## 6.5.6. Policy on soil and groundwater regulation

Author: Frank Swartjes

Reviewers: Kees van Gestel, Ad Ragas, Dietmar Müller-Grabherr

Learning objectives:

You should be able to

- explain how different countries regulate soil contamination issues
- list some differences between different policy systems on soil and groundwater regulations
- describe how risk assessment procedures are implemented in policy

Keywords: Policy on soil contamination, Water Framework Directive, screening values comparison, Thematic Soil Strategy, Common Forum

History

As a bomb hit, soil contamination came onto the political agenda in the United States and in Europe through a number of disasters in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Starting point was the 1978 Love Canal disaster in upper New York State, USA, in which a school and a number of residences had been built on a former landfill for chemical waste disposal with thousands of tonnes of dangerous chemical wastes, and became a national media event. In Europe in 1979, the residential site of Lekkerkerk in the Netherlands became an infamous national event. Again, a residential area had been built on a former waste dump, which included chemical waste from the painting industry, and with channels and ditches that had been filled in with chemical waste-containing materials.

Since these events, soil contamination-related policies emerged one after the other in different countries in the world. Crucial elements of these policies were a benchmark date for a ban on bringing pollutants in or on the soil (‘prevention’), including a strict policy, e.g. duty of care, for contaminations that are caused after the benchmark date, financial liability for polluting activities, tools for assessing the quality of soil and groundwater, and management solutions (remediation technologies and facilities for disposal).

Evolution in soil policies

Objectives in soil policies often show evolution over time and changes go along with developing new concepts and approaches for implementing policies. In general, soil policies often develop from a maximum risk control until a functional approach. The corresponding tools for implementation usually develop from a set of screening values towards a systemic use of frameworks, enabling sound environmental protection while improving the cost-benefit-balance. Consequently, soil policy implementation usually goes through different stages. In general terms, four different stages can be distinguished, i.e., related to maximum risk control, to the use of screening values, to the use of frameworks and based on a functional approach. Maximum risk control follows the precaution principle and is a stringent way of assessing and managing contamination by trying to avoid any risk. Procedures based on screening values allow for a distinction in polluted and non-polluted sites for which the former, the polluted sites, require some kind of intervention. The scientific underpinning of the earliest generations of screening values was limited and expert judgement played an important role. Later, more sophisticated screening values emerged, based on risk assessment. This resulted in screening values for individual contaminants within the contaminant groups metals and metalloids, other inorganic contaminants (e.g., cyanides), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (including BETX (benzene, toluene, xylene)), persistent organic pollutants (including PCBs and dioxins), volatile organic contaminants (including trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and vinyl chloride), petroleum hydrocarbons and, in a few countries only, asbestos. For some contaminants such as PAHs, sum-screening values for groups were derived in several countries, based on toxicity equivalents. In a procedure based on frameworks, often the same screening values generally act as a trigger for further, more detailed site-specific investigations in one or two additional assessment steps. In the functional approach, soil and groundwater must be suited for the land use it relates to (e.g., agricultural or residential land) and the functions (e.g., drinking water abstraction, irrigation water) it performs. Some countries skip the maximum risk control and sometimes also the screening values stages and adopt a framework and/or a functional approach.

European collaboration and legislation

In Europe, collaboration was strengthened by concerted actions such as CARACAS (concerted action on risk assessment for contaminated sites in the European Union; 1996 - 1998) and CLARINET (Contaminated Land Rehabilitation Network for Environmental Technologies; 1998 - 2001). These concerted actions were followed up by fruitful international networks that are still are active today. These are the Common Forum, which is a network of contaminated land policy makers, regulators and technical advisors from Environment Authorities in European Union member states and European Free Trade Association countries, and NICOLE (Network for Industrially Co-ordinated Sustainable Land Management in Europe), which is a leading forum on industrially co-ordinated sustainable land management in Europe. NICOLE is promoting co-operation between industry, academia and service providers on the development and application of sustainable technologies.

In 2000, the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD; Directive 2000/60/EC) was adopted by the European Commission, followed by the Groundwater Directive (Directive 2006/118/EC) in 2006 (European parliament and the council of the European Union, 2019b). The environmental objectives are defined by the WFD. Moreover, ‘good chemical status’ and the ‘no deterioration clause’ account for groundwater bodies. ‘Prevent and limit’ as an objective aims to control direct or indirect contaminant inputs to groundwater, and distinguishes for ‘preventing hazardous substances’ to enter groundwater as well as ‘limiting other non-hazardous substances’. Moreover, the European Commission adopted a Soil Thematic Strategy, with soil contamination being one out of the seven identified threats. A proposal for a Soil Framework Directive, launched in 2006, with the objective to protect soils across the EU, was formally withdrawn in 2014 because of a lack of support from some countries.

Policies in the world

Today, most countries in Europe and North America, Australia and New Zealand, and several countries in Asia and Middle and South America, have regulations on soil and groundwater contamination. The policies, however, differ substantially in stage, extent and format. Some policies only cover prevention, e.g., blocking or controlling the inputs of chemicals onto the soil surface and in groundwater bodies. Other policies cover prevention, risk based quality assessment and risk management procedures and include elaborated technical tools, which enable a decent and uniform approach. In particular the larger countries such as the USA, Germany and Spain, policies differ between states or provinces within the country. And even in countries with a policy on the federal level, the responsibilities for different steps in the soil contamination chain are very different for the different layers of authorities (at the national, regional and municipal level).

In Figure 1 the European countries are shown that have a procedure based on frameworks (as described above), including risk-based screening values. It is difficult, if not impossible, to summarise all policies on soil and groundwater protection worldwide. Alternatively, some general aspects of these policies are given here. A fair first basic element in nearly all soil and groundwater policies, relating to prevention of contamination, is the declaration of a formal point in time after which polluting soil and groundwater is considered an illegal act. For soil and groundwater quality assessment and management, most policies follow the risk-based land management approach as the ultimate form of the functional approach described above. Central in this approach are the risks for specific targets that need to be protected up to a specified level. Different protection targets are considered. Not surprisingly, ‘human health’ is the primary protection target that is adopted in nearly all countries with soil and groundwater regulations. Moreover, the ecosystem is an important protection target for soil, while for groundwater the ecosystem as a protection target is under discussion. Another interesting general characteristic of mature soil and groundwater policies is the function-specific approach. The basic principle of this approach is that land must be suited for its purpose. As a consequence, the appraisal of a contaminated site in a residential area, for instance, follows a much more stringent concept than that of an industrial site.

Figure 1. European countries that have a soil policy procedure based on frameworks (see text), including risk-based screening values. Figure prepared by Frank Swartjes.

Risk assessment tools

Risk assessment tools often form the technical backbone of policies. Since the late 1980s risk assessment procedures for soil and groundwater quality appraisal were developed. In the late 1980s the exposure model CalTOX was developed by the Californian Department of Toxic Substances Control in the USA, a few years later the CSOIL model in the Netherlands (Van den Berg, 1991/ 1994/ 1995). In Figure 2, the flow chart of the Dutch CSOIL exposure model is given as an example. Three elements are recognized in CSOIL, like in most exposure models: (1) contaminant distribution over the soil compartments; (2) contaminant transfer from (the different compartments of) the soil into contact media; and (3) direct and indirect exposure to humans. The major exposure pathways are exposure through soil ingestion, crop consumption and inhalation of indoor vapours (Elert et al., 2011). Today, several exposure models exist (see Figure 3 for some ‘national’ European exposure models). However, these exposure models may give quite different exposure estimates for the same exposure scenario (Swartjes, 2007).

Figure 2. Flow chart of the Dutch CSOIL exposure model.

Figure 3. Some ‘national’ European soil exposure models, projected on the country in which they are used. Figure prepared by Frank Swartjes.

Moreover, procedures were developed for ecological risk assessment, including the Species Sensitivity Distributions (see section on SSDs), based on empirical relations between concentration in soil or groundwater and the percentage of species or ecological processes that experience adverse effects (PAF: potentially Affected Fraction). For site specific risk assessment, the TRIAD approach was developed, based on three lines of evidence, i.e., chemically-based, toxicity-based and using data from ecological field surveys (see section on the TRIAD approach).

In the framework of the HERACLES network, another attempt was made to summarizing different EU policies on polluted soil and groundwater. A strong plea was made for harmonisation of risk assessment tools (Swartjes et al., 2009). The authors also described a procedure for harmonization based on the development of a toolbox with standardized and flexible risk assessment tools. Flexible tools are meant to cover national or regional differences in cultural, climatic and geological (e.g., soil type, depth of the groundwater table) conditions. It is generally acknowledged, however, that policy decisions should be taken on the national level. In 2007, an analysis of the differences of soil and groundwater screening values and of the underlying regulatory frameworks, human health and ecological risk assessment procedures (Carlon, 2007) was launched. Although screening values are difficult to compare, since frameworks and objectives of screening values differ significantly, a general conclusion can be drawn for e.g. the screening values at the potentially unacceptable risk level (often used as ‘action’ values, i.e. values that trigger further research or intervention when exceeded). For the 20 metals, most soil screening values (from 13 countries or regions) show between a factor of 10 and 100 difference between the lowest and highest values. For the 23 organic pollutants considered, most soil screening values (from 15 countries or regions) differ by a factor of between 100 and 1000, but for some organic pollutants these screening values differ by more than four orders of magnitude. These conclusions are merely relevant from a policy viewpoint. Technically, these conclusions are less relevant, since, the screenings values are derived from a combination of different protection targets and tools and based on different policy decisions. Differences in screening values are explained by differences in geographical and biological and socio-cultural factors in different countries and regions, different national regulatory and policy decisions and variability in scientific/ technical tools.

References

Carlon, C. (Ed.) (2007). Derivation methods of soil screening values in Europe. A review and evaluation of national procedures towards harmonisation, JRC Scientific and Technical report EUR 22805 EN.

Elert, M., Bonnard, R., Jones, C., Schoof, R.A., Swartjes, F.A. (2011). Human Exposure Pathways. Chapter 11 in: Swartjes, F.A. (Ed.), Dealing with Contaminated Sites. From theory towards practical application. Springer Publishers, Dordrecht.

Swartjes, F.A. (2007). Insight into the variation in calculated human exposure to soil contaminants using seven different European models. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 3, 322–332.

Swartjes, F.A., D’Allesandro, M., Cornelis, Ch., Wcislo, E., Müller, D., Hazebrouck, B., Jones, C., Nathanail, C.P. (2009). Towards consistency in risk assessment tools for contaminated sites management in the EU. The HERACLES strategy from the end of 2009 onwards. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands, RIVM Report 711701091.

Van den Berg, R. (1991/1994/1995). Exposure of humans to soil contamination. A quantitative and qualitative analyses towards proposals for human toxicological C‑quality standards (revised version of the 1991/ 1994 reports). National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands, RIVM-report no. 725201011.

Further reading

Swartjes, F.A. (Ed.) (2011). Dealing with Contaminated Sites. From theory towards practical application. Springer Publishers, Dordrecht.

Rodríguez-Eugenio, N., McLaughlin, M., Pennock, D. (2018). Soil Pollution: a hidden reality. Rome, FAO.