![]()
Part C
The organisational (business) projects
![]()
10
Biosoil
Sustainable Remediation
Else J.M. Boutkan* and René J. Jorna
Biosoil is an innovative soil remediation company located in the western Netherlands. It is innovative because it remediates soil using new biological techniques which are developed and tested in-house. At first glance the association between soil remediation and sustainability seems obvious, for soil remediation aims to achieve a cleaner and safer environment. However, in practice, the remediation process itself may pose sustainability challenges. By ‘reducing offload’ and engaging with stakeholders these challenges can be addressed. This chapter looks at how Biosoil established the knowledge of sustainability (KoS) necessary for sustainable innovation in the soil remediation industry.
Soil is a vital environmental medium, but it has not always been treated with sufficient care. According to preliminary estimates, more than 600,000 sites in the Netherlands are classed as potentially contaminated1 of which around 10% need remediation. Examples include former gas plants, chemical works, oil depots and petrol stations. The situation in other parts of Europe is unlikely to be any better.
Various soil remediation companies are actively involved in dealing with this historic contamination, as well as with contamination caused by new sources of pollution on a case-by-case basis. The majority of these companies make use of conventional methods such as: contaminated soil removal (digging out); applying a layer of clean topsoil; building bunds (dam walls) to isolate the contamination; and treating polluted groundwater.
Biosoil makes use of non-conventional methods such as biological in situ soil remediation techniques. It believes that these offer an environmentally friendly and more sustainable alternative to conventional methods. Biosoil strives to minimise any environmental damage from its remediation activities. Among other approaches, this is achieved by carrying out the remediation by means of a closed soil and groundwater balance. Moreover, compared to conventional methods, in situ techniques require fewer transport movements. This decreases the burden on the environment (i.e. it reduces the offload) caused by lorries as well as reducing risks to employees and those living nearby. In addition, there is no need to import clean soil from elsewhere. Another advantage with in situ remediation is that the contamination is not simply diverted elsewhere.
During the tender process, Biosoil emphasises these aspects of sustainability. However, unfortunately, clients tend to choose remediation contractors on the basis of cost rather than environmental or safety standards. As a result, Biosoil decided to look in depth at how aspects of sustainability can be properly integrated into remediation choices. It asked:
- How can sustainability be raised up the agenda of those involved in deciding which remediation contractor to use?
- Who are these stakeholders and decision-makers?
- How should sustainability be discussed with them?
In other words, how can proper KoS be transferred to the relevant stakeholders to ensure that sustainability becomes part of the decision-making process? In order to find some answers, Biosoil participated in the Knowledge Creation for Sustainable Innovation (NIDO) programme.
This chapter outlines how these questions were addressed by the research project. First, however, we set the framework by describing Biosoil and its remediation projects and then explain the role of government and legislation in regulating the remediation industry.
Biosoil and soil remediation
Biosoil’s core activity is developing, designing and carrying out biological in situ soil remediation. The company’s aim is to remediate soil contamination by stimulating and optimising the natural biological degradation of soil contamination by, for example, readjusting soil conditions. Biosoil is a relatively small organisation consisting of 50 employees. Its main office is in Hendrik Ido Ambacht near Rotterdam. Biosoil is an independent commercial organisation consisting of several subsidiaries—Biosoil B.V. is involved in the acquisition and execution of remediation activities in the Netherlands and in Germany and Chile, while Biosoil R&D provides R&D capacity for both Biosoil B.V. and external clients.
In the Netherlands, in situ remediation represents 20% of the total remediation market, of which Biosoil’s market share is around 15% (i.e. 3–4% of the total). Biosoil focuses on large, difficult and complex projects at the upper end of the market. Internally the company strives for continuous improvement in project delivery and it does this by providing information and training for its employees. The aim is to foster the Biosoil culture with its focus on service, self-learning, relationships and group loyalty. For example, employees are encouraged to solve problems by themselves; although management may set out certain conditions within which the solution should be framed, it does not interfere with the actual content of the solution. This forms the basis for creativity and innovation.
There are two types of in situ techniques: biological and physical. The former involves adding air and nutrients to the soil in order to activate existing soil bacteria. The latter includes dividing the soil into fractions. The basis for this process lies in the fact that soil contamination is often linked to clay particles and organic material. Biosoil makes use of physical techniques it has developed itself such as the Biosoil Behandeling Installatie (Biosoil Treatment Installation), a mobile soil cleaning facility for sandy types of soil and almost all types of pollution and online monitoring (OLM).
Examples of Biosoil projects
Soil remediation work is project-based and often forms part of a larger construction project. Typical soil remediation consists of the following steps:
- Preliminary research into the severity of the contamination
- Drawing up a remediation plan
- Substantiating the choice of remediation methods
- Remediation, including aftercare
- After-care and evaluation
Many parties are involved in projects of this kind, either directly or indirectly (e.g. local and regional government [the client], consultancy firms and local community groups).
To provide a better idea of the meaning of sustainability in relation to soil remediation projects, we will give two examples of projects in which Biosoil was involved: a former fire service training facility at Schiphol and a former gas plant in Oud Beijerland (near Rotterdam).
Fire training facility
Initially, a specification for this project was drawn up by a consultancy firm. This acted both as a formulation of the contamination problem and as an invitation to tender for the project. The original specification was based on conventional techniques, such as digging out and external cleaning. The consultancy firm was asked, however, to indicate whether there could possibly be an alternative solution. In response, Biosoil offered a biological on-site cleaning technique. This type of cleaning does not require the removal of soil from the location nor the supply of clean soil from elsewhere, hence reducing transport movements. Instead, the contaminated silt was dredged from a polluted pond, thickened in situ and transported afterwards to a safe nearby location. In this manner 70% was saved in weight due to the thickening process in addition to the collateral savings in transport movements.
The biological in situ variant leaves behind soil that is full of bacteria and nutrients. This creates a self-cleaning effect, resulting in a soil with high ‘potency’. After remediation Biosoil planted grass to minimise pollutant dispersion and to make the site more aesthetically pleasing.
Gas plant
The case of the former gas plant in Oud Beijerland demonstrates how environmental aspects can play a role in the decision-making process in a soil remediation project. Ultimately, the site was intended for a housing development. The first suggested approach was to cover the contaminated area with a I m layer of clean topsoil. However, this failed to address the ongoing future risks associated with the contamination remaining in place, both for the future occupants and the environment. Of interest here is the way that Biosoil became involved in the project. Some of the future occupants of the proposed housing development became concerned about the suggested approach and sought an alternative through Biosoil who offered a solution similar to that carried out at Schiphol. This illustrates how the interests of a key group, the future occupants, had not been sufficiently taken into account in the early stages of the decision-making process.
The role of legislation and the government
In the Netherlands, controls on soil remediation activities are set out in the Soil Protection Act (1980). This also lays down the authorities and agencies involved in enforcing soil remediation standards and procedures.
The issue first came to public attention in the 1970s after contamination was found at Lekkerkerk, a small town near Rotterdam, where houses were built on soil that was subsequently found to be contaminated. Because of the potential health risks there was a lot of media attention and the national government was obliged, at enormous cost, to remove the contaminated soil from under the houses. This led to a new legislative regime in the Netherlands. From this incident until the present day remediation policies have undergone some important developments,2 changing from a rigid framework to one in which the local situation as well as local interests are taken into account wherever possible. Compared to existing practices, however, the legislation, of over ten years in age, is still lagging behind.
As a result of the Lekkerkerk case two conventional remediation options became of interest: digging out and covering up. After remediation, the soil had to be suitable for any type of use. This approach was too intensive and too expensive to be suitable for all potentially contaminated sites, however. In the years that followed remediation, policies started to take into consideration aspects such as functionality and cost-effectiveness. In addition, discussions were started on the pros and cons of different soil remediation options and on how to establish a remediation goal.
Recently, a readjustment in policies has been announced in order to make remediation more sustainable and simpler. In this context ‘more sustainable’ means that the potential soil users’ options have to be guaranteed for the future. ‘Simpler’ means that a better evaluation should take place with respect to the way in which the soil is dealt with and the risks associated with it. Therefore, new structures and remediation criteria have to be developed that take into account communal and environmental aspects.
In the adjusted remediation policies cost-effectiveness is also crucial, simply because of the fact that remediation of all polluted areas in the Netherlands is not financially feasible. Therefore, choices have to be made. The difficulty is that remediation projects are delayed in anticipation of a more unequivocal policy.3 It is also expected that in this line of business (even) more cost-effective remediation methods will be developed, stimulated by government support.
The Biosoil research project: research question and approach
Biosoil initiated contact with the NIDO programme Knowledge Creation for Sustainable Innovation. Biosoil’s first question concerned the degree of sustainability of the remediation methods that it had developed itself. The company was looking for a way to demonstrate the sustainability of its methods in order to integrate aspects of sustainability into a particular method.
Motivation
During the first meetings of Biosoil and NIDO, Biosoil’s principal motivation—to link sustainability parameters to its remediation processes—was discussed. Biosoil’s motivation was two...
