with impermeable cover layer and regional seepage
 local with highly permeable cover layer and regional seepage
 local with regional infiltration (transition to sub regional or regional)
 sub regional
 regional.
The speed and direction of spreading can then be deduced from the parameters of the hydrological
system and the chemical properties of the contaminant. Further details of these hydrological systems
are given in 4.4 and Appendix I.
Assessment of the spreading

For the assessment of the degree of damage caused by the spreading of contaminants, three operation-
related criteria can be derived from environmental objectives:
 spreading outside the fence is unacceptable
If contaminants are already outside the fence, immediate action will have to be taken. If there is
a threat of contaminants spreading beyond the fence in the future, timely action should be taken.
 costs of final soil quality restoration of the soil quality must not increase excessively over time
as a consequence of spread

4 Risk Evaluation
Spread implies that the extent of the soil contamination increases. The longer the delay until
action is taken, the higher the ultimate clean-up costs. Measures should be taken to combat
further spread at the earliest stage that is cost effective. Sites can be ranked on the basis of this
principle, with the age of the contamination and the hydrological system playing a major role (a
recent contamination in a regional system will be given higher priority than an old
contamination in a local system).
 final restoration of soil quality must not be allowed to become impossible as a result of
spreading
As a general rule of thumb, although spread will be less in a soil of lower permeability, the
clean-up will be more difficult. Cleaning up condensate in a clay or peat layer will be
considerably more complex and therefore more expensive than in a sand layer. It is worth
tackling a contaminated site before the contamination reaches a low-permeability layer.
Sites with soil contamination can be divided into three categories:
 present groundwater contamination is unacceptable
This is because the contamination is beyond the fence and immediate action is required.
 present groundwater contamination is still within the site
Immediate action is not necessary, but the contamination is spreading to such an extent that the
contaminants will soon pass beyond the fence, or the costs will rise disproportionately due to the
spread. Based on detailed surveys, the groundwater flow speeds and the overall contamination
picture, the decision as to whether these criteria are being met will have to be taken on a site-by-
site basis.
 all other cases.

4.3 Determination of Exposure Category

The exposure category of the contamination zone can be classified by the process shown in Figure
4.1.
The following notes should be read in conjunction with the steps in Figure 4.1:
1. Are the top three metres of soil contaminated?
This question should be answered 'yes' if there are at least three adjacent observations of
contaminants above the detection limit (see 3.4). If there are fewer observations, either
additional measurements should be made or it should be stated that there is no contamination.
Explanatory note: It is assumed that personal exposure to contamination is dependent on the
top three metres of soil. In view of the great uncertainty in concentrations around the detection
limit and the chance of false positive observations, contamination must never be concluded on
the basis of a single observation.
2. Is the concentration in the contamination source greater than the exposure level at which the
total daily intake under special circumstances (the ABN-TDI spec) can be exceeded?
This question should be answered 'yes' if the maximum measured soil concentration or the
average of the groundwater concentrations in the contamination source lie above the
concentrations (TDIspec) shown in Table 4.1.
Explanatory note: The TDIspec is the concentration in the soil at which the total daily
exposure under special circumstances (eg when working the whole day in a room built above a
contamination, or during excavation work) is exceeded.
3. Is the concentration in the contamination source greater than the exposure level at which the
total daily intake under normal circumstances (the ABN-TDInorm) can be exceeded?
This question should be answered in the affirmative if the maximum measured soil
concentration or the average of the groundwater concentrations in the contamination source
exceed the concentrations (TDInorm) shown in Table 4.1.
Explanatory note: The TDInorm is the concentration in the soil at which the total daily
exposure under normal circumstances can be exceeded. The main exposure route is inhalation of
contaminants via the air.
4. Is the contamination located below a building in which people live or work? This could be an
office, site hut, etc into which contaminants could get by evaporation.
Explanatory note: If this question is answered by a yes, it is probable that people are exposed
to concentrations of contaminants above the standard for total daily exposure, but this can only
be determined with certainty if internal air measurements are performed.
5. Do cables or pipes run through the contamination source?
These could be cables or pipes made of plastics or with a bitumen coating. These can be
attacked by organic solvents.

4 Risk Evaluation
Figure 4.1 Classification into exposure categories

6. Is the concentration in the contamination source higher than the level at which the probability is
great that pure solvents are or have been present in the ground (the Attack level)?
This question should be answered 'yes' if the maximum measured soil concentration or the
average of the groundwater concentrations in the contamination source exceed the
concentrations (O) given in Table 4.1.
7. Do any plastic drinking water pipes (HDPE or PVC) run through the contamination zone?
If the water pipe is metal, this question should be answered 'no'.
8. Is the concentration of the contamination source higher than the level at which volatile aromatic
hydrocarbons could permeate through the drinking water pipe (the ABN-D level)?
This question should be answered in the affirmative if the maximum measured soil
concentration or the average of the groundwater concentrations in the contamination source
exceed the concentrations (D) shown in Table 4.1.
Explanatory note: The ABN-D level is the concentration in the soil at which the standard in
the drinking water could be exceeded by permeation of substances through the drinking water
pipe.
Table 4.1 does not give the ABN-D, the Attack or the ABN-MAC for all substances. This is because
of the chemical properties of the substances. The relevant questions on exceeding these values should
then be answered in the negative.

4 Risk Evaluation
4.4 Determination of Spread Category

The spread category of the contamination zone can be classified by the process shown in Figure 4.2.
Classification is principally determined by reference to the whether there is groundwater or surface
water contamination outside the fence and the type of hydrological system.
The following notes should be read in conjunction with Figure 4.2:
1. Is there a groundwater contamination zone outside the fence or is the surface water outside the
fence contaminated?
This is concerned with contaminants which have got into the soil outside the fence, for example
by storage of contaminated materials, incidents, etc.
2. Hydrological system. The following hydrological systems are distinguished:
– Type 1a
Local system with a non-homogeneous, relatively impermeable cover layer underlain by a
water-bearing layer in a regional seepage situation.
– Type 1b
Local system with thin, permeable cover layer underlain by a thick relatively impermeable
layer.

Figure 4.2 Classification into spread categories
– Type 1c
Transition system with a non-homogeneous, relatively impermeable cover layer underlain
by a water-bearing layer in a regional infiltration situation.
or local system, with thin, permeable cover layer underlain by a thin, relatively
impermeable layer and thereunder a permeable, water-bearing layer:
– Type 2
Sub regional system with permeable layer up to an average of 20 metres, underlain by a
relatively impermeable layer.
– Type 3
Regional system with a thick permeable layer (20 to 80 m-gs) underlain by a relatively
impermeable layer.
In the case of local systems, 1a and 1b, it is not possible in principle for contaminants to spread
outside the site via the groundwater.
For a more detailed description of the hydrological systems, see Appendix I.
3. Does the groundwater contamination zone extend beyond the fence or is the surface water
outside the fence contaminated?
Even if a contamination has been identified directly beside the fence, this question should be
answered in the affirmative.
4. Will the groundwater contamination zone extend beyond the fence in the future?
The 'future' is here understood to mean within the expected operational life of the site. The
calculation of the time for a zone to reach the perimeter fence is based on the safe assumption
that the contaminants move with the groundwater. For example, if a zone is located at a distance
of 100 metres from the fence and the horizontal flow speed is 20 m/year, it is assumed that the
contaminants will pass the fence in five years. If the contaminants move so fast that the costs
threaten to increase exceptionally, the site may be put in spread category 2, even though there is
no threat of the contaminants getting outside the fence within the site's operational life.
5. Has surface water contamination been observed outside the fence which can be related to site
activities?
This question can be answered in the affirmative if VAH, oil or mercury is encountered in the
ditch water or ditch sludge. NB: it is often not known where this contamination comes from.
Investigating this is the first step in the series of measures to be taken.
6. Is surface water contamination expected in the future as a result of groundwater contamination
at the site?
Depending on the hydrological system, it is possible to estimate which part of the precipitation
excess will finally end up in the surface water. It is also possible to estimate a timescale for this
on the basis of a site sketch. This question is only answered in the negative if there is no surface
water nearby or if control measures are taken on the site to prevent groundwater contamination
ending up in the surface water.

4 Risk Evaluation
4.5 Determination of Urgency Category

The urgency category is determined from the combination of hazard and spread categories and five
categories are distinguished:
 category 1
Cases in which actual exposure above the standard for daily intake is probable or in which
contaminants have already spread off-site via the groundwater or via the surface water.
 category 2
Cases in which the groundwater contamination will spread in the foreseeable future to such an
extent that the contamination will pass the fence, or the increasing extent of the contamination
will increase costs unacceptably.
 category 3
Cases in which the spread of the groundwater is low, but in which there is a potential hazard on
the site.
 category 4
Cases in which although there is a soil contamination, there is no danger or unacceptable spread.
 category 5
Cases in which there is no soil contamination.
These categories, together with the framework of categories for spread and exposure are summarised
in Table 4.2.

4.6 Determination of Priorities Within Urgency Categories

Within an urgency category it may be necessary, or useful, to assign an internal environmental
hygiene priority. Below are listed the criteria on the basis of which the sites can be ranked.
Note: An environmental hygiene ranking is unnecessary. A ranking based on other considerations,
such as costs, renovation programmes, outside pressure, etc, can also be made.
Urgency category 1
 priority 1: sites with exposure category 1
All these sites should be dealt with immediately, since here we have an actual risk needing to be
eliminated.
 priority 2: sites with spread category 1
– hydrological systems 1c, 2 and 3
1. use of groundwater
2. extent of groundwater contamination
3. surface water load.
– hydrological systems 1a and 1b
1. use of surface water
2. surface water load.
Urgency category 2
Priority setting on basis of expected cost increase per year within the boundary condition of the time
of passing the perimeter.
Urgency categories 3 and 4

Priority setting on basis of cost savings by use of slow clean-up techniques as an alternative to
excavation and treatment.

4 Risk Evaluation
Table 4.2 Urgency category classification


5 Control Measures in the Event of Soil Contamination
5 CONTROL MEASURES IN THE EVENT OF SOIL

CONTAMINATION
5.1 Measures in the Event of Incidents

These must be taken immediately and must be as effective as possible, aimed at rapid and complete
removal of the soil contamination or the contaminated surface water. The type of measures to be taken
is very dependent on the incident, the place and the local circumstances.
5.2 Measures as Part of Normal Site Management

The nature of the measures and the time within which they should be carried out can be deduced
directly from the risk evaluation determined in Chapter 4.
Urgency category 1a
 immediate elimination of the risk
This can be done by protecting the employees concerned or by cutting off the exposure routes,
or alternatively by removing the soil contamination. In the first case, the site will be assigned to
a different urgency category, while in the second case the site will either fall into urgency
category 5 or, not being contaminated, will fall outside the urgency categories.
 contaminated groundwater and/or surface water outside the fence
If present, should be immediately removed (see also urgency category 1b). Take such measures
to combat spread of contaminated groundwater and/or surface water within the fence such that it
will not be able to move to or outside the fence in the future (see also urgency category 2).
Urgency category 1b
Groundwater contamination outside the fence should be tackled immediately. In general, this should
be done with the aid of a groundwater extraction system. In most cases, the contamination source will
also have to be removed for reasons of efficiency.
If the surface water outside the fence is contaminated, the following measures will have to be taken:
 eliminate the cause of the surface water contamination (either a soil contamination or water
from the site)
 removal of any contaminated water or sludge.
Urgency category 2
 draw up procedures to prevent a potential hazard resulting from exposure becoming an actual
hazard
For example safety procedures during excavation work (only for urgency category 2a).
 prevent groundwater contamination from spreading beyond the fence
The timescale in which a groundwater management system actually has to be set up depends on
local circumstances. The relevant information is derived from the detailed survey and the
subsequent risk evaluation.
Urgency category 3
Draw up procedures to prevent a potential hazard resulting from exposure becoming an actual hazard,
eg safety procedures during excavation work.

Urgency categories 4 and 5

No specific measures during management. Measures should, however, be taken on abandoning the
site.
The practical implementation of the measures is the responsibility of the business units. In particular,
deciding if limited measures or larger-scale clean-up action is needed should be taken according to
local circumstances, availability of financial resources and technical capability. Both are
environmentally acceptable within the guidelines described under the urgency categories above.
5.3 Measures at Abandonment or Handover

These measures can be sub-divided into:
 soil clean-up by excavation or soil venting (in the future perhaps also in situ biological cleaning
of the soil)
 groundwater clean-up by extracting the contaminated groundwater.

6 Soil Information System
6 SOIL INFORMATION SYSTEM
6.1 The Elements of a Soil Information System

A soil information system is an essential prerequisite for soil management. The following types of
information can be distinguished:
 basic information about a site
For example, age, area, type.
 information from the soil surveys and/or monitoring programmes
Contamination situation, soil structure, groundwater flow.
 information from the risk evaluation
Hydrological system, urgency category, priority within an urgency category.
 information about the measures
Choice of the type of measures, negative value of the contamination.
Appendix II gives an example form for the compilation of this information. It is only possible to
complete the table by performing a detailed survey. If a detailed survey has not been carried out, it
will be necessary to extrapolate from experience gained with comparable sites, to obtain an overall
picture.
6.2 Guidance on Completing Soil Information Data
6.2.1 Site information

The three main items of data to be included are:
 site name
 the year the site was put into operation (relevant to enable an estimate of the scale of the
contamination)
 the area of the site (ie the area within the boundary fence).
6.2.2 Hydrological system

Determination of the hydrological system classification should be in accordance with Appendix I and
should be carried out by an expert. In addition, information on whether or not the hydrological system
is disturbed should be included. This could be due to water wells, sand holes, etc or nearby
groundwater extraction.
6.2.3 Surface water

In the course of the detailed survey, attention should be paid to the quality of the surface water around
the site. If contaminating substances are found that are also used on site, there are three possibilities:
 the contamination is unconnected with on site activities
 the contamination is caused by water originating from the location (eg from drainage ditches)
 the contamination is caused by contaminated groundwater seeping up into the surface water.

A combination of these elements is also possible. If a geohydrological schematic diagram is prepared

as part of the detailed survey, it is possible to determine how many cubic metres of contaminated
groundwater are theoretically loading the surface water, or if this can be expected in the future. Use of
the data can give an insight into how the cause of the surface water contamination can be eliminated.
Information about the use of the surface water enables the risk of surface water contamination to be
assessed. This information is important for determining the nature of the countermeasures to be taken.
The following classifications have been made:
 watering of livestock
 irrigation
 recreational use (eg fishing water, etc)
 no use (if the use of the area makes use of surface water unlikely)
 potential use.
If at the time of inventory the surface water is not being used for any of the above purposes, but use
for such purposes is quite possible in the future.
6.2.4 Groundwater contamination

In principle, the limit for groundwater contamination by aromatics is taken to be the detection limit.
However, the size of the zone is always an estimate based on data interpretation. Account must be
taken of the (often limited) number of observations and the uncertainty in the measurements. The
estimate of the scale of the groundwater contamination must take account of the porosity of the soil. If
a cube of 10 m x 10 m x 10 m is contaminated and the soil has a porosity of 30 per cent, the volume
of contaminated groundwater is 300 m3. The question of whether the groundwater is outside the fence
can be answered with the aid of the measurement data from the detailed survey. To answer the
question of when the groundwater contamination can be expected outside the fence, hydrological
expertise is required.
The use of the groundwater is divided into a number of categories:
 water-collection and wildlife areas
These are the most sensitive areas for groundwater contamination.
 other present use
This includes private water collection.
 potential use
This is applied if private individuals could pump up water, eg if permits had been granted but
were not being used.
The depth of the groundwater contamination refers to the interpreted depth as indicated in the detailed
survey, and not the deepest observation at which contaminants have been encountered. This depth is
generally estimated on the basis of the geohydrological schematic diagram.
6.2.5 Hydrological information

This information can be read directly from the detailed survey.
6.2.6 Soil contamination

The volume of the contaminants is classified according to the zones which were encountered. These
are numbered in the first column. The risk associated with a zone is determined by one or more
substances (see Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1). This substance is indicated in the second column. The third

6 Soil Information System
column shows the extent of the total zone. The sum of the extent of the various zones is the total
contaminated volume.
6.2.7 Type of soil

The type of soil in this context is particularly important to be able to determine how excavated
contaminated soil should be processed. It is therefore a coarse classification into sand, clay and peat,
individually or in combinations.
6.2.8 Urgency category

This refers to the urgency category of the site, as described in 4.5.
6.2.9 Measures
This indicates roughly what measures are necessary and the timescale. This information will be a
summary of a clean-up survey/plan or a management plan.
6.2.10 Negative value of soil contamination

This is the sum of all costs of measures, both management measures and the final tail-end costs for
soil contamination.


Appendix I Hydrological Systems
APPENDIX I
HYDROLOGICAL SYSTEMS
I.1 Introduction
The spread of contaminants in the soil can lead to risks for public health and the environment, damage
to third-party property and an increase in clean-up costs. The spread of contaminants is dependent on
the chemical properties of the contamination, the soil structure and the groundwater flow. An
extensive investigation is needed to gain an insight into the spread of contaminants and the related
risks and costs. Numerous 'location-specific' factors are relevant in such an investigation.
In order to enable a rapid estimate of the order of magnitude of the spread, a classification into
hydrological systems has been made. This classification is discussed in I.3. In I.3 the hydrological
characteristics of nine gas sites are screened on the basis of this classification. According to the results
of this screening, advice is given for the use of the hydrological system classification.
I.2 Classification into Hydrological Systems
I.2.1 General
The following classification has been developed by NAM and serves as an example. The hydrological
system classification is based on the theory and terminology of hydrological system analysis. Central
to this system analysis is the relationship between the infiltration area where the groundwater enters
the soil and the seepage zone where the groundwater leaves the soil. In the classification of
hydrological systems a similar relationship (but here specifically for the spread of contaminants) is
searched for between the places where the contaminated groundwater enters the soil and where it
subsequently leaves it. Three hydrological systems can be distinguished for the spread of the
contaminants, namely:
 local systems
 sub regional systems
 regional systems.
I.2.2 Local systems

Characteristic for a local hydrological system is that vertical and lateral displacement of the
contaminated groundwater is bounded. Because the sites are in many cases filled, an infiltration
situation will usually prevail at the site. The infiltrated and contaminated groundwater flows away to
the site ditches and/or the perimeter ditches. The lateral spread will in general be limited to the actual
site. A local system can be roughly characterised by the following hydrological parameters:
 maximum penetration depth: 20 m
 average vertical movement: 0.5 m/year.

Depending on the permeability of the cover layer and the regional groundwater flow, three different
local systems can be distinguished:
 1a, local system with low-permeability cover layer and regional seepage
 1b, local system with high-permeability cover layer and regional seepage
 1c, local system with low-permeability cover layer and regional infiltration
(transition to sub regional or regional system possible).
Local systems with a low-permeability layer are generally found in western Holland and the north of
Friesland and Groningen, where the top soil consists of Holocene clay/peat deposits. A local system
may also be present with a high-permeability cover layer (phreatic water-bearing layer) in
combination with a regional seepage situation. The seepage flow 'forces' the groundwater that had
infiltrated on the site to flow away to the surrounding ditches.
A characteristic of all local systems is the radial run-off of the groundwater to the site ditches and/or
perimeter ditches. The radial flow is the result of a convex groundwater table between the ditches
such that the groundwater flows radially away from the centre of the site to the nearest ditch.
In local systems with a regional seepage situation (la and 1b), some or all of the contaminated
groundwater can be 'trapped' between the local infiltration flow and the regional seepage flow. This
gives rise to stagnant groundwater, that hardly spreads any further.
In local systems with regional infiltration, in addition to the radial flow to the ditches some of the
contaminated groundwater can flow from the low-permeability cover layer to the deep water-bearing
layer. Thus the local spreading can change over to a sub regional or regional spreading (hydrological
system 2 or 3, see I.2.3 or I.2.4 respectively).
The spreading of contaminants in a low-permeability clay and peat layer proceeds relatively slowly
due to the specific soil characteristics of these layers. However, these same soil characteristics make
decontamination a costlier, lengthier and more complex process than a clean-up in a sand layer.
Despite a low spreading speed and possibly lower risks, a timely clean-up of the contaminants may be
desirable.
Once the contaminated groundwater is removed via the ditches, the quantity of contaminated
groundwater will not increase any further. Spreading risks associated with local systems are therefore
mainly limited to public health and environmental risks that can arise by contamination of the surface
water (eg watering of cattle).
I.2.3 Sub regional systems

In sub regional systems, the vertical displacement of the contaminants is limited by the occurrence of
a well-developed low-permeability layer in the subsoil. The lateral displacement of the contaminated
groundwater can be considerable (sub regional). A sub regional system can be roughly characterised
by the following hydrological parameters:
 average vertical movement: 1 to 2 m/year.
Sub regional systems are found in infiltration areas with a moderate-to-high permeability cover layer
with a (very) low-permeability layer in the subsoil.
The vertical spread of the contaminated groundwater is bounded by the low-permeability layer. The
lateral spread of contaminated groundwater in a sub regional system is generally as a contamination
plume. This will eventually extend to outside the site boundary. The time taken to reach the site
boundary depends on factors such as groundwater flow speed and direction at the spot and the
distance of the contamination focus to the site boundary. On average, this will be between 10 and 20
years.

The contaminated groundwater will finally end up in the surface water of a sub regional seepage area.
The contaminated groundwater might also be extracted by a well. There is not much chance of this,
however, since the permeability of the water-bearing layer is often too low for the extraction of large
quantities of groundwater. Small-scale groundwater extractions for irrigation are, however, possible.
As well as the spread of contaminants via the sub regional groundwater flow, contamination of the
local surface water (site and ring ditches) can also occur. Because the sites are often filled and are thus
higher than the immediate vicinity, radial run-off to the ditches may also occur. This is particularly
likely if the low-permeability layer is situated not far below the surface. In the case of a very shallow
low-permeability layer (eg 3 m below the surface), the contaminated groundwater might run off
mainly radially to the ditches, so that it would seem as if it were a local system (compare with
hydrological system 1b, see I.2.2).
The spreading of contaminants in a sub regional system can lead to damage and/or risk from:
 spreading beyond the site boundaries
 contamination of surface water (local and sub regional)
 extra clean-up costs due to increased quantity of contaminated groundwater.
I.2.4 Regional systems

Regional systems are characterised by a large vertical and lateral displacement. The subsoil is highly
permeable and continuous from the surface and/or there are no well developed low-permeability
layers. Because of the absence of such layers, the vertical spread is not, in contrast with sub regional
systems, limited to 20 metres. A regional system can be characterised by the following parameters:
 average vertical movement: 2 m/year.
In theory, the vertical displacement of the contaminants is limited by the hydrological base. For
example, in the Netherlands the depth of this base, consisting of tertiary clays, varies from 0 to 300
metres below the ground surface. In view of the age of the contaminants and practical data, 80 m is
taken as the average lower limit for the spread of contaminants.
Regional systems occur in regional infiltration systems where there are no low-permeability layers.
The general form of spreading in regional systems is the contamination plume. Just as in sub regional
systems, groundwater contaminants can spread beyond the site limits (on average in 10 to 20 years).
Ultimately, the contaminated groundwater will end up in the surface water of a regional seepage area.
The residence times in the subsoil are, however, very long (> 100 years). Another possibility is to
extract the contaminated groundwater by a groundwater extraction. The associated risks depend on
the use made of the groundwater (eg drinking water or cooling water).
In addition, some of the contaminated groundwater can run off to the surrounding ditches (local
surface water). In a regional system only a small part of the contaminated groundwater will run off
locally.
I.3 Inventorisation of Hydrological Characteristics of Gas Sites in

NAM
I.3.1 General
To assess the usefulness of the hydrological system classification, the spread of contaminants at nine
NAM gas sites was examined in detail. The groundwater contamination situation at gas sites is
generally a function of the presence of volatile aromatic hydrocarbons (condensates). For benzene,
which is very mobile, it can be assumed that it moves at the same speed as the groundwater. As well

as the usefulness of the hydrological systems, the relationship between the volume of contaminated
groundwater and the age of the site was also examined.
The main hydrological characteristics of the gas sites are briefly discussed in the following
paragraphs. The findings of the detailed study of the hydrological system and the contamination
pictures of the gas sites are summarised in Table I.1.
I.3.2 Sites with local systems

The spread of contaminants at the Bedum and Eemskanaal sites are typical examples of local
spreading. Both locations have a Holocene cover layer. The cover layer at the Eemskanaal site is
relatively thin at 4 m. The contamination has meanwhile penetrated to the deeper water-bearing layer,
in which the contamination is spreading as a plume. At the Eemskanaal site about 1000 m 3/year of
contaminated groundwater flows away to the local surface water. The contamination at the Bedum
site has not yet passed through the cover layer and has not yet reached the surface water. The
contamination is spreading radially towards the surface water.
The Tubbergen 5 and Wanneperveen 2 sites are difficult to assign to one of the hydrological systems.
Correct classification of such sites is only possible when there are a lot of data available. The
Tubbergen 5 site is located on a low-permeability part of a lateral moraine, so that hardly any
spreading takes place (local system; stagnant groundwater). At the Tubbergen 7 site the hydrological
circumstances are comparable with those at Tubbergen 5, where the contaminated groundwater
spreads like a plume in a sub regional system. At the Wanneperveen 2 site the fluctuating levels of the
surface water results in (stagnant) groundwater flowing back and forth. It might easily be concluded
from the soil structure and the piezometric head data at a single point in time that we were here
dealing with a regional system and 'plume spreading'.
I.3.3 Sites with sub regional systems

The Tietjerk 200, Vries 3 and Spitsbergen 2 sites have sub regional systems. The hydrological system
is bounded in all cases by a pot-clay layer, the depth of which determines whether plume spreading or
radial spreading predominates.
At the Vries 3 site the pot-clay layer is present at a depth of 17 m below the ground surface. The
groundwater contamination spreads as a plume in the direction of a canal. Some 8000 m of
contaminated groundwater per year runs off towards this canal (sub regional seepage). Because of the
run-off, the volume of contaminated groundwater remains approximately constant at the moment.
At the Tietjerk 200 site the pot-clay layer is 10 m below the ground surface. The groundwater
contamination spreads radically at the site. The perimeter ditches do not, however, form a boundary
for the contamination. A contamination plume flows below the ditches in a southwesterly direction
(outside the site). A similar situation prevails at the Spitsbergen 2 site. The pot clay is here at a depth
of about 5 m, but a contamination plume nevertheless flows past the site boundary in a northwesterly
direction.
I.3.4 Sites with regional systems

The spreading of the contaminants at the Sappemeer gas site is a typical example of spreading in a
regional hydrological system. Despite the presence of a moderately permeable Eem clay layer at
approximately 20 m below the surface, the contamination has penetrated to a depth of 55 m. The
lateral spread before the start of decontamination work was about 400 m. If this work had not been
started, the contamination would have flowed beyond the site boundary within 1 or 2 years and would
eventually have contaminated a nearby groundwater extraction. The volume of contaminated
groundwater increased by 20,000 m3/year. This high volume increase is due to an expansion of the
contamination plume in three dimensions. The extra volume of contaminated groundwater can be
cleansed fairly easily because we are here dealing with mobile substances in relatively low
concentrations.

The situation at the Dalen 2 gas site is a transition from a local system (1c) to a regional system. The
contamination has penetrated through the clay-loam layer and ended up in the deep water-bearing
layer. The average increase in the volume of contaminated groundwater is about 2000 m 3/year. It may
be expected that the volume of contaminated groundwater will increase considerably quicker in the
future because spreading will take place in three dimensions.
I.4 Use of Classification of Hydrological Systems

In this paragraph a number of remarks are made in connection with the use of the classification in
hydrological systems:
 the classification into hydrological systems is a coarse one
If a more detailed classification is aimed at, the large number of site-specific circumstances will
soon give rise to the picture of every site being unique.
 in many cases the classification of a site into one of the hydrological systems will not be
difficult
The situation at the site resembles one of the prototypes fairly well. For some sites, such as
Tubbergen 5 and Wanneperveen, the classification is difficult, especially if not much data are
available. The classification is easier to make on the basis of data of the actual spreading than on
data solely on the soil structure and piezometric head.
 the levels and concentrations of contaminated groundwater and surface water, are very
dependent on the degree of soil contamination
If a number of contamination foci are present at a site (eg the Eemskanaal site), the quantities
will in general be exceeded. If (almost) no contaminated soil is present at the site, the quantities
will of course be lower.
 for the surface water load, only the spreading via the groundwater has been examined
Direct contamination via water basins has not been considered. Spreading to surface water can
take place for each of the hydrological systems distinguished. In the case of the (sub)regional
spreading, besides contamination of the site ditches (local surface water), contamination of
surface water by (sub)regional seepage can also take place.
Table I.1 gives an example of results of the use of the risk evaluation and prioritisation process for a
group of NAM sites.

Table I.1 Example of urgency categories, priorities and relative ranking
Site Urgency Parameters which determine priority

category
hydr. grw. grw. cub. soil cub. sur.w. sur.w. costs
sys. use contam. contam. use load ƒ 1000
Tietjerk 200 1a 2 water 32,500 1000 w. cat. 200 690
catch.
Sappemeer 1b 3 curr. 400,000 3500 irrig. 400 3850
use
Vries 3 1a 2 pot. 32,500 600 w. cat. 8000 570
use
Spitsbergen 2 1a 2 pot. 35,000 - curr. 3000 420
use use
Dalen 2 1a 1c pot. 1000 + 100 w. cat. 200 500
use 9000
Tubbergen 5 1b 1c pot. 4500 300 n.a. n.a. **
use
Wanneperveen 2 1b 1b nature 3650 200 nature 0 110
Bedum 1a 1a pot. 1500 500 w. cat. ? 775
use
Eemskanaal 2a 1c pot. 2000 + 5000 w. cat. 1000 2300
use 8000
Zoetermeer sites 4 1a n.a. 30,000 4000 n.a. - 12,500
Key:
= urgency classification according to framework plan
= hydrological system according to framework plan classification
= use of groundwater around the site (water catch. = water catchment area; curr. use
= current use of groundwater; pot. use = potential use of groundwater; nature =
groundwater of importance for nature reserve).
= amount of contaminated groundwater in m3 as reported in detailed survey
= amount of contaminated soil in m3 as reported in detailed survey
= use of the surface water around the site (w. cat. = surface water used for watering
cattle; irrig. = surface water used for irrigation of agricultural area; curr. use =
surface water is used for other purposes; nature = groundwater of importance for
nature reserve).
= annual quantity of contaminated groundwater that could reach the surface water.
= costs calculated according to the formula from the framework plan (costs of
contaminated mercury soil at Tietjerk 200, Vries 3, Spitsbergen 2 and Eemskanaal
are not included).
= clean up costs can vary between ƒ 122,000 and ƒ 1,650,000.


APPENDIX II
SAMPLE PROFORMA FOR SOIL INFORMATION SYSTEM
Table II.1 Sample proforma for soil information system
Data Project data Units Information source
SOIL CONTAMINATION CHARACTERISTICS
1 Site name name base data
Year in use year base data
Site area m2 base data
2 Hydrological system name classification system

Is the hydrological system yes/no detailed survey
disturbed?
3 Is the surface water yes/no detailed survey

contaminated?
If so, what is the annual load of m3/year interpretation

the surface water with
contaminated groundwater?
If not, in which year is year interpretation

contamination in surface water
expected?
What is the use of the surface watering cattle/irrigation/other current

water? use/potential use/no use
4 What is the extent of the m3 detailed survey

groundwater contamination?
Is the groundwater outside the yes/no detailed survey

site contaminated?
If not, when is this expected? year interpretation
What is groundwater used for? water collection and nature reserve/other

use/
potential use/no use
Depth of groundwater m detailed survey

contamination
5 Depth of groundwater layer m detailed survey
Vertical flow speed m/year detailed survey
Horizontal flow speed m/year detailed survey
Spread category interpretation

Appendix II Sample Proforma for Soil Information System
Table II.1 Sample proforma for soil information system (continued)

6 Extent of groundwater plume subst. expcat. extent of detailed survey
contamination no. contam-
ination
total
7 Soil type soil contamination detailed survey
8 Urgency category
9 Action to be carried out at latest duration estimated costs
Investigation into current

sources
Base monitoring
Specific monitoring
Soil survey
Control measures
Reinstating soil quality
10 Negative value of soil

contamination

ABBREVIATIONS
ABN Actual exposure level (measured or calculated) at a given soil concentration
of a specific substance.
ABN-TDInorm Soil concentration at which the exposure level exceeds the total daily intake
(TDI) for a normal scenario at an industrial site.
ABN-TDIspec Soil concentration at which the actual exposure level exceeds the total daily
intake (TDI) for a special scenario at an industrial site.
attack Calculated soil concentration at which cables and piping may be attacked.
ABN-D Soil concentration at which drinking water contamination due to permeation
through HDPE piping is possible.
ABN-MAC Soil concentration at which the MAC value (maximum acceptable
concentration in the air in a work situation) is possible.
BSB Soil clean-up at (existing) industrial sites.
Oele Com. (BSB com.) committee consisting of representatives from government and
industry which has studied ways of tackling soil contamination on existing
industrial sites in the Netherlands.
BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes. These are the determinative
substances for volatile aromatic hydrocarbons.
m-gs Metres below ground surface.
mg/kg dm mg/kg dry mix.
g/l Microgram per litre: the usual unit for concentrations of contaminating
substances in ground water.
NEN Netherlands Standard, as issued by the Netherlands Standards Institute.
TDI Total Daily Intake: intake of substances in an acceptable amount.
Comparable with the official ADI (Acceptable Daily Intake).
RIVM Dutch Governmental Institute for Environmental Hygiene.

Abbreviations

GLOSSARY
A glossary of commonly used terms in HSE is given in both EP 95-0100 HSE Management Systems
and EP 95-0300 Overview Hazards and Effects Management Process.

95-0387 Contaminated Soil and Ground Water

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

95-0387 Contaminated Soil and Ground Water

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shell International Exploration and Production B.V.

Revision 0: 9 October 1995

Section Number: EP 95-0387

Rev. Chapter Description of amendment Date Amended

0 All Original hard copy and CD-ROM issue 10/10/95 EPO/62

CONTENTS 6.1 The Elements of a Soil Information System 29

1.2 Objectives of Contaminated Soil 6.2.4 Groundwater contamination 30

1.4 NAM Soil Clean-up Policy 3 6.2.8 Urgency category 31

3 Measuring and Recording 7 Appendices

3.1 Determination of Soil Quality 7 I Hydrological Systems 33

3.1.1 Basis of surveys 7

5 Control Measures in the Event of

6 Soil Information System 29

EP 95-0387 Revision 0 9 October 1995 i

This page intentionally left blank

i EP 95-0387 Revision 0 9 October 1995

EP 95-0387 Revision 0 9 October 1995 ii

This page intentionally left blank

iii EP 95-0387 Revision 0 7 September 1995

1.2 Objectives of Contaminated Soil Management

EP 95-0387 Revision 0 9 October 1995 1

Figure 1.1 The sequence of steps in assessing contamination

1.4 NAM Soil Clean-up Policy

2 EP 95-0387 Revision 0 9 October 1995

EP 95-0387 Revision 0 9 October 1995 3

2 THE INSTRUMENTS OF SOIL MANAGEMENT

Figure 2.1 The instruments of soil management

4 EP 95-0387 Revision 0 9 October 1995

This page intentionally left blank

EP 95-0387 Revision 0 9 October 1995 5

3 MEASURING AND RECORDING

3.1 Determination of Soil Quality

3.1.1 Basis of surveys

Table 3.1 Checklist for soil survey assessments

3.1.2 Contamination expected at oil sites

6 EP 95-0387 Revision 0 9 October 1995

3.1.3 Contamination expected at gas sites

3.1.4 Drainage as a transport route

3.2 Types of Soil Contamination Surveys

EP 95-0387 Revision 0 9 October 1995 7

Table 3.2 Types of soil surveys

Acquisition Operating Abandonment

Zero-value Exploratory Detailed Soil survey Exploratory Detailed

Hydrogeological survey (x) x x (x) x

Soil air measurements x

3.3 Data Needed for Risk Evaluation

8 EP 95-0387 Revision 0 9 October 1995

 a groundwater contamination zone

EP 95-0387 Revision 0 9 October 1995 9

Table 3.3 Data needed for evaluating risk

Information to be entered for determining risk

Soil measurements Groundwater measurements

 Oil Max concentration BTEX Average concentration BTEX in source

 Oil No risk No risk

 Oil Not applicable Extent and position of groundwater plume

3.4 The Design of Monitoring Systems

10 EP 95-0387 Revision 0 9 October 1995

EP 95-0387 Revision 0 9 October 1995 11

4.1 The Risk Evaluation Process

12 EP 95-0387 Revision 0 9 October 1995

4.2 The Hazards

4.2.2 Damage to underground systems

EP 95-0387 Revision 0 9 October 1995 13

Table 4.1 Exposure levels for establishing health risk