1
April 2013
Sustainable Remediation and Rehabilitation of Biodiversity and Habitats of Oil Spill Sites in the
Niger Delta
Annex III: International Standards including Biodiversity and Associated Biophysical and Social Parameters
A report by the independent IUCN - Niger Delta Panel (IUCN-NDP) to the Shell Petroleum Development Company Ltd of Nigeria (SPDC)
2
About IUCN
IUCN, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, helps the world find pragmatic solutions to our most pressing environment and development challenges.
IUCN’s work focuses on valuing and conserving nature, ensuring effective and equitable governance of its use, and deploying nature-based solutions to global challenges in climate, food and development. IUCN supports scientific research, manages field projects all over the world, and brings governments, NGOs, the UN and companies together to develop policy, laws and best practice.
IUCN is the world’s oldest and largest global environmental organization, with more than 1,200 government and NGO Members and almost 11,000 volunteer experts in some 160 countries. IUCN’s work is supported by over 1,000 staff in 45 offices and hundreds of partners in public, NGO and private sectors around the world.
www.iucn.org
Au sujet de l’UICN
L’UICN, l’Union internationale pour la conservation de la nature, aide à trouver des solutions pratiques aux problèmes de l’environnement et du développement les plus pressants de l’heure.
Valoriser et conserver la nature, assurer une gouvernance efficace et équitable de son utilisation, et développer des solutions basées sur la nature pour relever les défis mondiaux du climat, de l'alimentation et du développement, tels sont les domaines dans lesquels s'exercent les activités de l'UICN. L’Union soutient la recherche scientifique, gère des projets dans le monde entier et réunit les gouvernements, les ONG, l’ONU et les entreprises en vue de générer des politiques, des lois et de bonnes pratiques.
L’UICN est la plus ancienne et la plus grande organisation mondiale de l’environnement. Elle compte plus de 1 200 Membres, gouvernements et ONG, et près de 11 000 experts bénévoles dans quelque 160 pays. Pour mener à bien ses activités, l’UICN dispose d’un personnel composé de plus de 1 000 employés répartis dans 45 bureaux et bénéficie du soutien de centaines de partenaires dans les secteurs public, privé et ONG, dans le monde entier.
www.uicn.org
Acerca de la UICN
La UICN, la Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, contribuye a encontrar soluciones pragmáticas para los principales desafíos ambientales y de desarrollo que enfrenta el planeta.
El trabajo de la Unión se centra en valorar y conservar la naturaleza, en asegurar la gobernanza efectiva y equitativa en su utilización, y en la aplicación de soluciones basadas en la naturaleza a los desafíos globales en el clima, la alimentación y el desarrollo. La UICN apoya la investigación científica, gestiona proyectos de campo en todo el mundo, y reúne a los gobiernos, las ONG, las Naciones Unidas y las empresas con miras a desarrollar políticas, legislación y prácticas óptimas.
La UICN es la organización medioambiental más antigua y más grande del mundo, con más de 1200 Miembros, gubernamentales y no gubernamentales, además de unos 11.000 expertos voluntarios en cerca de 160 países. Para su labor, la UICN cuenta con el apoyo de un personal compuesto por más de 1000 empleados, repartidos en 45 oficinas, y cientos de asociados de los sectores público, no gubernamental y privado de todo el mundo.
www.uicn.org
3
The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN.
Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland
Copyright: © 2013 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged.
Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder.
Citation: IUCN Niger – Delta Panel, 2013. Sustainable Remediation and Rehabilitation of Biodiversity and Habitats of Oil Spill Sites in the Niger Delta. Main Report including recommendations for the future. A report by the independent IUCN - Niger Delta Panel (IUCN-NDP) to the Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (SPDC). January 2013. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
ISBN: 978-2-8317-1617-6
Cover photos: Image of the Niger Delta from space, (courtesy of NASA), with community (first line (all by Alex Chindah) and main habitats overlain (second line from top left to right: lowland forest (Alex Chindah); freshwater (Alex Chindah); barrier islands (Friday Idogiye Amain); and mangroves (nigerdeltarising.org).
Layout by: Nigerian Environmental Study /Action Team
Produced by: IUCN – Niger Delta Panel
Printed by: IUCN
Available from: IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Business and Biodiversity Programme (BBP) Rue Mauverney 28 1196 Gland Switzerland Tel +41 22 999 0000 Fax +41 22 999 0002 [email protected] www.iucn.org/publications
4
CONTENTS
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………….. 5
List of Panel members………………………………………………………………………..... 6
Preface…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7
1. International protocols and Environmental Guidelines and Standards
for the Petroleum Industry of Nigeria (EGASPIN)…............................... 8
1.1 Introduction.................................................................................................. 8
1.2 Considerations for best practice protocols to support ecosystem
recovery……………………………………………………………………………. 9
1.2.1 Include a wider range of pollutants to guide the implementation of recommendations........................................................................................ 9
1.2.2 Impact of PAHs in offshore marine environments…............ 11
1.2.3 Consideration to track ecosystem recovery..................................... 12
1.3 Intervention and target values................................................................... 13
1.4 Consideration to derive applicable values for the Niger Delta........ 13
1.5 Biodiversity remediation, restoration and rehabilitation ................ 13
1.6 Principles for bioremediation of contaminated lands ........................ 17
1.7 Use of bioremediation .................................................................................... 17
1.8 Modified natural attenuation....................................................................... 18
1.9 Ecosystem/habitat rehabilitation ............................................................. 19
2. Comparison of international standards and update on review of
EGASPIN standards annex………………………………....................................... 21
3. NDP continuous risk assessment tool: outcome success matrix.... 30
References……………………………………………………………………………………………. 33
5
List of Tables Table 1. Soil/sediment values in EGASPIN guidelines 22 Table 2. Comparison of EGASPIN (2002) with other guidelines 24 Table 3. Groundwater values in EGASPIN guidelines 25 Table 4. Surface water values in EGASPIN guidelines 28 Table 5. Outcome success matrix 31
6
List of Panel Members
The Panel leverages the scientific and technical expertise within the IUCN constituency (including relevant Nigerian based NGOs), IUCN Programmes, and the Regional Office for Central and West Africa (PACO). The Panel consists of seven members selected for their technical expertise in the field of oil spill management and oil site remediation and rehabilitation.
The Panel members are:
Dr Uzoamaka Egbuche – Panel Chair - Expert in Oil Spill Remediation – CERASE – IUCN member, Abuja, Nigeria;
Prof Dan Laffoley - Expert on Biodiversity Conservation (Marine) – Marine Vice Chair of IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, Peterborough, UK;
Prof Ikem Ekweozor - Expert in environmental pollution studies and marine and estuarine ecology - Department of Applied & Environmental Biology, Rivers State University of Science & Technology, Port Harcourt, Nigeria;
Dr Muhtari Aminu-Kano - Expert on Biodiversity Conservation (Terrestrial) – IUCN Species Survival Commission, ex Birdlife International, Nigerian currently based in Cambridge, UK;
Dr James Kairo - Expert in Restoration Ecology – Head Mangrove Silviculture and Management Unit, Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute, Mombasa, Kenya;
Prof Olof Linden – Expert in environmental impacts of petroleum hydrocarbons and oil spill dispersants - Director of Research and Doctoral Program, World Maritime University (WMU), International Maritime Organization, Malmo, Sweden; and
Dr Victor Obinna - Expert in Environmental Sociology – Urban & Regional Planning, Rivers State University of Science and Technology, Port Harcourt, Nigeria.
7
Preface
This document is one of several annexes produced as a result of the work of the IUCN-Niger Delta Panel (IUCN-NDP). This Panel was established in January 2012, at the request of the Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited (SPDC), as an initiative to help improve the company’s environmental management. IUCN created the Panel with the involvement of IUCN Members in Nigeria, as well as IUCN Commissions and the IUCN Secretariat. The Panel arose out of a concern among key stakeholders to improve upon remediation activities and to find a sustainable and peaceful approach towards rehabilitation of biodiversity in habitats affected by oil spills. The main report containing the formal recommendations from the Panel is listed below and can be downloaded here.
This and the other annexes present more detailed information and findings, which the Panel used to develop the recommendations that are set out in the main report, and which the Panel continues to draw from in its ongoing work. In making these supporting annexes available it should be noted that where any perception of difference occurs between what is in the annex and the main report, it is the main report and the recommendations therein that should be taken as the formal view of the Panel. It is also possible that information or situations may have changed since individual annexes were compiled. The annexes were accurate to the best of the knowledge of the Panel at the time they were produced. Some also contain records of perceptions from various stakeholders. These perceptions are very valuable to inform the work of the Panel and are recorded for information purposes, but they should not be taken as representing the views of the Panel. Finally, the information and data in the annexes should be considered “works in progress” as in many cases they are the first attempts at data gathering in a complex and challenging natural and social environment.
Uzoamaka Egbuche
Chair, IUCN-NDP
Reference:
IUCN Niger–Delta Panel (2013). Sustainable remediation and rehabilitation of biodiversity and habitats of oil spill sites in the Niger Delta: Main report including recommendations for the future. A report by the independent IUCN–Niger Delta Panel (IUCN–NDP) to the Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (SPDC). July 2013. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 73 pp.
8
1. International protocols and Environmental Guidelines and Standards for the Petroleum Industry of Nigeria (EGASPIN)
1.1 Introduction
Data about the levels of substances/pollutants in the environment are not meaningful unless they can be compared with the levels elsewhere. It is only when measuring the concentrations of a pollutant in samples from a particular area such as in a sample of water, sediment or fish tissue, and comparing the result with the concentrations found in samples from sites radiating away from a known pollution source, or samples of the same matrix collected elsewhere, that it will be possible to form an opinion on whether the concentrations are elevated or not. The mere presence of a substance such as lead or mercury is not enough, it is the levels compared to samples from other areas or compared to the background at the site of collection that is important.
In addition, what should be considered good air, water or soil quality depends on what the needs are. Vastly higher levels of pollutants can be accepted in certain industrial raw water compared to what is required for drinking water, so the standards and acceptable limits may vary drastically.
A number of standards referring to levels of pollutants have been established by environmental or health agencies in different countries. In addition, international organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the European Commission (EC), the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) have recommended concentrations for various contaminants. Such standards often refer to concentrations of the pollutant in air, water or soil/sediment. In addition, standard or guideline values for certain well-known hazardous substances are available for food items such as fish and shellfish.
As mentioned above, standards have been established for different reasons although in most cases they have been set to protect human health, and/or the biodiversity and health of the ecosystem. In a wider sense, water quality refers to a range of criteria covering chemical, biological and physical parameters of the ecosystem. However, for practical purposes a more limited set of parameters consisting of factors that are relatively easy to sample and measure has been selected. Air quality standards often refer to levels of particles, radioactivity, sulphur and nitrogen oxides,
9
asbestos, formaldehyde and various Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). Water quality standards may refer to pH, oxygen, turbidity (suspended solids), nutrients, Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), or pathogenic bacteria. In sediments/soil, it is often relevant to establish levels of petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals and chlorinated hydrocarbons. Fish and shellfish are often analysed for heavy metals and chlorinated hydrocarbons.
The sum of petroleum hydrocarbons (also called total hydrocarbons or total extractable hydrocarbons) is sometimes measured in water but more often in sediment and filtrating organisms (such as bivalves). It is not relevant to measure petroleum hydrocarbons in fish tissue (muscle) as fish have enzymatic systems that metabolize most petroleum hydrocarbons. However, some PAHs (which are a set of total petroleum hydrocarbons) may not be easily metabolized in fish or otherwise degraded and may serve as suitable substances to measure. PAHs are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and often 16 particularly well-known PAHs are measured (called the 16 USEPA PAHs).
In addition to the quality standards of water, air, soil and foodstuff, there are emission control standards which set specific limits on the amounts of contaminants that can be released into the environment. Many emission standards focus on regulating the pollutants released from automobiles and other vehicles but they are also used to regulate the emissions from industries.
1.2 Considerations for Best Practice Protocols to Support Ecosystem Recovery
1.2.1 Include a wider range of pollutants to guide the implementation of
recommendations The scale of remediation recommended by the IUCN-NDP needs to be guided by values that are relevant to the Niger Delta environment as it is today. Several countries and international bodies such as WHO have updated their standards in response to emerging challenges (e.g. WHO recently released its 4th edition of standards for drinking water; the Canadian and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines under reference were released in 2010). The IUCN-NDP literature reviews on best practice in residual values for pollutants and chemicals of
10
special concern examined guidelines published in the last decade but most especially from 2009 to date.
One of the most toxic pollutants resulting from oil activities is the ubiquitous presence of poly-aromatic hydrocarbons from crude oil spills and their derivatives. In fact there is increasing concern about the characteristics of these derivatives, which are not only produced in several multiples of the congeners but are also more toxic than the mother compounds in some cases (Pampin and Sydnes, 2013). In 2002, Kanaly and Harayama, also observed that the metabolic pathway for fluoranthene showed the presence of more than 10 to 14 metabolites derived from one mother compound during aerobic bacterial degradation. Even in the case of wines and spirits, complex organic molecules are produced during the fermentation and aging processes, and are thought to be the cause of hangovers. The presence of the mother compounds, derivatives and their congeners needs to be addressed as part of a holistic approach towards remediation because some of them are not only more toxic but also more difficult to degrade than their mother compounds.
In addition to the PAHs, there are several important aromatics, aliphatic, inorganic compounds, heavy metals, chlorinated aromatics(especially for downstream sector), persistent surfactants and other additives used in extractive processes and their derivatives (as reflected in Tables 1 to 4 below) that are harmful to the environment . However, most of these are not represented in the current EGASPIN standards and other country standards; hence the need to review quite a number of guidelines that will give a range that could be relevant to the Niger Delta. Owing to the paucity of published reference data, the need to bridge this gap is a priority.
At the time the revised EGASPIN standards were published by the Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR) in 2002, this range of pollutants may not have been considered for the oil industry but now it is necessary to derive a range of comprehensive and updated set of values to guide the concept of remediation and rehabilitation of biodiversity and habitats that would support ecosystem recovery.
For unclear reasons, only 5 PAHs are included in EGASPIN standards for groundwater values, even though the Netherlands’ standard, which seems closest to EGASPIN, has 10 out of the ‘16 US EPA PAHs’, (a generally acceptable international norm nowadays). It could be that the ‘bonny light’ (the so called sweet crude being a much lighter variety than most other crude oil varieties) was not expected to have a wide range of PAHs. However, analysis of world crude constituents by Kerr et al. (1999)
11
and reviewed by Pampin and Sydnes in 2013, shows that PAHs are of two types – petrogenic PAHs derived from steroids in crude oil that are formed over time due to chemical restructuring of the hydrocarbons, and pyrogenic PAHs derived from incomplete combustion of organic material. Pyrogenic PAHs are generally composed of larger and more complex ring structures than petrogenic PAHs. However, considering the prevalent forest fires in the Niger Delta and the illegal but common crude refining, it is not unreasonable to expect the full range of carcinogenic PAHs in soil and perhaps groundwater and these should be regulated by appropriate values. Therefore the range of PAHs in the EGASPIN standards should be increased to include all the 16 US EPA PAHs. There are no references to rely on at this time, hence the need for PAHs analysis in various habitats and application of the principles for biodiversity and soil specificity as encapsulated in Alberta guidelines for hydrocarbons in upstream sector (2001).
1.2.2. Impact of PAHs in offshore marine environment
There is increasing concern about PAH content in produced water (PW), (that is effluents of onshore and offshore oil production activities), owing to carcinogenic/mutagenic properties of PAHs. This is primarily because the intermediate PAHs derived from congeners are sometimes far more toxic than the mother compounds and are increasing total PAHs content drastically. For this reason, in the North Sea there is close monitoring of the 16 US EPA PAHs. Data from offshore platforms show that the majority of PAHs in PW (in fact about 97%) are of BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene), about 3% are of 2- and 3- ring PAHs (i.e. napthalene, phenathrene, and dibenzothiophene (NPD)) and a variety of larger ringed and complex PAHs make up less than 0,2%. This concentration of total PAHs in PW typically ranges from 0.040mg/l to 3mg/l mainly constituted of NPDs and their derivatives 2-3 ring PAHs). However, the abundance of these derivatives is higher than their parent compounds, and their impact on marine environment overtime is a cause for concern. For example, estimates of PW discharge on the Norwegian shelf predict an increase until 2010–2014, reaching a maximum of about 200,000 tons/year. Therefore this offshore discharge has been under periodical monitoring for several years. (Pampin and Sydnes, 2013). IUCN-NDP has proposed the introduction of monitoring of PW in the Nigerian continental shelf especially in view of the backlog of impacted sites and current approaches in offshore situations where according to SPDC, offshore spills below Tier 3 are allowed to dissipate by natural wave and wind action.
12
Therefore the current EGASPIN standards would ultimately need to be amended to include a wider range of pollutants as is currently relevant to the Niger Delta situation.
1.2.3 Considerations to track ecosystem recovery
The current EGASPIN standards do not consider PAHs in most habitats and where they are reflected they are not related to site-specific soil types nor do they identify biodiversity receptors. Generally, there is a shortage of reference data for PAHs and several other pollutants in the Niger Delta and there are no references to ecosystem recovery in the EGASPIN standards. This is the same for many other pollutants as shown in the Tables in Section 2, which make no reference to soil types and the sensitivity or reaction of biodiversity receptors to Chemicals of Special Concern (CoSC). The current EGASPIN standards appear to be very similar to the Netherlands’ standards for Chemicals of Special Concern of 1994, but the Dutch standards are stricter for some parameters. Also, where values are given, Nigeria's soil target values are much lower (stricter) than the industrial/commercial soil target values for the UK, US and South Africa. However, there were significant differences in the intervention values for aromatics that indicate that EGASPIN had compared baseline data available in order to relate these parameters to the Niger Delta environment at the time.
So in presenting these values the IUCN-NDP has considered overall framework for values and has adopted temporarily the values given by EGASPIN on heavy metals or PAH for example, and made up the gaps with values mostly from the Canadian standards, mainly due to the fact that the latter used a concept that is closest to the IUCN-NDP initiative for the Niger Delta. However, IUCN-NDP has also included in Table 2 a comparison with values for the US and the Netherlands as reference points during field implementation. This decision was not arrived at lightly, but in the absence of published references at this point, a temporary reference is required for field trials and to compare empirical data derived using Tier 2. The Panel also noted that temperature could be a significant factor which may balance itself out, as higher temperatures increase toxicity but accelerate degradation, so it remains to be seen how this factor impacts pollutants during the field trials. Much work needs to be done to review available data acquired over years via baseline studies and assessments, and to compare these with data from field trials and empirical calculations derived from Tier2 principles.
13
There are very few references for brackish water values, in fact only four were found in the Alberta standards, but the brackish water values (0.0014) given for naphthalene are very slightly stricter than for surface water (0.0011). Therefore until field trials can be done to verify them, surface water values may have to suffice temporarily. In general the values given as temporary reference values by the IUCN-NDP are close to what is considered ‘normal’ elsewhere. Some values are similar, others slightly lower or higher than IUCN-NDP. The recently released 4th edition of guidelines suggests even further that there is no need for petroleum hydrocarbon standards for drinking water because humans can taste hydrocarbons easily. However, with increasing complaints about drinking water this may not be adequate for Niger Delta purposes. The IUCN-NDP’s objective to derive values that would support restoration of habitats and promote reappearance of sensitive biota, by indicating ecosystem health or status during field trials, requires much work to be done going forward.
1.3 Intervention and target values
The IUCN-NDP also considered the use of the so-called ‘intervention’ standards as a guide for selection of sites to remediate, owing to the backlog of polluted sites in the Niger Delta. Some of these sites are decades old and others may have also been re-contaminated by incidences of new spills that are still going on at alarming rate largely due to acts of sabotage in many cases. To address this, IUCN-NDP considered that the intervention values may be necessary in the interim, but over time should be re-evaluated on the basis of their continuing relevance. Both EGASPIN (2002) and the Dutch (1994) standards refer to target and intervention values and it appears that the intervention values were needed to enable prioritization of selection of sites to be remediated, so even though IUCN-NDP could not assess its applicability since its introduction in 2002, it was deemed a useful benchmark for prioritization under this concept.
1.4 Considerations to derive applicable values for the Niger Delta
In considering the above, IUCN-NDP recommends comparisons of data derived from field trials with empirical data based on Tier 2 principles to assess the applicability of the recommended target and intervention values and also to derive a range of values that would be closer to the Niger Delta environment and its current challenges. Therefore the priority now is to derive a more applicable set of standards using the
14
most relevant guidelines based on factors affecting the Niger Delta environment today.
Of the five country standards and guidelines investigated, namely South Africa, the US, Canada, the Netherlands and the UK, the Canadian Tier 2 guidelines (Alberta Tier 2 Soil and Groundwater Remediation Guidelines (2010) and Alberta Soil and Water Quality Guidelines for Hydrocarbons at Upstream Oil and Gas Facilities (2001)) are the ones most relevant to the goals of the IUCN-NDP recommendations. These guidelines take into account impacts on biodiversity and human receptors, and consider factors such as land use and soil types. The approaches adopted in these Tier 2 guidelines are replicable provided some factors, such as aspects of climate, are adjusted to the local conditions. Climatic factors like temperature may be a significant factor in calculating values for the parameters shown in Tables 1 to 4 below, which compares the proposed guidelines for EGASPIN against standards for the five countries. Temperature is a factor that tends to increase the toxicity but also accelerates degradation. This could mean that residual values for COSC in soil or water for the Niger Delta could be different from those proposed in Table 4 below; therefore at this point this is just a reference data for the field trials. For example, in some cases EGASPIN values are stricter than other standards, such as for mineral oil (C15 -C40) in sediments/soils where the target and intervention values given by EGASPIN are stricter than the corresponding values in the standards of the Netherlands and the US. Also, the target values for mineral oil in soil in Nigeria are much lower (stricter) than the industrial/commercial soil target values for the UK, the US and South Africa. For PAHs in groundwater, the intervention values (where they are listed) are largely similar for both EGASPIN and the Dutch guidelines. However, in comparing their target values, the Dutch values are much lower (stricter).
Therefore, a range of values for some parameters has been proposed based on comparative values from other countries that were reviewed. For example, the natural occurrence of certain metals in the Niger Delta is relatively high, so the levels proposed are set to accommodate this. Also, as stated earlier, PAH in soil and surface water is largely absent in the EGASPIN standards and recommendations have been made using the wider range of guidelines based on standards from Canada, the US or the Netherlands. This is an interim measure because these values have not been tested in the Niger Delta, but NDP is providing a temporary reference point for field trials. The idea is to carry out quarterly or biannual analysis during the field trials
15
and correlate results to the Outcome Success Matrix in Section 3 below, in order to track changes as shown in the matrix.
Nigeria, in principle, seeks to adopt best practice, using methods and guidelines that are consistent with international standards. However, interpretation and implementation remain a key issue. This indicates that more work needs to be done to harmonize EGASPIN target values to the local conditions. Furthermore, IUCN-NDP recommends extension of the number of parameters in the EGASPIN guidelines to cover parameters relevant to upstream and downstream sectors for completeness and for relevance to other companies in the oil sector who are expected to participate in a wider collaboration in conservation of biodiversity of the Niger Delta in the future.
In calculating values for risks to biodiversity, human and land use receptors, the Canadian Tier 2 principles and some of those in US EPA have applied concepts which IUCN-NDP recommends. The Panel’s considerations for biodiversity field trials are even more specific in various ecozones. In the context of the Niger Delta these approaches are all useful to support ecosystem recovery
The need to backup this approach with field trials is mainly because there are no reference data related to tracking COSC and recovery of biodiversity. A vast majority of biodegradation half-life values for COSC remain uncertain and difficult to measure or estimate. The uncertainty in these rates is partially attributable to variability caused by different environmental conditions, (e.g. oxygen and temperature), bioavailability and the genetic characteristics of the microbial communities. It is important to maximize the accuracy of biodegradation rates in the environment to minimize uncertainty associated with hazard and risk assessments. For example, Canada has developed practical methods for estimating environmental biodegradation rates and as in all models assumptions have to be made. However, it must be noted that the model does not allow for the ‘initiation period’ – a time lag when the oil-degrading microbial community becomes activated or gets acclimated. The model assumes peak or optimum activity immediately, although adjustments may be made to compensate but they are assumptions that are unpredictable due to the myriad reactions going on and due to the specificity of the biodegrading elements (CEMN 2005). In another example, Canada, the US and Mexico jointly acceded to interim guidance for calculating and evaluating rates of degradation (DT50 and DT90) that is based on standard biotic studies. During the year and after the one year of application there would be re-evaluation of the guidance values to determine
16
changes. But this guidance calls for field trials to enable adjustments where necessary (CEMN Report No 200503 (2005).
In both cases mentioned above field trials were needed, due to the challenges of assumptions which may or may not be accurate. Therefore the view of the IUCN-NDP is that derivation of new values for the Niger Delta should be based on a combined approach, which compares data derived from field trials with those derived from calculated degradation rates to achieve values that would support ecosystem recovery. The tables provided in the next section are for reference during these activities.
To conclude, the Panel is of the view that field trials in different ecozones are crucial in order to validate values derived from calculating and evaluating degradation kinetics based on Tier 2 principles. This way the results from both processes could be compared, to provide scientific and field tested data that would support recommendations for updated values for upstream and downstream oil operations over time. This is also crucial in convincing the wider stakeholder groups and especially the government that values that are being proposed have in reality been tested and most importantly are realistic and will indeed stand up to the test of time.
IUCN-NDP recommends application of the bioremediation protocols proposed in Annex IV, which include processes for bioremediation, phytoremediation and rhizoremediation where applicable. The recovery of the ecosystem will also be tracked with the Outcome Success Matrix (outlined in Section 2 below), which is a tool to monitor and evaluate biodiversity recovery. The point at which the matrix pinpoints COSC levels in relation to reappearance of sensitive biota is the beginning of ecosystem recovery. This is an important milestone, which can be linked to and aligned with the guidelines for calculating and evaluating biodegradation kinetics that will be developed for this purpose.
IUCN-NDP supports the empirical derivation of values based on risk assessments using Tier 2 principles stated in the Canadian guidelines where assumptions are adjusted to local conditions. But this should be proven with the field trials, which should occur simultaneously. Adjustments may be made based on quarterly interim results in the first year and reduced to two interim adjustments in subsequent years.
1.5 Biodiversity remediation, restoration and rehabilitation
17
Bioremediation and biodiversity rehabilitation of contaminated areas of terrestrial land and wetlands, when properly managed, is an environmentally sound approach and often the only available realistic method to rehabilitate large areas. For smaller areas where the contaminated sites are up to a few hundred square meters, a number of other more technologically advanced clean-up methods may be cost-effective. However, when the areas are of the order of acres or hectares, bioremediation largely using natures’ own microorganisms in combination with chemical and physical degradation processes are the only available realistic techniques. In many cases the natural processes can be enhanced in various ways. While commonly agreed international standards for remediation, restoration and biodiversity rehabilitation are not available, environmental protection authorities in a number of countries have published reports and guidelines on these topics and are actively promoting such methods in landscape management and following the clean-up of contaminated lands, for example in New Zealand, Australia, the UK, Germany, Austria and the Nordic countries. The US EPA has produced an extensive set of manuals and guidelines for remediation technologies, natural attenuation, flushing, soil washing, thermal treatment and rehabilitation of ecosystems (EPA 2012). OECD has dealt with these issues briefly (OECD 2008). The EU has produced numerous reports about rehabilitation and recovery of contaminated lands (see for example the European Environment Agency, EU 2000; SOER 2010).
1.6 Principles for bioremediation of contaminated lands
In-situ bioremediation and rehabilitation of contaminated lands can be carried out in more or less intrusive ways as the process of clean-up itself often creates a significant environmental footprint. Based on the experiences from a number of more-or-less intensive clean-up projects around the world it is possible to optimize the environmental performance and implement protective clean-ups including ecosystem/habitat rehabilitation that is more environmentally-friendly by increasing our understanding of environmental footprints and, when appropriate, taking steps to minimize such footprints. Principles for more environmentally-friendly clean-up should consider a number of factors in the planning phase before a clean-up/bioremediation/rehabilitation process get started. Such parameters are site characteristics, location in relation to surface waters, population centres, areas of particular values for biodiversity etc., and evaluation of clean-up options including the optimization of environmental performance. It is important to note that all
18
elements of the clean-up process can be optimized to enhance the overall environmental outcome, therefore more environmentally-friendly remediation involve more than merely adopting a specific technology.
1.7 Use of bioremediation
Monitored natural attenuation of petroleum hydrocarbons is probably in reality the only available alternative when large areas have been contaminated. Natural bio-attenuation can be defined as the combination of a variety of physical, chemical and biological processes that, under favourable conditions, act without human intervention to reduce the mass (volume), toxicity, mobility, or concentration of hydrocarbons in soil, sediment or groundwater. The processes include biodegradation, dispersion, dissolution, adsorption, evaporation, chemical and photochemical reactions, transformation and destruction of contaminants. Microorganisms (bacteria, fungus and yeasts) are known for effectively degrading low to moderate concentrations of petroleum contamination. High concentrations (such as the NAPL phase) and very low concentrations may not be biodegradable to the same extent. As opposed to the degradation process for some metal contaminants and other hydrocarbons, the degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons does not result in degradation products that are more harmful to the environment than the original petroleum hydrocarbons. In order to decide what contribution natural attenuation can make to meeting site remediation goals, the site characteristics are of central importance. The long-term costs for natural attenuation, if natural attenuation is able to achieve most of the site remediation goals, is most likely significantly less than those for other remediation techniques. In order to properly evaluate the natural attenuation potential at a specific site, it is necessary to know the concentration of petroleum hydrocarbons in different parts of the contaminated area, and how the contamination is spreading due to ground and surface water movements. It is also important to assess the potential for biodegradation which includes parameters such as humidity, oxygen levels, concentrations of CO2, nitrate, phosphate, sulphate, iron etc.
1.8 Modified natural attenuation
Should certain parameters necessary for natural attenuation be missing, other remediation or treatment options need to be investigated. Such techniques may include flushing using water or a liquid solution to mobilize the contamination and collect it at the surface for disposal. Traditional flushing/flooding techniques rely on
19
the ability to deliver and control the flow, and remove the oil-contaminated water that results from the flushing. Flushing to remove the high concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons is often a necessary first step, also in cases where natural attenuation will be the option that will be selected after the flushing. Bio-venting is a method developed for oil-contaminated soils/sediments where the biodegradation is limited due to low concentrations of oxygen. Oxygen is delivered using low air flow rates to provide enough oxygen to sustain microbial activity. Oxygen is mostly supplied through direct air injection into the contaminated soil/sediment. In addition to the biodegradation of adsorbed oil residues, volatile compounds are biodegraded as vapours or they move with air bubbles to the surface and evaporate. A number of case studies have indicated that fertilization may significantly increase the speed of biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons in soils. Fertilizers in the form of agricultural fertilizer (NPK) may be injected or ploughed into the surface of the contaminated soil. The process may have to be repeated several times. If the soil is heavily contaminated and there is a need to confine the contamination to prevent it from spreading, land-farming in combination with fertilization and bio-venting may be the more effective way of dealing with the problem.
1.9 Ecosystem/habitat rehabilitation
As mentioned initially, no international standards are available for ecosystem/habitat rehabilitation. Obviously such rehabilitation of plants and animals is highly site-specific and dependent on the local geography. Nevertheless a number of ecosystem rehabilitation projects have been carried out and many articles and reports are available. Most of the work in this area has been focused on the rehabilitation of previously forested areas that have been clear-cut. However, a number of cases have also been reported where areas affected by mining have been rehabilitated. Work is reported from temperate areas often dealing with terrestrial ecosystems and habitats. Projects reported from tropical areas often focus on coastal ecosystems and habitats such as mangroves. Hence in a number of cases coastal forests and mangrove ecosystems affected by storms and floods have been replanted. Quite detailed investigations have been carried out with respect to the requirements for successful transplantation of mangroves in areas that have been used for shrimp cultures. Several detailed studies have also been carried out on the rehabilitation of oil-contaminated mangrove areas. The reference list at the end of this annex focuses on ecosystem/habitat rehabilitation following oil contamination; for reviews see for example Macintosh and Ashton, 2002; IUCN, 2008; and NOAA, 2010. Mangroves are
20
not particularly sensitive to oil contamination but heavy coating of oil on prop roots and branches sometimes leads to mortality of trees. Successful rehabilitation depends on a number of site-specific conditions including hydrology and soil characteristics. It is well known that failure to properly assess the existing and proposed hydrologic conditions is the primary cause for failure in mangrove restoration projects. Restoration of sea grasses has also been attempted in a number of cases and some guidelines are available (see for example Seddon, 2004). Sea grasses however seldom suffer from oil contamination and most restoration has been in areas that have been affected by floods, erosion and sedimentation following storms.
21
2. Comparison of international standards and update on review of EGASPIN standards annex
The Comparisons Matrix (Tables 1-4 below) compares different standards for pollutants such as Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs), PAHs, metals and other substances of particular interest and importance for the environment and public health.
The Matrix compares the Nigerian standards with some other countries for soil, water and groundwater. It should be said that it is difficult to compare standards as they often are formulated and interpreted differently in different countries. However, the higher the value of any standards, intervention limits or guideline increases, the more they can be compared between countries. Generally, the Matrix shows that Nigerian standards and intervention limits are not particularly strict – rather the converse is true. For example, there is no differentiation in the Nigerian regulations between standards for ‘natural’ and ‘industrial’ areas, or between areas with soil consisting of fine and coarse sediments (Table 3). In addition surface water guidelines (Table 4) show somewhat surprisingly that ‘drinking’ water standards are significantly higher than ‘aquatic’, for example when it comes to aliphatic hydrocarbons as well as PAHs. Furthermore some of the maximum tolerated concentrations for heavy metals such as mercury, lead and cadmium are very high (Table 1). In addition Nigeria has chosen to measure for example PAHs in a way that makes it impossible to compare with other countries (Nigeria reports the sum of 10 PAHs while normally countries measure the sum of 16 PAHs) (Table 2).
The official Nigeria policy is to adopt the more stringent values and standards. This is also in line with the recommendations of the Panel.
Therefore it is recommended that the development of new values and standards be tracked with the Outcome Success Matrix (as described in Section 3 below) to link the values to the reappearance of sensitive species of plants and animals. For example, one of the most sensitive and ubiquitous crustaceans in the mangroves is the mud shrimp Upogebia sp. and if its reappearance could be linked to certain soil/sediment physico-chemistry, in particular the concentrations of PHCs, grease etc., then this could be taken as a guideline value for when clean-up interventions may end. If the soil and surface water conditions are higher than these recommended values then clean-up should continue.
22
Table 1. Soil/sediment values in EGASPIN guidelines
EGASPIN (2002 ) Guidelines updated and reviewed with relevant Guidelines adopted from Alberta Tie 1 (2010) Soil Type Fine Coarse NotesLand Use Natural Area Industrial Natural Area Industrial
Unit (mg/Kg) (mg/Kg) (mg/Kg) (mg/Kg)
General and Inorganic ParameterspH (in 0.01M CaCl2) 6 - 8.5 6- 8.5 6 - 8.5 6 - 8.5 1Cyanide (free) 0.9 8 8 2Fluoride 200 2,000 200 2,000 1Sulphur (elemental) 500 500 500 500 3
MetalsAntimony 20 40 20 40 1
Arsenic (inorganic) 17 26 17 26Barium (non-barite) 750 2,000 750 2,000 2Barite-barium 10,000 140,000 10,000 140,000 4Beryllium 5 8 5 8 1
Boron (hot water soluble) 2 2 2 2 1Cadmium 3.8 22 3.8 22 2Chromium (hexavalent) 0.4 1.4 0.4 1.4 2Chromium (total) 64 87 64 87 2Cobalt 20 300 20 300 1Copper 63 91 63 91 2Lead 70 600 70 600 2Mercury (inorganic) 12 50 12 50 1Molybdenum 4 40 4 40 1Nickel 50 50 50 50 2Selenium 1 2.9 1 2.9 2
Silver 20 40 20 40 1Thallium 1 1 1 1 2Tin 5 300 5 300 1Vanadium 130 130 130 130 2
Zinc 200 360 200 360 2
HydrocarbonsBenzene 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.08 5Toluene 0.52 0.52 0.49 0.49 5Ethylbenzene 0.11 0.11 0.21 0.21Xylenes 15 15 28 28 5Styrene 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8
F1 210 320 210 270 6
F2 150 260 150 260 6
F3 1,300 2,500 300 1,700 6
F4 5,600 6,600 2,800 3,300 6
Acenapthene 0.32 0.32 0.38 0.38
Acenaphthylene 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0Anthracene 0.005 0.005 0.006 0.006Fluoranthene 0.032 0.032 0.04 0.04Fluorene 0.3 0.3 0.34 0.34Naphthalene 0.016 0.016 0.02 0.02Phenanthrene 0.051 0.051 0.061 0.061Pyrene 0.034 0.034 0.04 0.04Carcinogenic PAHs IACR < 1.0 IACR < 1.0 IACR < 1.0 IACR < 1.0 7Benz[a]anthracene 0.07 0.07 0.083 0.083 8
Benzo[a]pyrene 0.60 0.70 0.60 0.77 8Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 7.4 7.4 8.4 8.4 8
Halogenated AliphaticsVinyl chloride 0.014 0.014 0.020 0.00431,1-Dichloroethene 0.15 0.15 0.24 0.24Trichloroethene (Trichloroethylene, TCE) 0.054 0.054 0.081 0.081 5,10Perchloroethylene, PCE) 0.69 0.69 0.77 0.771,2-Dichloroethane 0.025 0.025 0.041 0.033
Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride) 0.1 0.1 0.095 0.095Trichloromethane (Chloroform) 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
Tetrachloromethane (Carbon tetrachloride) 0.059 0.059 0.065 0.007Dibromochloromethane 0.91 0.91 1.5 1.5
23
NOTES Standards were provided for fine and coarse soil/sediment Natural Land : Away from human habitation and activities , primary concern is the protection of ecological receptors Industrial Land : Production, Manufacture or Construction of goods . Public access is restricted . 1. Value adopted from AEP (1994) and/or CCME 1991 2. Value adopted from CCME (1999) 3. For more information see Guidelines for the Remediation and Disposal of Sulphur Contaminated Solid Wastes (AEP, 1996) 4. True total barium as measured by fusion-XRF or fusion-ICP. For more information see Soil Remediation Guidelines for Barite: Environmental Health and Human Health (AENV, 2009a) 5. Ecological direct contact values from CCME (1999), other values calculated in this document 6. Ecological direct contact values from CCME (2008a), other values calculated in this document 7. Carcinogenic PAH concentrations must meet the Index of Additive Cancer Risk ( IACR) <1 guideline. Individual PAH compounds must also meet guidelines for ecological receptors where specified in Table 1 with footnote 8. The IACR is calculated by dividing the soil concentration of each carcinogenic PAH by its Protection of Domestic Use Aquifer guideline value to calculate a hazard index for each PAH and subsequently summing the hazard indexes for the entire PAH mixture, as follows: (see Alberta Tie 1 ,2010) 8. For ecological receptors only 9. Expressed as toxic equivalents (TEQs) based on 2,3,7,8-TCDD (See CCME, 1999 and updates) 10. If trichloroethene is found in soil, its degradation product vinyl chloride must also be measured and compared to guideline values 11. Guideline for protection of aquatic life is below detection limit . Groundwater monitoring is required if the guideline is exceeded. 12. Analytical methodology specified in the Soil and Groundwater Remediation Guidelines for Monoethanolamine and Diethanolamine (AENV, 2010b), or equivalent, must be used. See AENV (2010b) for further details.
Chlorinated AromaticsChlorobenzene 0.61 0.61 1.1 0.22 111,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.097 0.097 0.18 0.18 111,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.051 0.051 0.098 0.0981,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 0.26 0.26 0.31 0.311,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.78 0.78 0.93 0.93
1,3,5-Trichlorobenzene 1.9 1.9 3.6 1.31,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene 0.042 0.042 0.05 0.051,2,3,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.71,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 0.19 0.19 0.37 0.37Pentachlorobenzene 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5Hexachlorobenzene 3.6 3.6 7.0 6.02,4-Dichlorophenol 0.003 0.003 0.0034 0.00342,4,6-Trichlorophenol 0.19 0.19 0.37 0.372,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05
Pentachlorophenol 0.024 0.024 0.03 0.03 5Dioxins & Furans 0.00025 0.000004 0.00025 0.000004 9PCBs 1.3 33 1.3 33 5
Other OrganicsAniline 0.40 0.40 0.60 0.60 11Bis(2-ethyl-hexyl)phthalate 34 34 41 41Dibutyl phthalate 0.54 0.54 0.70 0.70Dichlorobenzidine 4.2 4.2 8.1 8.1Diethanolamine 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 12Diethylene glycol 10 10 15 15
Diisopropanolamine 14 14 17 17 5Ethylene glycol 60 60 62 62 5Hexachlorobutadiene 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04Methylmethacrylate 1.3 1.3 1.8 1.3Monoethanolamine 20 20 10 14Nonylphenol + ethoxylates 2.7 2.7 3.3 3.3 5Phenol 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.05 5Sulfolane 0.18 0.18 0.21 0.21 5Triethylene glycol 100 100 150 150
COLOUR CODES OF PARAMETERSSimilar with otherguidelinesSimilar with otherguidelinesSimilar with otherguidelinesNew parameters
24
Table 2: Comparison of EGASPIN (2002) with other guidelines
Eco Tox Risk (mg/kg DW)
Groundwater Quality (mg/l)
ParameterTarget value
Intervention value
Target value
Intervention value
Target value
Intervention value
Target value
Intervention value Residential Allotment Commercial
Resident Soil Industrial
Very Sensitive Land Use Commercial
Aromatic compounds[4]benzene 0.05 (dt) 1 0.2 30 - 1.1 0.2 30 0.33 0.07 95 1.1 5.4 0.03 10 81 -ethylbenzene 0.05 (dt) 50 0.2 150 - 110 4 150 350 90 2800 5.4 27 26 540 1700 -toluene 0.05 (dt) 130 0.2 1000 - 32 7 1,000 610 120 4400 5000 45000 25 1100 170 -
xylenes (sum) 0.05 (dt) 25 0.2 70 - 17 0.2 70 230* 160 3200 630 2700 45 890 260 -phenol 0.05 (dt) 40 0.2 2000 - 14 0.2 2,000 420 280 3200 1800 18000 - - - -Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) [5]PAH (sum of 10) - 40 - - - - - naphthalene 1 0.01 70 - - 0.01 70 - - - 3.6 18 - - - - phenanthrene - - 0.02 5 - - 0.003 5 - - - - - - - - -
anthracene - - 0.02 5 - - 0.0007 5 - - - 17000 170000 - - - - fluoranthene - - 0.005 1 - - 0.003 1 - - - 2300 22000 - - - - chrysene - - - - - 0.003 0.2 - - - 15 210 - - - - benz(a)anthracene - - 0.002 0.5 - - 0.0001 0.5 - - - 0.15 2.1 - - - - benzo(a)pyrene - - - - - - 0.0005 0.05 - - - 0.015 0.21 - - - - benzo(k)fluoroanthene - - - - - - 0.0004 0.05 - - - 1.5 21 - - - - indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene - - - - - - 0.0004 0.05 - - - 0.15 2.1 - - - - benzo(ghi)perylene - - - - - - 0.0003 0.05 - - - - - - - - -Othermineral oil 50 5000 50 600 - 5,000 50 600 - - - 180000 1800000 - - - -Alkanes - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C7-C9 - - - - - - - - - 2300 2400 23000 -C10-C14 - - - - - - - - - 440 500 4400 -C15-C36 - - - - - - - - - 45000 91000 740000 -
South Africa (2012)
Soil (mg/kg dry matter) Groundwater (µg/l) Soil (mg/kg dry matter) Groundwater (µg/l)Soil Guideline Target Value (mg/kg
DW)Soil Screening Target Levels (mg/kg DW)
Soil Target Levels (mg/kg DW)
EGASPIN (2002) Dutch Guidelines (2009) UK Env Agency CLEA Model, 2009 USEPA Region 12 (2012)
25
Table 3. Groundwater values in EGASPIN guidelines EGASPIN (2002 ) Guidelines updated and reviewed with relevant Guidelines adopted from Alberta Tier 1 (2010) Soil Type NotesLand Use Natural Area Industrial Natural Area Industrial
Unit (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
General and Inorganic ParameterspH 6.5 - 8.5 6.5 - 8.5 6.5 - 8.5 6.5-8.5 Chloride 230 230 230 230Cyanide (free) 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 1Fluoride 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12
Nitrate 13 13 13 13Nitrite (as nitrogen) 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
Sodium 200 200 200 200Sulphate 500 500 500 500Sulphide (as H2S) 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 500 500 500 500
MetalsAntimony 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 1Arsenic 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005Barium 1 1 1 1Boron 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5Bromate 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 2,Iron 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3Manganese 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05Selenium 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001Uranium 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02Zinc 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 1,2
HydrocarbonsBenzene 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005Toluene 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024Ethylbenzene 0.0024 0.0024 0.0024 0.0024
Xylenes 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Styrene 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.072F1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2F2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1Acenapthene 0.0058 0.0058 0.0058 0.0058Acenaphthylene 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046Anthracene 0.000012 0.000012 0.000012 0.000012
Fluoranthene 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004
Fluorene 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
Naphthalene 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011
Phenanthrene 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004
Pyrene 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025
Carcinogenic PAHs (as B(a)P TPE) 0.00001 0.00001 0.00001 0.00001 3Benz[a]anthracene 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 4Benzo[b+j]fluoranthene 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 4Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 4Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.00021 0.00021 0.0002 0.0002 4Benzo[a]pyrene 0.00002 0.00002 0.000015 0.000015 4Chrysene 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 4Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 0.00028 0.00028 0.00026 0.00026 4Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene 0.00023 0.00023 0.00021 0.00021 4
Fine Coarse
26
Halogenated AliphaticsVinyl chloride 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002
1,1-Dichloroethene 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014Trichloroethene (Trichloroethylene, TCE) 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 5Tetrachloroethene (Tetrachloroethylene) 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.031,2-Dichloroethane 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride) 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05Trichloromethane (Chloroform) 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002
Tetrachloromethane (Carbon tetrachloride) 0.005 0.005 0.00056 0.00056Dibromochloromethane 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19
Chlorinated AromaticsChlorobenzene 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.00071,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.0011,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.0081,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.0151,3,5-Trichlorobenzene 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.0141,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002
1,2,3,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.0041,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002Pentachlorobenzene 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006Hexachlorobenzene 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.00062,4-Dichlorophenol 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.00022,4,6-Trichlorophenol 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.0022,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001Pentachlorophenol 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005PCBs 0.0094 0.0094 0.0094 0.0094
Other OrganicsAniline 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022Bis(2-ethyl-hexyl)phthalate 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016
Dibutyl phthalate 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019Dichlorobenzidine 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007Diethanolamine 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06Diethylene glycol 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0Diisopropanolamine 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0Ethylene glycol 31 31 31 31Hexachlorobutadiene 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013
Methanol 4.5 4.5 2.0 2.0Methylmethacrylate 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50Monoethanolamine 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6Nitrilotriacetic acid 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4Nonylphenol + ethoxylates 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001Sulfolane 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10Triethylene glycol 60 60 60 60Trihalomethanes - total (THMs) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
COLOUR CODES OF PARAMETERSSimilar with otherguidelinesSimilar with otherguidelinesSimilar with otherguidelinesNew parameters
Notes:
27
1. See Surface Water Quality Guidelines for Use in Alberta (AENV, 1999) for further guidance on aquatic life pathway. 2. Tier 1 guideline = Lowest of aquatic life guideline and all other guidelines 3. B[a]P TPE (Total Potency Equivalents) are calculated by multiplying the groundwater concentration of individual carcinogenic PAHs by a standardized Benzo[a]pyrene Potency Equivalence Factor (PEF) to produce a Benzo[a]pyrene relative potency concentration, and by subsequently summing the relative potency concentrations for the entire PAH mixture. B[a]P PEFs are order of magnitude estimates of carcinogenic potential and are based on the estimates of carcinogenic potential and are based on the World Health Organization (1998) scheme, as follows:
Carcinogenic PAH Compound PEF Benz[a]anthracene 0.1 Benzo(b+j)fluoranthene 0.1 Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.1 Benzo[ghi]perylene 0.01 Benzo[a]pyrene 1.0 Chrysene 0.01 Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 1.0 Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene 0.1
4. For ecological receptors only 5. If trichloroethene is found in groundwater, its degradation product vinyl chloride must also be measured and compared to guideline values
28
Table 4: Surface water values in EGASPIN guidelines
EGASPIN (2002 ) Guidelines updated and reviewed with relevant Guidelines adopted from Alberta T Drinking Aquatic Notesmg/L mg/L
General and Inorganic ParametersChloride 250 230Cyanide (free) 0.2 0.005Fluoride 1.5 0.12Nitrate 45 0.00Nitrate + Nitrite (as nitrogen) 100 0.00Nitrite (as nitrogen) 1.00 0.06Sodium 200Sulphate 500 1000Sulphide (as H2S) 0.05 0.002Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 500 500
MetalsAntimony 0.006Arsenic (inorganic) 0.01 0.005Barium 1.00Boron 5 1.5Cadmium 0.005 3Chromium (total) 0.05 3Copper 1.00 3Iron 0.3 0.3Lead 0.01Manganese 0.05 3Mercury 0.001Selenium 0.01 0.001 3Uranium 0.02Zinc 5.0 0.03
HydrocarbonsBenzene 0.005 0.37Toluene 0.024 0.002Ethylbenzene 0.0024 0.09Xylenes 0.3 0.18Styrene 2.83 0.072Aliphatic C6-C8 136.86 0.05
Aliphatic C>8-C10 2.47 0.008
Aromatic C>8-C10 0.84 0.14
Aliphatic C>10-C12 2.75 0.0012
Aliphatic C>12-C16 2.75 0.00007
Aromatic C>10-C12 1.1 0.10
Aromatic C>12-C16 1.1 0.06Acenapthene 1.4 0.006Acenaphthylene 0.05 2Anthracene 7.07 0.000012Fluoranthene 1.0 0.00004Fluorene 1.0 0.003Naphthalene 0.47 0.0011Phenanthrene 0.0004Pyrene 0.71 0.00003Benz[a]anthracene 0.00002Benzo[b+j]fluoranthene 0.0005 2Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.0005 2Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.0002 2Benzo[a]pyrene 0.00001 0.00002Chrysene 0.0014 2Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 0.0003 2Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene 0.0002 2
29
Notes: See text for guideline sources 2. Aquatic life guideline from CCME (2008b) 3. See Surface Water Quality Guidelines for Use in Alberta (AENV, 1999) 4. Surface water guidelines from AENV (2010a) 5. Surface water guidelines from AENV (2010b) 6. Surface water guidelines from AENV (2010c)
Values for Parameters 1 (Chloride) , 8 ( Sulphate ) , 10 ( TDS ) , 17 (Copper), 18 ( Iron) , and 24 (Zinc), where not from EGASPIN 2002 but where adopted from Alberta Tier 1 (2010) , however , it is a coincidence that items 10 and 24 had similar values with EGASPIN (2002) as adopted from WHO Standards (now Guidelines) page 109. Furthermore, EGASPIN (2002) did not clearly differentiate drinking and aquatic Water as done in Table 4 but rather provided Standards for the “Acceptability of Water for Domestic Use“.
Halogenated AliphaticsVinyl chloride 0.0021,1-Dichloroethene 0.014Trichloroethene (Trichloroethylene, TCE) 0.005 0.021Tetrachloroethene (Tetrachloroethylene,Perchloroethylene,PCE ) 0.03 0.1111,2-Dichloroethane 0.005 0.1Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride ) 0.05 0.1Trichloromethane (Chloroform) 0.1 0.002Tetrachloromethane ( Carbon tetrachloride ) 0.005 0.013Dibromochloromethane 0.19
Chlorinated AromaticsChlorobenzene 0.03 0.00131,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.003 0.00071,3-Dichlorobenzene 0.151,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.001 0.031,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 0.014 0.011,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.015 0.0241,3,5-Trichlorobenzene 0.0141,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene 0.032 0.0021,2,3,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 0.0038 0.0041,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 0.0020 0.002Pentachlorobenzene 0.0094 0.006 0.01 0.006Hexachlorobenzene 0.000568 0.00052 0.00062,4-Dichlorophenol 0.0003 0.0002 0.0003 0.00022,4,6-Trichlorophenol 0.002 0.018 0.002 0.022,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001Pentachlorophenol 0.03 0.0005 0.03 0.0005Dioxins and Furans 1.18E-07 1.18E - 07PCBs 0.0094 0.0094
Other OrganicsAniline 0.066 0.0022Bis(2-ethyl-hexyl)phthalate 0.41 0.016Bis(Chloro-methyl)ether 2.14E -06Dibutyl phthalate 0.59 0.019Dichlorobenzidine 0.007Diethanolamine 0.06 0.45 4Diethylene glycol 6 150 5Diisopropanolamine 3.6 2.0Ethylene glycol 31.42 192Hexachlorobutadiene 0.006 0.0013Methanol 4.5 1.5 6Methylmethacrylate 0.47Monoethanolamine 0.6 0.075 4Nitriloacetic acid 0.4Nonylphenol 0.001Phenol 0.57 0.004Sulfolane 0.09 50Triethylene glycol 60 350 5Trihalomethanes - total (THMs) 0.1
30
3. NDP continuous risk assessment tool: outcome success matrix
Table 5 presents the outcome success matrix, a tool to monitor and evaluate biodiversity recovery.
31
Table 5. Outcome success matrix
OUTCOMES KEY INDICATORS SCORELOW (1) MEDIUM (2) HIGH (3)
I. ECOLOGICAL ASPECTSA. Effect of spill on ecologically sensitive areas
1 State of dominant habitat type Rate of natural regeneration Not regenerating Suppressed regeneration RegeneratingDensity of standing biomass Depleted Degraded Natural/ pristine
2State of ecologically sensitive sites – eg forest reserves, important bird areas, wildlife reserves, etc
Level of overall spill contamination of sensitive area by area and concentration
Polluted Moderate Low or not polluted
B. Effect of spill on important species1 State of dominant species Rate of species recovery Not recovering Moderate recovery Good recovery2 State of important exploited and/or totemic species Status of shellfish/fisheries and/or totemic species Depleted/ absent Degraded Natural/ pristine3 State of important/fundamental ecosystem species Status of species fundamental to healthy ecosystem
functioning in the spill location or important in their own right*
Absent Occasional occurrence Natural levels
4 State of invasive species Status of invasive species commonly associated with colonising impacted spill areas e.g. Nipa Palm, water hyacinth
Present in dominating or high densities
Some colonisation Absent
II. SOCIAL ASPECTSA. Effect of spill on natural resources use
1 State of fisheries Level of fish catch Lost Reduced NormalSpecies composition of catch Heavily impacted Reduced NaturalLevel of fishing activity Severely interrupted Moderately affected Normal
2 State of agriculture Crop health Poor Moderate GoodCrop yield Lost Reduced NormalSize of available farm land Lost Reduced NormalAvailability of food and fodder for livestock Lost Reduced Normal
3 State of use of forest productsAvailability of forest product (e.g. medicinal plants, wild fruits etc)
Lost Reduced Normal
4 State of huntingAbundance of local wildlife hunted for food and commerce
Lost Reduced Normal
B. Sustainability of the remediation intervention
1 Level of participation of communities in remediation Composition of participants and level of participation of local people in remediation
Poor Moderate Good
2Capacity of stakeholders to participate
Skills, knowledge and other resources available for participation
Low Medium High
d b
d h
32
3 Level of acceptance of remediationPositive perceptions and positive assessments by community
Low Medium High
C. The economic impacts related to loss of ecosystemservices
1 Levels of income flows State of household income Lost Reduced Normal2 Employment status Level of employment Lost Reduced Normal3 Occupation Occupational stability Lost Affected Normal
D.The status of public health related to degradationof ecosystem services
1 Effect of contamination of local food sources Level of hydrocarbon contaminants in local food sources High Elevated Absent2 Effects on sources of potable water Level of hydrocarbon contamination in sources of
drinking water (e.g. shallow aquifers, surface water etc)High Elevated Absent
IIISOIL AND WATER ASPECTS**A The effects of the remediation on soil quality1 Success of remediation of contaminated soil Level of oil/sheen on top soil Above 40% 1 - 40% Less than 1%
Depth of penetration of oil within 0 - 30 cm of soil More than 30% above standard levels
Less than 30% above standard levels
Within standard limits***
Level of organic content of soil More than 30% above standard levels
Less than 30% above standard levels
Within standard limits***
Level of THC/TPH More than 30% above standard levels
Less than 30% above standard levels
Within standard limits***
Level of PAH More than 30% above standard levels
Less than 30% above standard levels
Within standard limits***
Level of heavy metals associated with crude oils More than 30% above standard levels
Less than 30% above standard levels
Within standard limits***
2 Success of remediation of sediments in aquatic systems Level of THC/TPH in sediments More than 30% above standard levels
Less than 30% above standard levels
Within standard limits***
Level of PAH in sediments More than 30% above standard levels
Less than 30% above standard levels
Within standard limits***
Level of heavy metals associated with crude oil More than 30% above standard levels
Less than 30% above standard levels
Within standard limits***
B The effects of the remediation on water qualitySuccess of remediation of contamination of water Presence of oily sheen on water surface More than 60% 1 - 60% Less than 1%
Level of phenolic odour Strong over-powering odour
Slight odour No odour
Level of dissolved oxygen Far below standard Slightly below standard Within standard limits***Level of Biological Oxygen Demand Far below standard Slightly below standard Within standard limits***Level of THC/TPH Far above standard Slightly above standard Within standard limits***Level of PAH Far above standard Slightly above standard Within standard limits***Level of heavy metals related to crude oil Far above standard Slightly above standard Within standard limits***
33
* For example, these could include species like mangrove crabs (crab holes)/periwinkle, crustaceans i.e. Uca tangeri, Upogebia sp (snapping shrimp), important bird populations, mudflat algae, water beetles, annelids, Pigmy hippo, Anambra waxbill, top minnows, fish species Brycinus nurse, dragonfly larvae (Coenagrion spp), Erychidae edntodae (purple shrimp) or characteristic fish species.
** The status of important macro-organisms in mangrove soil and in freshwater should be addressed through the Ecological Aspects section above.
*** Define what the standard limits are in each case (use the internationally accepted industry standards side by side with Nigerian regulatory standards).
34
References
Aksornkoae, S. (1996), “Reforestation in mangrove forests in Thailand - a case study in Pattani Province”, in Field, C.D. (Ed.), Restoration of Mangrove Ecosystems, International Society for Mangrove Ecosystems, Okinawa, Japan.
Barth, H-J. (2008). “Rapid assessment indicators of oil spill recovery in salt marsh ecosystems”. In Abuzinada, A.H., Barth, H.J. Krupp, F. et al. (Eds.), Protecting the Gulf’s Marine Ecosystems from Pollution. Birkhäuser Verlag/Switzerland.
Cairns, J. (1988), “Restoration ecology: the new frontier”, in Restoration of Damaged Ecosystems, Volume 1. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.
CEMN Report No 200503 (2005) ‘Development and Application of Models of Chemical Fate in Canada’, Ontario Canada by Jon Arnst, Todd Guin, Don Macaulay.
Cintron-Molero, G. (1992), “Restoring mangrove systems”, in Thayer, G.W. (Ed.), Restoring the Nation’s Marine Environment, College Park: Maryland Seagrant Program.
de Leon, T. O. D., and A. T. White (1999), “Mangrove rehabilitation in the Philippines”, in Streever, W. (Ed.), An International Perspective on Wetland Rehabilitation. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Duke, N. (1996), “Mangrove reforestation in Panama”, Field, C. (Ed.), Restoration of Mangrove Ecosystems. Okinawa: International Society for Mangrove Ecosystems, 209-232.
Erftemeijer, P.L.A. and R. R. Lewis, R.R. (2000), “Planting mangroves on intertidal mudflats: habitat restoration or habitat conversion?”, Proceedings of the ECOTONE VIII Seminar Enhancing Coastal Ecosystems Restoration for the 21st Century, Bangkok: Royal Forest Department of Thailand.
EPA, (2012), “Rehabilitation of contaminated lands”.
35
EU, (2000), “Management of contaminated sites in Western Europe”. Topic Report 13/1999, European Environmental Agency.
Field, C.D. (1998). “Rehabilitation of Mangrove Ecosystems: An Overview”. Marine Pollution Bulletin Vol 37, No 8-12. 383-392.
Gattenlöhner, U., Lampert S. and Wunderlich, K. (2007) “Mangrove Rehabilitation
Guidebook”. Global Nature Fund, GNF 04/2007.
Höpner T. and Al-Shaikh, K.A.. (2008) “Shoreline bioremediation after the 1991 Gulf war oil spill”. In Abuzinada, A.H., Barth, H.J., Krupp, F. et al. (Eds.), Protecting the Gulf’s Marine Ecosystems from Pollution. Birkhäuser Verlag/Switzerland.
Kerr JM, Melton HR, McMillen SJ, Magaw RI, Naughton G, Little GN (1999). Polyaromatic hydrocarbon content in crude oils around the world. Conference paper from the 1999 SPE/EPA Exploration and production environmental conference held in Austin, Texas, USA, 28 February-3 March.
IUCN (2008). “Mangroves”, Coastal Ecosystems Series. Jackson, L. L., N. Lopoukhine and D. Hillyard (1995), ‘Ecological restoration: a
definition and comments’, Restoration Ecology 3(2): 71-75.
Lewis, R.R. (1992), “Coastal habitat restoration as a fishery management tool”, in Stroud, R.H. (Ed.), Stemming the Tide of Coastal Fish Habitat Loss. Savannah: National Coalition for Marine Conservation, Inc.
Lewis, R. R. (2000b), “Ecologically based goal setting in mangrove forest and tidal marsh restoration in Florida”, Ecological Engineering 15(3-4): 191-198.
Lewis, R.R. and M.J. Marshall, M.J. (1997), “Principles of successful restoration of shrimp aquaculture ponds back to mangrove forest”, Programa/resumes de Marcuba ’97, September 15/20, Palacio de Convenciones de La Habana, Cuba. Page 126 (abstract).
Linden O. and Husain, T., (2002). “Impact of wars: The Gulf War 1990-91”. In Kahn, N.Y. and Munawar, M. (Eds). The Gulf Ecosystem: Health and Sustainability. Backhuys Publ. Linden. 279-290.
Milano, G. R. (1999), “Restoration of coastal wetlands in southeastern Florida”, Wetland Journal 11 (2): 15-24+29.
36
NAS, (1994), “Restoring and Protecting Marine Habitat” - The Role of Engineering and Technology. Washington: National Academy Press.
NOAA, (2010). “Oil spills in mangroves”. Planning and Response considerations.
NOAA. OECD, (2008). Guidance Manual on Environmentally Sound Management of Wastes.
Saenger, P. and Siddiqi, N.A. (1993), “Land from the sea: the mangrove afforestation programme of Bangladesh”, Ocean and Coastal Management. 20: 23-29.
Seddon S. (2004). “Going with the flow: Facilitating seagrass rehabilitation”.
Ecological Management & Restoration, Vol 5, No 3. 167-176.
SOER, (2010). “The European Environment, State and Outlook 2010”, Chapter on Soil. JRC/European Commission.
Spurgeon, J. (1998), “The socio-economic costs and benefits of coastal habitat rehabilitation and creation”, Marine Pollution Bulletin 37(8-12): 373-382.
Stevenson, N. J., Lewis, R.R. and Burbridge, P.R. (1999), “Disused shrimp ponds and mangrove rehabilitation”, In Streever, W.J. ed., An International Perspective on Wetland Rehabilitation, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 277-297.
Weishar, L., Watt, I., Jones, D. and Aubrey, D. (2008) “Evaluation of arid salt marsh restoration techniques”. In Abuzinada, A.H., Barth, H.J., Krupp, F. et al. (Eds.), Protecting the Gulf’s Marine Ecosystems from Pollution. Birkhäuser Verlag/Switzerland.
