Biotechnology - Vol 11b - Soil Decontamination

BiotechnologySecond EditionVolume l l b

Environmental Processes I1

6 W ILEY-VCH B

BiotechnologySecond EditionFundamentalsVolume 1 Biological Fundamentals Volume 2 Genetic Fundamentals and Genetic Engineering Volume 3 Bioprocessing Volume 4 Measuring, Modelling and Control

Special TopicsVolume 9 Enzymes, Biomass, Food and Feed Volume 10 Special Processes Volumes 1la-c Environmental Processes 11 1 -1 Volume 12 Legal, Economic and Ethical Dimensions

ProductsVolume 5a Recombinant Proteins, Monoclonal Antibodies and Therapeutic Genes Volume 5b Genomics Volume 6 Products of Primary Metabolism Volume 7 Products of Secondary Metabolism Volumes 8a and b Biotransformations I and I1

All volumes are also displayed on our Biotech Website: http://www.wiley-vch.de/home/biotech

A Multi-Volume Comprehensive Treatise

Second, Completely Revised Edition Edited by H.-J. Rehm and G. Reed in cooperation with A. Puhler and P. Stadler

Biotechnology

Volume l l b

Environmental Processes I1Soil Decontamination

Edited by J. Klein

@3 WILEYVCHWeinheim . New York . Chichester . Brisbane . Singapore . Toronto

Series Editors: Prof. Dr. H.-J.Rehm Institut fur Mikrobiologie Universitat Munster CorrensstraBe 3 D-48149 Munster FRG Prof. Dr. A. Puhler Biologie VI (Genetik) Universitat Bielefeld P.O. Box 100131 D-33501 Bielefeld FRG

Dr. G. Reed 1029 N. Jackson St. #501-A Milwaukee, WI 53202-3226 USA

Volume Editor: Prof. Dr. J. Klein DMT-Gesellschaft fur Forschung und Priifung G m b H Franz-Fischer-Weg 61 Postfach 69 80 D-45307 Essen

FRG

. Prof. Dr. P I W. Stadler Artemis Pharmaceuticals Geschaftsfuhrung Pharmazentrum Koln Neurather Ring D-51063 Koln FRG

This book was carefully produced. Nevertheless, authors, editors and publisher do not warrant the information contained therein to be free of errors. Readers are advised to keep in mind that statements, data, illustrations, procedural details or other items may inadvertently be inaccurate.

Library of Congress Card No.: applied for British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data: A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-EinheitsaufnahmeA catalogue record for this book

is available from Der Deutschen Bibliothek ISBN 3-527-28323-4

0 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH, D-69469 Weinheim (Federal Republic of Germany), 2000

Printed on acid-free and chlorine-free paper. All rights reserved (including those of translation into other languages). No part of this book may be reproduced in any form - by photoprinting, microfilm, or any other means - nor transmitted or translated into a machine language without written permission from the publishers. Registered names, trademarks, etc. used in this book, even when not specifically marked as such, are not to be considered unprotected by law. Composition and Printing: Zechnersche Buchdruckerei, D-67330 Speyer. Bookbinding: J. Schaffer, D-67269 Griinstadt. Printed in the Federal Republic of Germany

Preface

In recognition of the enormous advances in biotechnology in recent years, we are pleased to present this Second Edition of Biotechnology relatively soon after the introduction of the First Edition of this multi-volume comprehensive treatise. Since this series was extremely well accepted by the scientific community, we have maintained the overall goal of creating a number of volumes, each devoted to a certain topic, which provide scientists in academia, industry, and public institutions with a well-balanced and comprehensive overview of this growing field. We have fully revised the Second Edition and expanded it from ten to twelve volumes in order to take all recent developments into account. These twelve volumes are organized into three sections. The first four volumes consider the fundamentals of biotechnology from biological, biochemical, molecular biological, and chemical engineering perspectives. The next four volumes are devoted to products of industrial relevance. Special attention is given here to products derived from genetically engineered microorganisms and mammalian cells. The last four volumes are dedicated to the description of special topics. The new Biotechnology is a reference work, a comprehensive description of the state-of-the-art, and a guide to the original literature. It is specifically directed to microbiologists, biochemists, molecular biologists, bioengineers, chemical engineers, and food and pharmaceutical chemists working in industry, at universities or at public institutions. A carefully selected and distinguished Scientific Advisory Board stands behind the

series. Its members Come from key institutions representing scientific input from about twenty countries. The volume editors and the authors of the individual chapters have been chosen for their recognized expertise and their contributions to the various fields of biotechnology. Their willingness to impart this knowledge to their colleagues forms the basis of Biotechnology and is gratefully acknowledged. Moreover, this work could not have been brought to fruition without the foresight and the constant and diligent support of the publisher. We are grateful to VCH for publishing Biotechnology with their customary excellence. Special thanks are due to Dr. HansJoachim Kraus and Karin Dembowsky, without whose constant efforts the series could not be published. Finally, the editors wish to thank the members of the Scientific Advisory Board for their encouragement, their helpful suggestions, and their constructive criticism. H.-J. Rehm G. Reed A. Puhler P. Stadler

Scientific Advisory Board

Pro$ Dr. M. J. BekerAugust Kirchenstein Institute of Microbiology Latvian Academy of Sciences Riga, Latvia

Prof Dr. I. GoldbergDepartment of Applied Microbiology The Hebrew University Jerusalem, Israel

Pro$ Dr. C. L. CooneyDepartment of Chemical Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA, USA

Pro$ Dr. G. GomuDCpartement de GCnie Biochimique et Alimentaire Institut National des Sciences Appliqukes Toulouse, France

Pro$ Dr. H. W DoelleDepartment of Microbiology University of Queensland St. Lucia, Australia

Sir D. A. HopwoodDepartment of Genetics John Innes Institute Nonvich, UK

Pro$ Dr. J. DrewsF. Hoffmann-La Roche AG Basel, Switzerland

Pro$ Dr. E. H. HouwinkOrganon International bv Scientific Development Group Oss,The Netherlands

Pro$ Dr. A. FiechterInstitut fur Biotechnologie Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule Zurich, Switzerland

Pro$ Dr. A. E. HumphreyCenter for Molecular Bioscience and Biotechnology Lehigh University Bethlehem, PA, USA

Pro$ Dr. ?: K. GhoseBiochemical Engineering Research Centre Indian Institute of Technology New Delhi, India

Pro$ Dr. I. KurubeResearch Center for Advanced Science and Technology University of Tokyo Tokyo, Japan

VIII

ScientificAdvisory Board

Prof Dr. M . A. LachanceDepartment of Plant Sciences University of Western Ontario London, Ontario, Canada

Prof Dr. K. SchugerlInstitut fur Technische Chemie Universitat Hannover Hannover, Germany

Prof Dr. Y LiuChina National Center for Biotechnology Development Beijing, China

Prof Dr. f? SensiChair of Fermentation Chemistry and Industrial Microbiology Lepetit Research Center Gerenzano, Italy

Prof Dr. J. E MartinDepartment of Microbiology University of Leon Lebn, Spain

Prof Dr. Y H. TanInstitute of Molecular and Cell Biology National University of Singapore Singapore

Prof Dr. B. MattiassonDepartment of Biotechnology Chemical Center University of Lund Lund, Sweden

Prof Dr. D. ThomasLaboratoire de Technologie Enzymatique UniversitC de Compiegne Compikgne, France

Prof Dr. M. RoehrInstitut fur Biochemische Technologie und Mikrobiologie Technische Universitat Wien Wen, Austria

Prof Dr. W VerstraeteLaboratory of Microbial Ecology Rijksuniversiteit Gent Gent, Belgium

Prof Dr. H. SahmInstitut fur Biotechnologie Forschungszentrum Julich Julich, Germany

Prof Dr. E. - L. WinnackerInstitut fur Biochemie Universitat Miinchen Munchen, Germany

Contributors

Dr. Alan J. M. BakerDeptartment of Animal and Plant Sciences University of Sheffield Western Bank Sheffield, S10 2TN UK Chapter 17

Dr. rer. nat. Helmut DorrArcadis Trischler & Partner GmbH Berliner Allee 6 D-64295 Darmstadt Germany Chapter 15

Prof. Dr. Karl-Heinz BlotevogelFachbereich Biologie/Mikrobiologie Universitat Oldenburg Postfach 2503 D-26111 Oldenburg Germany Chapter11

Dr. James P. EasterCenter for Environmental Biotechnology University of Tennessee 676 Dabney Hall Knoxville,TN 37996 USA Chapters 20,21

Prof. Dr. Wilhelm G. ColdeweyUniversitat Munster Corrensstrafle 3 D-48149 Miinster Germany Chapter 2

Dr. Adolf EisentragerInstitut fur Hygiene und Umweltmedizin RWTH Aachen Pauwelstr. 30 D-52057 Aachen Germany Chapter 5

Dr. Mary F. DeFlaunEnvirogen, Inc. 41000 Quakerbridge Road Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 USA Chapter 18

Prof. Dr. Wolfgang FritscheInstitut fur Mikrobiologie Universitat Jena Philosophenweg 12 D-07743 Jena Germany Chapter 6

X

Contributors

Dr. Thomas GorontzyFachbereich BiologielMikrobiologie Universitat Oldenburg Postfach 2503 D-26111 Oldenburg Germany Chapter 11

Prof. Dr. Dick B. JanssenUniversity of Groningen Nijenborgh 4 NL-9747 AG Groningen The Netherlands Chapter 8

Dr. Thomas HeldArcadis Trischler & Partner GmbH Berliner Allee 6 D-64295 Darmstadt Germany Chapter 15

Dr. Matthias KastnerUFZ - Umweltforschungszentrum HalleLeipzig Sektion Sanierungsforschung Permoserstr. 15 D-04318 Leipzig Germany Chapters 4, 9

Dr. Martin HofrichterInstitut fur Mikrobiologie Universitat Jena Philosophenweg 12 D-07743 Jena Germany Chapter 6

Prof. Dr. Jiirgen KleinDMT-Gesellschaft fur Forschung und Prufung GmbH Franz-Fischer-Weg 61 D-45307 Essen Germany Chapter 22

Dr. Kerstin HundFH-Institut fur Umweltchemie D-57392 Schmallenberg-Grafschaft Germany Chapter 5

Dr. Ren6 H. KleijntjensPartners in Milieutechnik b.v. Mercuriusweg 4 NL-2516 AWs-Gravenhage The Netherlands Chapter 14

Dr.-Ing. Karsten HupeArbeitsbereich Abfallwirtschaft TU Hamburg-Harburg Harburger SchloBstr. 37 D-21079 Hamburg Germany Chapter 12

Dr. Christoph KlingerDMT-Gesellschaft fur Forschung und Geschaftsbereich G U C Am Technologiepark 1 D-45307 Essen Germany Chapter 2

Dr. Johan E.T. van Hylckama,VliegUniversity of Groningen Nijenborgh 4 NL-9747 AG Groningen The Netherlands Chapter 8

Dr.-Ing. Michael KoningArbeitsbereich Abfallwirtschaft TU Hamburg-Harburg Harburger SchloBstr. 37 D-21079 Hamburg Germany Chapter 12

Contributors

XI

Dr. Fu-Min MennCenter for Environmental Biotechnology University of Tennessee 676 Dabney Hall Knoxville, TN 37996 USA Chapters 20,21

Dr. David E. SaltDepartment of Chemistry Northern Arizona University Flagstaff, A Z 86011-5698 USA Chapter 17

Prof. Dr. Karel Ch. A. M. LuybenTechnical University of Delft Julianalaan 67a NL-2628 Delft 8 The Netherlands Chapter 14

Dr. Gary S. SaylerCenter for Environmental Biotechnology University of Tennessee 676 Dabney Hall Knoxville, TN 37996 USA Chapters 20,21

Prof. Dr. Bernd MahroFachbereich 3 Hochschule Bremen Neustadtswall30 D-28199 Bremen Germany Chapter 3

Prof. Dr. Bernhard SchinkInstitut fur Mikrobielle Okologie Universitat Konstanz Universitatsstr. 10 D-78457 Konstanz Germany Chapter 7

Prof. Dr. Rudolf MullerArbeitsbereich 2-100 TU Hamburg-Harburg Denickestr. 15 D-21073 Hamburg Germany Chapter 10

Prof. Dr. Jerald L. Schnoor116 Engineering Research Facility The University of Iowa 330 S. Madison St. Iowa City, Iowa 52242-1000 USA Chapter 16

Prof. Dr. Hans-Jurgen RehmInstitut fur Mikrobiologie Universitat Munster Corrensstralje 3 D-48149 Munster Germany Chapter 19

Dr. Volker Schulz-BerendtUmweltschutz Nord GmbH & Co. Industriepark 6 D-27767 Ganderkesee Germany Chapter 13

Dr. Michael RoemerMelatener Str. 79 D-52074 Aachen Germany Chapter 23

Dr. Robert J. SteffanEnvirogen, Inc. 41000 Quakerbridge Road Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 USA Chapter 18

XI1

Contributors

Prof. Dr. Rainer StegmannArbeitsbereich Abfallwirtschaft TU Hamburg-Harburg Harburger SchloBstr. 37 D-21079 Hamburg Germany Chapter 12

Dr. Ronald UntermanEnvirogen, Inc. 4100 Quakerbridge Road Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 USA Chapter 18

Dr. Wolfgang UlriciBliicherstr. 17 D-53115 Bonn Germany Chapter I

Dr. Catrin WischnakArbeitsbereich 2-100 TU Hamburg-Harburg Denickestr. 15 D-21073 Hamburg Germany Chapter I0

Contents

IntroductionJ. Klein

1

I General Aspects1 Contaminated Soil Areas, Different Countries and Contaminants, Monitoring of Contaminants .5 W Ulrici 2 Characterization of the Geological and Hydrogeological Situation, Effects on Natural Geochemical Barriers and Remediation 43 W G. Coldewey, C. Klinger 3 Bioavailability of Contaminants 61 B. Mahro 4 Humification Process or Formation of Refractory Soil Organic Matter 89 M. Kastner 5 Ecotoxicological Assessment 127 A. Eisentrager, K. Hund~

8 Bacterial Degradation of Aliphatic Hydrocarbons 193 J. E. 7: van Hylckama Vlieg, D. B. Janssen 9 Degradation of Aromatic and Polyaromatic Compounds 211 M . Kastner 10 Degradation of Chlorinated Compounds 241 C. Wischnak, R. Miiller 11 Microbial Degradation of Compounds with Nitro Functions 273 K.-H. Blotevogel, 7: Gorontzy

I11 Processes for Soil Clean-Up12 Thermal Processes, Scrubbing/Extraction, Bioremediation and Disposal 305 M. Koning, K. Hupe, R. Stegmann 13 Bioremediation with Heap Technique 319 1/: Schulz-Berendt 14 Bioreactors 329 R. H. Kleijntjens, K. Ch. A. M. Luyben 15 In situ Remediation 349 7: Held, H. Dorr 16 Degradation by Plants - Phytoremedation of Organics 371 J. L. Schnoor 17 Phytoremedation of Metals 385 D. E. Salt, A. J. M . Baker 18 Advanced in situ Bioremediation - A Hierarchy of Technology Choices 399 R. Unterman, M . E DeFlaun, R. J. Steffan

I1 Microbiological Aspects6 Aerobic Degradation by Microoganisms 14.5 W Fritsche, M. Hofrichter 7 Principles of Anaerobic Degradation of Organic Compounds 169 B. Schink

XIV

Contents

19 Application of Immobilized Microorganisms in Soil Decontamination 415 H.-J. Rehm 20 Bacterial Activity Enhancement and Soil Decontamination 425 Fu-Min Menn, J. R Easter, G. S. Sayler 21 Genetically Engineered Microorganisms and Bioremediation 441 Fu-Min Menn, J. F! Easter, G. S. Sayler

22 Possibilities, Limits, and Future Developments of Soil Bioremediation 465 J. Klein 23 Sampling and Investigation of Solid Matter 477 M . Roemer

Index 509

Introduction

JURGEN KLEINEssen, Germany

The use of biological processes for treatment of liquid wastes from human activities is an established technology dating back at least 4000 years. For more than a century natural biochemical processes (natures self-cleaning abilities) have been utilized to treat effluent, and reactors and plant systems had been adapted with increasing effect to cope with the difficult conditions. The knowledge of the biodegradation mechanisms of organic pollutants and especially of synthetic compounds, however, is more recent and has only been developed in the second part of this century. Over the past few decades environmental protection has primarily meant protection of air and water. Only with the increasing use of land in industrialized societies and the highlighting of possible hazards from contaminated soil did the public become aware of soil protection in the early 1980s. This has also prompted industry to take up this market segment. Engineers and scientists have thus been spurred on to look for technically optimized, ecologically sound, and economically appropriate solutions. The experience accumulated in biological soil clean-up in the first few years was characterized by both, success and failure, including

those of unprofessional suppliers. Initially, therefore, acceptance of biological soil cleanup was only limited. But now, due to intensive and interdisciplinary work, impressive success is in evidence. Consequently, biological soil clean-up methods now enjoy a high technical level and a broad acceptance. The aim is to maintain and apply this level, even if at present the prospects for soil cleanup are seen from a more modest point of view. The enthusiasm that has accompanied soil decontamination in the last few years has now given way to a realistic attitude of more appropriate proportions. The discussion on the equivalence of securing and decontamination techniques must not lead to clean-up on a low level, but rather to ecologically and economically appropriate solutions. The original objective of multifunctional use through the restoration of a natural soil is not feasible in most cases for technical and financial reasons. In view of this, biological clean-up techniques still have to be improved and optimized in order to provide cost-effective, technically simple, and near-natural processes. In the First Edition of Biotechnology there was no contribution regarding biological pro-

2

Introductionas bioavailibility and humification processes influencing the interaction between microorganisms and contaminants in soil and methods to assess the ecotoxic potential of contaminated and the treated soil. The second part of this volume summarizes the results of scientific research on the biodegradation of those substance groups which count as relevant in terms of contaminated sites, e.g., aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons and their halogenated derivatives, pesticides, and nitro compounds. In the third part the different commercially methods of in situ and ex situ bioremediation are described, including advanced strategies proposing to use the abilities of plant-microbe associations called phytoremediation, and the enhancement of natural attenuation processes, especially biostimulation and bioaugmentation, and, last but not least, the potential of genetic modifications of the microorganisms applied. In the final chapter methods for reliable and representative sampling and chemical analysis of the processed samples are explained. It is beyond the scope of any book to cover all aspects of soil bioremediation and to have considered all relevant results which are obtained in the huge community of researchers in science and industry. But the Volume Editor and the Series Editors hope that this book will give sufficient, elucidating and stimulating insight into the biology and technology of soil decontamination processes. Essen, November 1999 Jurgen Klein

cesses for the remediation of contaminated soil. But the increasing need of remediation techniques and the increasing scientific and industrial interest in biological methods for soil remediation generated the necessity of a special volume on the topic: Environmental Processes II - Soil Decontamination. The field of biodegradation and thereby bioremediation has experienced a dynamic evolution and remarkable developments over the past few years. It seems to have entered its most interesting and intense phase yet. The isolation and characterization of new microorganisms with novel catabolic activities continues unabated, and the use of plants and plant-microbe associations in bioremediation is expanding strongly. The continuously growing knowledge on catabolic pathways and critical enzymes provides the basis for the rational genetic design of new and improved enzymes and pathways for the development of more performant processes. This volume Environmental Processes II summarizes the state of the art of scientific research in the field of biodegradation of xenobiotics, of transferring the knowlegde obtained into commercial application, and the future developments necessary to cope with the requirements of sustainable strategies for ecological, but ecomically appropiate solutions. The first part is dedicated to more general aspects of bioremediation: firstly, a survey on the different international approaches of dealing with soil contamination problems, then elucidating inherent aspects of soil, i.e., geochemical and hydrogeological features as well

1 Contaminated Soil Areas, Different Countries and Contaminants, Monitoring of Contaminants

WOLFGANG ULRICIBonn, Germany

1 Introduction 7 2 Specific Problems 35 3 Preferred Treatment Techniques 35 4 Legislative Status 36 5 Definitions 36 6 Principles 36 7 Liability 36 8 Financing Models and Assistance Schemes 37 9 Identification and Registration 37 10 Listing and Delisting 37 11 Risk Assessment 38 12 Action Thresholds 38 13 Priority Setting 39 14 Remediation Goals 39 15 Monitoring 39 16 Organization 40 17 Enforcement 40 18 Conflict Management 40 19 Efficient System Elements 40 20 References 41

6

1 Contaminated Soil Areas, Different Countries und Contaminants,Monitoring o f Contaminunts

List of AbbreviationsADR ALSAG alternative dispute resolution Altlastensanierungsgesetz, abandoned contaminated site remediation act (Austria) Bodemsanering van in gebruik zijnde bedrijfsterreinen, clean-up of industrial BSB sites in use (The Netherlands) Californian model for assessing toxic effects from soil contamination CALTOX Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment CCME Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CERCLA (Superfund Act, USA) CERCLA Information System CERCLIS contaminated land exposure assessment (English scheme) CLEA physico-chemical (treatment) CP Dutch model for assessing the risks to human health caused by hazardous subCSOIL stances on and in land, via various exposure pathways New York State Department of Environmental Conservation DEC Department of Defence (Commonwealth of Australia) DoD Direction RCgionale de lhdustrie, de la Recherche, et de lEnvironnement, reDRIRE gional plant inspectorate (France) Department of Toxic Substances Control (California) DTSC Environmental Conservation Law (New York) ECL ECRA Environmental Clean-Up and Responsibility Act (New Jersey) Environment Protection Authority (Australia/Victoria) EPA HESP human exposure to soil pollutants, CSOIL-based computer program (program management by Shell International) hazard ranking system HRS isolatie, beheer, controle; isolation, control, monitoring IB C Interdepartmental Committee on the Redevelopment of Contaminated Land ICRCL (UK) Landerarbeitsgemeinschaft Abfall, joint Lander working group on waste (FRG) LAGA MERLA Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act MN Minnesota memorandum of agreement (in the context of the NJ voluntary clean-up MOA program) national classification system (Canada) NCS national contaminated sites remediation program (Canada) NCSRP NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection national priorities list (USA) NPL Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OECD OVAM Openbare Vlaamse Afvalstoffen Maatschappij, Flemish regional waste authority preliminary endangerment assessment (California) PEA PR public relations PRESCORE simplified program derived from HRS, using largely default input parameters, in order to rapidly assess eligibility of site for NPL R&D research and development RAGS-B risk assessment guidance Superfund B Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (USA) RCRA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (USA) SARA Service Centrum Grondreiniging, Dutch soil clean-up service center SCG soil exposure guideline (Minnesota) SEG

1 Introduction

7

SITE SSL SUBAT USEPA VIC

superfund innovative technology evaluation soil screening levels (USA) Stichting Uitfoering Bedemsanering Amovering Tankstations, voluntary fund created by Dutch petroleum industry for the clean-up of out-of-service gas stations US Environmental Protection Agency voluntary investigation and clean-up program (Minnesota)

1 Introduction

Soil contamination is a typical unwanted side effect of industrial activity. The problem is especially grave in highly industrialized countries, where the opportunities offered by natural resources are exploited in a particularly sophisticated manner and on a very intensive 0 Australia (national, Queensland, Victorscale. This applies in particular to the nations ia>, of the OECD. However, densely populated ar0 Austria, eas in other countries do suffer from increas0 Belgium/Flanders, ing soil quality deterioration as well. 0 Canada (national, Alberta, British CoThe problems posed by soil contamination lumbia, Ontario), are not identical in different countries, and a 0 Denmark, wide range of different approaches and prac0 France, tices for cleaning up contaminated land have 0 Federal Republic of Germany, been developed. To a certain extent, these dif0 Japan, ferences may be attributed to the wide variety 0 The Netherlands, of political and administrative cultures. Exter0 Norway, nal circumstances also differ; e.g., the problems 0 United Kingdom, facing countries dominated by vast, open spac0 USA (federal, California, Minnesota, es are different from those of densely populatNew Jersey, New York). ed and highly industrialized regions such as Biotechnology Second Edition information takthe central European conurbations. An updated summary of this Edited ing into account G. the Against the background of the variety of ap- by H.-J. Rehm and of Reedlegislative environproaches to the registration, investigation, as- with A. Puhler and P.is given in this chapter.The in cooperation ment, in particular, Stadlercopyrightr 0 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH, D-69469 Weinheim (Federal Republic of Germany), 2000

sessment and remediation of contaminated land, the regulations and experiences of the following countries were studied in 1994/95on behalf of the German Ministry for Education, Science, Research and Technology (ULRICI, 1995):

8


information provided is largely based on personal interviews with competent authorities. An attempt was made to take into account and assess all important influencing factors and conditions. Thus, the investigations focused on those aspects which largely determine the approach to contaminated site management, such as:0 0 0 0

0

specific problems and political will to act on solving these problems, legal regulations and administrative organization to implement the rules, financing and liability questions, identification and registration, risk assessment, decision making towards intervening and priority setting, clean-up goals and clean-up work standards, approaches to conflict management.

(1) careful balancing of liability and financing duties, as those ordered to clean up a site will regard the related allocation of responsibility as personal punishment, because of the financial consequences, regardless of jurisprudential attempts towards other, less discriminating interpretations, which are virtually not communicable; (2) stipulation of strict and/or retrospective liability of the polluter; (3) allocation of liabilities following ground transactions; (4) a consistent technical decision making scheme; (5) the States share of clean-up responsibilities.

It turned out that for an efficient management of contaminated sites, the following aspects are of major importance and should thus be included in any system regulating contaminated site management:

A synopsis of the different systems is given in Tabs. 1-11. Finally, system elements which proved efficient within specific systems are shown in Tab. 12. The observations may be summarized as follows:

Tab. 1. Specific Problems and Status of Technical and Legal Development of the Investigated Systems for Contaminated Site ManagementState Australia (national) Queensland Specific Problems obstacles to city development, pollution of ground and surface water Preferred Treatment Techniques Legislative Status Remarks intergovernmental agreement among central, state and local governments

soil exchange, soil national harmonizavapor extraction, soil tion directives ventilation, bioremediation, land farming Contaminated Land Act 1991, Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act 1990

Victoria

EPA independent regulations in Environment Protection of state governAct 1970 and amend- ment ments groundwater contami- containment, biorenation mediation, CP treatment, solidification Abandoned Contaminated Site Remediation Act 1989 and amendments Water Act 1959 and Amendments

Austria

1 Introduction

9

Tab. 1 Continued .State Belgium/ Flanders Canada (national) Alberta Specific Problems uncontrolled dumps, groundwater contamination groundwater contamination Preferred Treatment Techniques containment, soil exchange soil exchange, bioremediation, land farming, thermal desorption, pump-and-treat, soil vapor extraction, containment Legislative Status Flemish Decree of February 22,1995 on soil decontamination cooperation of provincial and central governments regulations in Enviwithin Canadian ronmental Protection Council of and Enhancement Ministers of the Act 1993 Environment (CCME) regulations in Environment Management Act 1982 national harmonization directives regulations in Environmental Protection Act 1970 and amendments groundwater contamination pump-and-treat, soil exchange regulations in Waste Disposal Act 1983/ 1990, Loss-of-Value Act 1993 Remarks

British Columbia

Ontario

Denmark

France

abandoned waste dumps, groundwater contamination housing on contaminated sites, pollution of ground and surface water, obstacles to city development

containment, thermal treatment soil vapor extraction, bioremediation soil exchange, safeguarding by containment, surface sealing, immobilization, hydraulic measures, thermal treatment, CP treatment, soil washing, soil vapor extraction, bioremediation soil cover, containment

no specific legislation; circulars, amendments to 1976 Act on Classified PlantsFederal Soil Protection Act 1998 Cooperation of federal and Lander governments within LAGA working groups

Federal Republic of Germany

Japan

polluted agricultural land

Agricultural Land Law 1970

10


Tab. 1. Continued State The Netherlands Specific Problems housing on contaminated sites, groundwater contamination, sediment pollution fjord and river pollution, obstacles to city development obstacles to development of industrial areas hazardous waste dumps, groundwater contamination, obstacles to city development Preferred Treatment Techniques soil excavation and thermal or CP treatment in central plants, rarely in situ and on site pumpand-treat soil excavation and treatment, containment, bioremediation containment, bioremediation, solidification. thermal treatment oil exchange, safeguarding by containment, surface sealing, immobilization, hydraulic measures, thermal treatment, CP treatment, soil washing, soil vapor extraction, bioremediation Legislative Status Remarks

Soil Protection Act 1987, amended 1994

Norway

no specific legislation

United Kingdom

Environment Act 1995

USA (national) California

RCRA 84, CERCLA 80, SARA 86 regulations in Hazardous WasteISubstance Acts 1972,1991 MERLA 1983, Comprehensive Ground Water Protection Act 1989 ECRA 1983, Superfund Act 1917, ISRA 1993 ECL Acts 1979,1982, 1986

USEPA; cooperation between USEPA and federal state governments under bilateral agreements

Minnesota

New Jersey

New York

1 IntroductionTab. 2. Definitions and Principles of Contaminated Site Management~~

11

State Australia

Definitions land is contaminated, if hazardous substances occur at concentrations above background levels and where assessment indicates it poses, or is likely to pose, an immediate or long-term hazard to human health or the environment

Principles ensure that the health, diversity, and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations; integrate economic and environmental considerations in decision making processes in order to improve community well-being; establish incentive structures and market mechanisms; remediation goals depending on use and objects to be protected~~

Austria

contaminated sites: waste sites and industrial sites including the potentially polluted soils and aquifers, which, according to the results of a risk assessment, pose a considerable threat to human health and the environment

preference for permanent remediation; hazard prevention

Belgium/ Flanders

aim to achieve level of soil quality where no adverse contamination: man-made presence of substances at concentra- effects are observed tions directly or indirectly impairing, or capable of impairing, soil quality contaminated site: area of land in which the soil or any groundwater lying beneath it, or the water or the underlying sediment, contains a special waste or another prescribed substance in quantities or concentrations exceeding prescribed criteria, standards or conditions contamination: hazardous substances appearing in concentrations which are of concern for sensitive uses diffentiation between sources of pollution and sites in the vicinity with secondary contamination remediation goals dependent on use and objects of protection; remediation to the lowest level practicable; make the polluter pay, if he is traceable and solvent; contribution from those who have benefitted or still benefit from the contamination or from remediation; specific rules for orphan sites

Canada

Denmark

everybody should be able to move and live anywhere without having to fear risks from pollutants; safeguard nature and environment, thus ensuring a sustainable social development in respect of human conditions of life, protecting flora and fauna soil contamination is not critical as long as it can be kept under control and no detrimental effects occur; hazard prevention remediation goals dependent on use and objects of protection

France

contaminated sites: waste dispoFederal Republic of Ger- sal or industrial sites which cause many harmful soil modifications impairing the soil functions in the long term or which do not comply with the character of the area or with planning, or pose other risks to individuals and/or the public

12

I Contaminated Soil Areas, Different Countriesand Contaminants, Monitoring of Contaminants

Tab. 2. ContinuedState Japan The Netherlands Definitions contaminated site definition restricted to agricultural land seriously contaminated site: site where the soil is or threatens to be contaminated so that the functional properties which the soil has for man, flora, and fauna have been, or are in danger of being, seriously reduced pollution: discharge of solid matter, fluid or gas into air, water or ground, which cause or may cause damage or disamenity to the environment contaminated land: any land that appears to the local authority in whose area it is situated to be in such a condition, by reason of substances in, on or under land, that significant harm, or pollution of controlled waters, is being or is likely to be, caused contaminated site: pollutant concentrations are above applicable remediation standards Principles reduction of pollutant concentrations in soil used for agricultural purpose preserve or restore soil multifunctionality; if this is not possible for reasons of environmental hygiene, or for technical or financial reasons, reduce negative effects by observing the IBC criteria for the harmful substances remaining in the soil

Norway

achieve satisfactory environmental quality on the basis of a total appraisal of health, welfare, the natural environment, costs related to control measures and economic considerations remedial action required only where the contamination poses unacceptable actual or potential risks to health or the environment, and there are appropriate and cost-effective means available to do so, taking into account the actual or intended use of the site; establish market to put wasteland in inner cities and brownfields to productive use wherever possible protect human health and the environment on a permanent basis; treat the most dangerous contaminated sites under national management using decision making procedures that are highly formalized in view of their legal strength; priority for financial contribution by the polluter; detailed procedures elaborated to inform and involve the public

United Kingdom

USA

1 Introduction

13

Tab. 3. Liability RulesState Type of Liability Potentially Responsible Parties Lender Other Innocent Owner Remarks

Joint & Strict Retro- Pol- Holder Several active luter of Land Australia (national) Queensland

x x

X

X

x x

x (x)X X

X

X

innocent private ownerloccupier not liable; authorities liable for fault

Victoria Austria

X

X

X

x

x

(4

x

(x)

innocent private owner not liable liability based on fault, albeit for ancient contamination restricted by admitting states lack of apprehension of soil contamination

Belgium/ Flanders Canada (national) Alberta

xX

X

xX

x (XI xX

X

(4X

(x)X

CCME recommendationsX

X

X

x

whoever contributed, in Environment Albertas opinion, may be held liable whoever dealt with pollutants may be held liable

British Columbia Ontario

X

X

X

x

x

X

X

X

x

x

X

affected municipalities liable as well liability based on fault after legislation came into force; statutory period of limitation 20 years

Denmark

France

X

X

x

x

X

owner liable only if he drew benefit from holding pollutants

14

I Contaminated Soil Areas, Different Countries and Contaminants, Monitoring of Contaminants

Tab. 3. Continued State Type of Liability Potentially Responsible Parties Lender Other Innocent OwnerX X

Remarks

Joint & Strict Retro- Pol- Holder Several active luter of Land Federal Republic of Germany Japan The Netherlands Norway (x) xX X X

x

x

X

X

X

(x)X

(x)

x

x

X

x

x

(4

financial contribution of innocent owner limited to value of ground liability essentially fault-based

United Kingdom

X

(4 x x x x x

xx x x x x (x)

X

USA (national)California Minnesota New Jersey New York

X

X

X

X

X

lenders de facto exempted allocation of liability share by DTSC various exceptions to liability

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

allocation of liability share by NJDEP allocation of liability share by D E C

X

X

X

X

X

x: item fully applies to every case (x): item is restricted to particular cases such as: - recommended, but not generally practiced - applied on\y to particular affected groups, exempting others - applied only under certain specific circumstances

1 Introduction

15

Tab. 4. Financing Schemes if Responsible Party is Not Available or Not SolventState Financing Schemes Taxes/ Community Australia (national) Queensland Victoria Austria Belgium/ Flanders x (x)X

Remarks Mixed Funding Other defence monies for DoD sites state assistance in exceptional cases civil protection monies

LeviedGroup Burden

X

X

waste levy OVAM budget; financial assistance for oil tank owners funded by mixed state and private industry contributions (pilot study) NCSRP monies: equal shares taken by central and affected provincial governments; program was limited in time and has not been renewed

x

Canada (national)

(4

Alberta British Columbia Ontario Denmark

X X

civil protection monies special programs for large sites, gas works sitesXX

X

x

state, regional, communal monies; oil industrys environment fund; site owners contribution under Value Loss Act state monies; special waste tax assistance to remediation in new Lander; in some Lander, levies on waste or landfilling were raised which now are jeopardized on principle grounds; case-by-case assistance, if there is government interest in developing specific new technologies

France Federal Republic of Germany

X X

X

(XI

Japan TheNetherlands

X

x

X

state, province, communal monies; industry remediation under BSB and SUBAT covenants

16


Tab. 4. Continued State Financing Schemes Taxes/ Community Norway United KingdomX

Remarks Mixed Funding Other

LeviedGroup Burden

government credit approvals to municipalities, remediation assistance by English partnershipsX

USA (national)California

superfund civil protection monies; Hazardous Substance Account, Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund, Expedited Site Remediation Trust Fund, Hazardous Substance Victims Compensation Fund MN superfund; landfill clean-up programX

x

X

X

Minnesota New Jersey

x

X

X

Hazardous Discharge Site Clean up Fund (bonds), Spill Compensation Fund Environmental Quality Bond

NewYork

x

x: item fully applies to every case (x): item is restricted to particular cases such as: - recommended, but not generally practiced - applied only to particular affected groups, exempting others - applied only under certain specific circumstances

I IntroductionTab. 5. Identification and Registration of Contaminated Sites State Active Search Regular Checkby Authority Data Sup- Publipliedon cation Request of Data Data in Land Register Delisting Remarks upon Clean-Up (contaminated military sites)X XXX

17

Australia (national) Queensland Victoria

(x)

(x)XX

x

publication of risk sites whose owners do not cooperate; delisting upon audit certificate contaminated site atlas

Austria Belgium/ Flanders Canada (national) Alberta British Columbia Ontario Denmark France Federal Republic of Germany

X

X X

X X

X X X

(x)X

X

identification of abandoned sitesX

(4

publication of sites which are not properly remediated identification of abandoned sites

(x)x

(x)XXXX

X

X

X

X

(contaminated agricultural land) TheNetherlands Norway United Kingdom

x

X

X

X

X

delisting when multifunctionality has been achieved national database

xX

X X X

public registers of regulatory action

18

I Contaminated Soil Areas, Different Countries and Contaminants,Monitoring of Contaminants

Tab. 5. ContinuedState Active Search Regular Data Sup- PubliCheckby pliedon cation Authority Request of DataX

Data in Land Register

Delisting Remarks upon Clean-UpX

USA (national)California Minnesota x (x)

X

CERCLIS database; delisting of cleaned up NPL sites

XX

X X

X

identification of sites belonging to certain categories

New JerseyNew York

x

X

X X

X

XX

X


1 IntroductionTab. 6. Risk Assessment State Assessment by Authority Australia (national) Queensland Victoria Austria Belgium/ Flanders Canada (national)X X XX

19

Assessment based on Prescribed Values Risk Assessment Computer Models

Other

Proce- Remarks dure Fixed national recommended trigger values HESP program in use

X

X X

X X

X

XX

(XI

X

X

multi-level decision making scheme HESP program in use

x

(XI

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

NCS, use-dependent environmental quality criteria

Alberta British Columbia OntarioX

XX

XX

X

XX

X

own set of quality criteria own set of quality criteria

X

X

X

X

X

Denmark France Federal Republic of Germany Japan TheNetherlands

xX XX

X

X

(XIX

X

6)

X

X

XX

x

X

X

X

X

detailed decision making scheme; usedependent to a certain extent; HESP program based on CSOIL model

Norway United KingdomX

X X

(4X

X

X

X

X

use-dependent quality criteria; CLEA model

20


Tab. 6. ContinuedState Assessment by Authority USA (national) California Minnesota New Jersey New YorkX

Assessment based on Prescribed Values~~~

Other~~

Risk AssessmentX

Computer Models

Proce- Remarks dure Fixed SSL, RAGS-B PEA, CALTOX computer models SEG guideline use-dependent soil quality targets

X

X

X

x

X

X

X

X

X X X

X X

X X

X

X

X

X


I IntroductionTab. 7. Action Thresholds

21

State

Action Triggered by Exceeding of Threshold Value Classifi- Change Ground cation of Use Transaction

Triggered Action Detailed RemediaInvesti- tion gationX

Remarks

Australia (national)

x

set of trigger values; for pollutants for which no values are given, use of Dutch list values

Queensland x Victoria Austria Belgium/ Flanders Canada xX X

XX

X

XX

multi-level decision making schemeX

x x

X

X

X

X

X

NCS; environmental quality criteria; class 1 sites scoring more than 70 need action urgently non-binding quality criteria set of threshold values planned set of use-dependent threshold values soil quality standards; government owned land must be cleaned up decision points at I, S, (I + S)/2 values

Denmark France

(x)

X

X X

(x)

Federal x Republic of Germany JapanX

X

X

X

The Nether- x lands Norway United Kingdom (x)X

X

X

X

X

X

X

non-binding ICRCL criteria

22~~~~~

1 Contaminated Soil Areas, Different Countries and Contaminants, Monitoring of Contaminunts

Tab. 7 Continued . State Action Triggered by Exceeding of Threshold Value Triggered action Remarks

Classifi- Change Ground Detailed Remediacation of Use TransInvesti- tion action gation~~~ ~ ~~~

X

X

internal SSL; HRS; sites scoring more than 28.5 are put on NPL and must be cleaned up

California Minnesota NewJersey NewYork x x

X

X XX

own set of intervention values use-dependent intervention values

X

X

X

X

x

X

X

X


1 IntroductionTab. 8. Priority SettingState Decision Making Technical Australia Austria Belgium/ Flanders Canada Denmark France Federal Republic of Germany Japan TheNetherlands Norway United Kingdom USA (national) California Minnesota New Jersey NewYorkX X X X

23

Remarks ComputerAssisted

Political Techno- Market PoliticalX X X

multi-level decision making schemeX

X

CSOIL model in use NCS change of priorities possible according to Loss-of-Value Act

X

(XI

x

X X

X X

priority for agricultural landX X

x

CSOIL model; HESP program based on CSOIL

xX X

market driven by needs of developing industry and commerceX

HRS; PRESCOREPEA; CALTOX; walk-in program VIC program market established through ECRA; MOA voluntary clean-up program voluntary clean-up program

x

X

X X X

X

xxx

X

x: item fully applies to every case

(x): item is restricted to particular cases such as: - recommended, but not generally practiced - applied only to particular affected groups, exempting others - applied only under certain specific circumstances

24

1 Contaminated Soil Areas, Different Countries and Contaminants, Monitoring of Conturninants

Tab. 9. Clean-Up Goals, Clean-Up Work and Verification of Clean-Up Success, AftercareState Contain- Certi- Afterment Ac- ficate care Below MultiSet of Separate cepted as RegulaTrigger funcValues Evalua- Clean-Up tions Value tionality tion xXX

Remediation Target

Remarks


Queensland x Victoria x

X X

X X

(x)

X

in the regular case, contamination should be kept below given trigger values; in special cases, risk assessment to fix clean-up target; Victorian certificate will be guaranteed by authority

Austria Belgium/ Flanders Canada (national) Alberta British Columbia Ontario Denmark x x

(XI

X X

XX X

(4 in the regular case, contamination should be kept below given trigger values; in specia1 cases, risk assessment to fix clean-up targets; certificate will not establish authority responsibility site-specific departures from multifunctionality allowed aftercare by DRIRE use-dependent targets

X

X

xX

X X

X X

XX

X

x

X X

X

X X X X

X

France Federal x Republic of Germany Japan The NetherlandsX

(4X

xX

X X

X

X

X

X

(x)

X

X

X

securing a site accepted as equivalent if IBC criteria are kept; soil quality certificate from SCG

Norway United Kingdom

(x)X

(XIX

xX

XX X

1 Introduction

25

Tab. 9. Continued State Contain- Certi- AftermentAc- ficate care Below MultiSet of Separate cepted as RegulaTrigger funcValues Evalua- Clean-Up tions Value tionality tionX

Remediation Target

Remarks

USA (national)

SSL procedure to determine clean-up targets; containment functioning to be checked every 5 yearsX X X X X X X X X X X

California Minnesota New Jersey NewYork

x

certificates will not establish responsibility of authorities decontamination is preferred option

x x

X

X

X

X

X


26

1 Contaminated Soil Areas, Different Countries and Contuminants, Monitoring of contaminants

Tab. 10. Organization and Enforcement~

State

Responsibility

Allocation of Liability by

Technical Decisions by

Enforcement

Remarks

Cen-De- Au- Courts Arbitra- Au- Respon- Crimi- Market Incentral- cen- thortion thor- sible nal Forces tive ized tral- ity ity Party Justice System ized~ ~


(x) x

x

x

national government responsible only for military sites POD)

Queensland x Victoria

x x

x x

X X

x

EPA independent of government; system of auditorsX

Austria

x

x

x

x

X

financing regulated by ALSAG

Belgium/ Flanders Canada (national) Alberta British Columbia Ontario Denmark France

x x xX

X

xx x x x xX

X

x x x x

X X

x

x

X X

xxX X

xx

national and provincial governments shared responsibility for action within former NCSRPX

x xX

X

X

X

X

Federal (x) x Republic of Germany

x

x

x

federal government responsibility only for abandoned military and new Lander sites

Japan

x

x

x

(XI

1 Introduction

27

Tab. 10. ContinuedState Responsibility Allocation of Liability by Technical Decisions by Enforcement Remarks

Cen-De- Au- Courts Arbitra- Au- Respon- Crimi- Market Incentral- cen- thortion thor- sible nal Forces tive ized tral- ity ity Party Justice System ized TheNether- x lands Norway United Kingdom

x

xX

x

xX

x

X

X

x x

X

x

x

x

x

X

X

financial incentives by English partnerships to-date, litigation-oriented enforcement strategy

USA (national)

x

x

x

x

X

X

California Minnesota NewJersey

x x x

x x x

x x x

X

x x x

x x x

xX

X

X

walk-in program'

X

X X

X X

VIC programvoluntary MOA process voluntary clean-up program

X

X

NewYork

x

x

x

X

X

X

X

X


28


Tab. 11. Conflict ManagementState Codification Financing Australia (national) Queensland Victoria Austria(x)X X X

Remarks Compensation InformationX

Involvement focus on communicating with affected people government may take over contaminated land from innocent private owners compensation for restrictions on using contaminated land during remediation

XX X

Belgium/ Flanders Canada Denmark FranceX X X

CCME guidance for PR work possibility of shifting priorities under Loss-of-Value Act principle not to shake the trust of innocent parties in the legality of states actions information of affected parties on remedial planning

x

X

X

X

X

X

Federal Republic of Germany Japan TheNetherlands Norway United KingdomX

X

x

X

X

decision making involving citizens votes administrative files are open to public inspection

X

X

1 Introduction

29

Tab. 11. ContinuedState Codification Financing Compensation InformationX

Remarks InvolvementX

USA (national)California Minnesota New Jersey New York

structured procedure involving: - community interviews - community relations plan - community relations coordinator - external consultants, conflict resolution professionals and mediators - community working groups - citizens information access offices - record of decision including citizens votes


30

I Contaminated Soil Areas, Different Countries and Contaminants,Monitoring of Contaminants

Tab. 12. System Elements which Proved Efficient within Specific Systems~~~~~~~

System Elements~~~~~~~ ~

Remarks

(1) Non-Polluting Sites

f Open declaration o the caveat emptor principle for ground transactionsObligation of site auditing when planning ground transactions

open declaration of practiced liability and financing rule corrective element in the interest of protecting the buyer of ground; the audit may be waived if a certificate of multifunctionality can be produced; possibly, limitation of certificate validity for industrial ground relief of authorities, establishing, at the same time, market for auditors; if certification procedures for site auditors are sufficiently demanding, authorities may even take over responsibility for expertise which might not stand the demands for correctness relief of authorities from data raising activities for unclear or unnecessary purposes; this appears to be particularly justified by the fact that completeness of data will never be guaranteed, and implementation deficits will not allow to control observance of soil protection requirements to any extent of completeness; thus, identification activities make sense only if the data are definitely needed for administrative decision making; the demands for security from soil pollution hazards may be satisfied by a site audit system relief o authorities from book keeping f relief of authorities from control activities, a site audit system showing the risks of incomplete remediation for the buyer as well as for the vendor, and a restrictive delisting practice refusing certificates if soil cannot be put to multifunctional use

Establishment of site auditors

Tying systematical administrative identification and registration activities to decisions that are preset in a binding manner, depending only on the data obtained

Reactive registration of non-polluting sites Release of non-polluting sites from administrative control

Administrative action triggered by change of site use Fixing of minimum remediation goals on the basis of assessment of risks, taking the intended use and potentially affected objects of protection into account

no need for action if there is no nuisance or damage to third parties; incentive for demanding remediation if disadvantages to ground vendors were too highminimum requirement of protecting human health in the interest of implementing the system; may be achieved by decontamination or containment for which equivalence is stated using the Dutch IBC criteria

Delisting o sites restored to multifunc- incentive for restoring multifunctionality; reduces the apparent f economic advantage af containment measures tionality Listing of site use restrictions within the competent authoritys register and/or the land register in the interest of buyers; incentive for restoring multifunctionality

Use of partially decontaminated soil fo1 saving clean soil resources if activities, such as road construction, non-sensitive purposes tend to contaminate soil anvwav: need for develooment of minimum quality standards by construction industryi ,

I Introduction

31

Tab. 12. Continued System Elements (2) Polluting Sites0

Remarks

Liability and Financing

enforcement of polluter pays principle in accordance with comExplicit definition of priorities for drawing on potentially responsible par- mon understanding; element of fault in liability ties for financing clean-up; polluter to be held responsible in the first place Burden of proof on alleged polluter Right of called-on responsible party to seek contribution from other potentially responsible partiesalternatively Allocation of liability shares by authority, e.g., following the Canadian deliberation pattern

improvement of implementability of polluter pays principle

on grounds of fairness towards non-polluters; assertion of right of seeking contribution may be denied to polluters

reasonable in order to prevent litigation; may be flanked by restrictions on right of called-on responsible parties to object relief for remaining responsible parties; may be communicated as corrective measure balancing authoritys allocation of liability shares

State to take over orphan shares

De minimis and de micronis schemes saves authorities administrative and political efforts to relieve small-share responsible parties from further involvement

If owners are to be held liable: extension of responsible parties from present owners to past owners of a contaminated site, thus relieving the present owner Regulation of liability of heirs, donees, creditors holding security over a contaminated site, following, e.g., the Australian scheme of options

works in the sense of the polluter pays principle and is easier to communicate than allocation of liability to and calling on present owners alone; prevention against accusation of administrative support to concealing site defects during ground transactions sensible in order to prevent troubles for financial markets; works in the same sense as take over of orphan shares by the state

Limitation of owners financial liability technical criteria are more easily assessed than, e.g., ground value: using technical rather than financial cri- may be communicated as expressing owners social responsibility teria, such as prevention of existing and foreseeable hazards from third parties Explicit definition of cause and extent of states potential liability and share Reimbursement and compensation for owner of suspect contaminated site if investigations do not confirm suspicion Exemption of innocentlbona fide potentially responsible parties fixing the rules of the game; definition must be simple and easy to understand by everyone in order to prevent misleading interpretation and abuse

on grounds of fairness

element of fault in determining liability: criteria for claims of innocencelaction in good faith may be exacting in order to prevent abuse

32


Tab. 12. ContinuedSystem Elements~~~~~ ~

Remarks fixing the gravity of polluting soil in comparison with other civil, criminal, and economical offence

Statutory period of limitation for responsibility of potentially responsible parties

Take over of responsibility for remedia- prevention of retrospective liability if the state of knowledge had tion of contaminated sites which ocnot been sufficient to apprehend the problem of soil contaminacurred before relevant legislation came tion in general into force, by the state Take over of responsibility for remedia- preservation of confidence in the responsiveness of authorities tion of contaminated sites which ocactions curred with authorities consent, by the state Financing of orphan contaminated sites tax monies for state business from tax monies, priorities being annually updated hazard prevention, alike civil protection, as minimum state busiTake over of responsibility for hazard prevention by the state if all potentially ness; calling on innocent/bona fide potentially responsible parties responsible parties are innocent or act- will lead to politically colored conflicts ed in good faith Compensation for defective administra- preservation of confidence in the responsiveness of authorities tive planning, even retrospectively actions Registration of a charge in the deed long-term security for states claims for reimbursement; however, register, if the owner of a contaminated present owner will not be obliged to immediately give up elemensite benefits from remediation activities tary rights of using his property on his site; this charge should have to be redeemed before selling the ground0

Identification and Registration direct assessment of toxicity is more adequate than presently practiced indirect methods, reflecting the objective of removing and preventing health hazards; soil contamination, as defined by concentration of hazardous substances, will describe health hazards only in an indirect and provisional manner public access to environmental information

Definition of soil contamination on direct proof of soil toxicity

Publication of information in the register of confirmed contaminated sites0

Risk Assessment due to the lack of commonly accepted criteria for assessing eco. logical damage direct assessment preferable, reflecting the soil protection objective of removing and preventing health hazards

Human/public health as only object of protection Use of bioindicators for assessing risk

1 IntroductionTab. 12. ContinuedSystem Elements0

33

Remarks

Risk Assessment to be used in the regular case; easy to handle to keep flexibility and avoid undue hardship

Fixed action thresholds Risk assessment only if individual case justifies the effort

Accounting for insufficient information giving a clear idea of the amount of information deficits; works through error margins following, e.g., best with clear conception of priority setting the Canadian NCS model scheme Structuring the political procedure for setting priorities Targets and Execution of Remediation prestructuring decision making procedures in order to improve transparency

0

Equality of remediation goal to action reflects the traditional approach of combatting the problem causthreshold, as a rule, remediation goal to ing risks as far as to keep remaining risks acceptable be modified only by risk assessment accounting for intended use of the site Equivalence of decontamination and containment if Dutch IBC criteria are observed Check of containment efficiency every 5 years Registration of use restrictions in land register Conception of dependence of remediation goals on layers to be cleaned up Principle of assigning first priority to preventing hazards to residents, second priority to preventing hazards to workers definition of demanding quality criteria for containment, which may provide an incentive for permanent solution minimum requirement incentive for full remediation decontamination of upper layer with a view to the intended use; clean-up of deeper layers to levels complying with industrial use; groundwater should be protected in any case in pursuit of the objective of remediation, namely to protect human health

In emergencies, facilitation of authorization procedure for time-limited interim storage for contaminated soilCertificating and delisting of the site if multifunctionality of contaminated soil has been restored

facilitation of administrative procedures for time limited emergency measure relief of authorities from book keeping on the one hand, proof of success on the other hand; if maximum remediation goals are achieved, certificate will put the authorities at risk on equal terms with private economy and citizens

34

1 Contaminated Soil Areas, Different Countries and Contaminants,Monitoring of Contaminants

Tab. 12. ContinuedSystem Elements Assessment of remediation success using concentration percentiles Remarks less demanding than separate keeping of goals within each sample taken for naturally occurring contamination - which should be assumed after clean-up -the percentile method has proven effective in geology; if deemed necessary, upper limits to excessive concentrations

0

Conflict Management

Detailed and continuous information of confidence creating measure the public Most detailed information of affected persons Financial assistance to citizens information gathering activities Financial assistance to citizens self-organizing activities Structuring PR contents and procedures confidence creating measure confidence creating mesure; basis for reducing misunderstandings and conflicts during negotiations confidence creating measure making sure parties negotiate on equal terms professionalization of authorities PR work

Definition of data protection scheme to to remove unclear and ambiguous ideas regarding information be applied duties and rights Giving affected persons a share in preparing decisions Calling-in of conflict negotiators and mediators Clean-up of contaminated sites in residential use at state expense confidence creating measure; authorities last instance responsibility should be observed useful, as in the regular case, contaminated site management is outside the day-to-day routine confidence creating measure; calling on innocent or bona fide owners will regularly result in political crises undermining authorities credits and image losses, eventually driving authorities to pay for clean-up anyway prevention of jealousy and conflicts with interests that are not related to remediation

Refusal to compensate for intangibles, such as losses on use due to use restrictions0

Enforcement and Organizationif political will supports the establishment of an independent environmental protection body, this body may prove highly efficient in implementing and enforcing environment protection, as it makes sure administrative decisions affecting environment will not depend on government interests. In some states, to create such a body may require modification of the basic law

Environmental protection body with judicial powers and government independence

Management of the most serious contamination cases by national government

in the interest of setting standards and of harmonizing treatment of the issue by lower-level authorities

3 Preferred Treatment TechniquesTab. U. Continued System Elements Remarks

35

Grants of assistance for remedial meas- incentive to cooperate with authorities ures only if potential beneficiary complies with certain requirements, such as obligation to immediately inform authorities. securities for aftercare, etc. Registration and publication of contaminated site data as informal punishment if remediation plans are not elaborated in due time Out-of-court settlements with authorities only if responsible party recognizes its liability on principle seizing the responsible party by its most sensitive point

enforcement of observance of terms of settlement by securing submission of responsible party

2 Specific ProblemsGenerally, the main issue of soil contamination is ground and surface water pollution which may adversely affect the use of water for drinking and technical purposes and impair fishery. The impairment of municipal and industrial development appears to be of secondary importance; it will play a relatively major role in those countries, in particular where water resources are abundant. The problem of residential buildings on contaminated ground appears to be well-known to all of the studied countries. It strongly contributes to building up political sensitiveness for the soil contamination issue. However, in terms of quantity, the problem generally appears to be of rather minor importance.

3 Preferred Treatment TechniquesRelatively simple and cost-effective techniques, such as the safeguarding of contaminated sites by inertization and encapsulation as well as soil exchange and landfilling of the contaminated soil, are widely applied. Only some countries give preference to treatment

which permanently removes the risk potential of hazardous soil contaminants; as an example, The Netherlands give priority to thermal and physico-chemical soil treatment; other countries regularly apply pump-and-treat techniques. In situ and on site treatment technologies are developed in several countries. Development focuses on bioremediation techniques, in particular within reactors and through landfarming. Denmark has issued specific shortterm bioremediation goals which are less stringent than goals to be achieved by using other non-biological techniques, taking the characteristics of microbial action into account which will continue in the long term. On the contrary, however, the Dutch do not favor bioremediation, as its efficiency is considered insufficient in the short term. One of the problems new technologies have to overcome in particular is the reluctance of investors and authorities to try them out; in general, they are interested in the safe success of the remediation measures rather than in starting costly and uncertain developments, taking into account the potential consequences of poor performance for liability and economy. A large-scale explicit technology development program to overcome this bottleneck is the US SITE (Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation) program which was created within the frame of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. Other coun-

36


tries generally run rather dispersed government programs to support R&D for the treatment of contaminated sites.

6 PrinciplesBeyond danger prevention, the goals of treating contaminated sites vary considerably. Extremes are found inThe Netherlands, on the one hand, where first priority is given to restoring and conserving soil multifunctionality - waivers are possible only if this goal cannot be reached on economical and technical grounds, in which case remediation goals are to be defined so as to protect sensitive targets, taking into account the intended use of the site - and in the United Kingdom, on the other hand, where remediation is required only if appropriate and cost-efficient possibilities exist, taking into account the intended use. The first type of systems favors permanent solutions against use-specific solutions, the second type of systems gives first priority to use-specific solutions. Some countries have established mechanisms that aim at obtaining permanent solutions in the long term if this should not be possible from the outset. These mechanisms usually work by taking advantage of market forces related to ground transactions.

4 Legislative StatusThe legislative status varies considerably from one state to the next. It largely reflects the political sensitiveness for the soil contamination issue. In this context, one should note the situation in the states of Australia and Canada which are organized along federal lines. Here, the federal states/provinces agreed on common principles for dealing with contaminated sites, at the level of the state environment ministers that are relatively loosely coordinated by central environmental agencies. In the USA, on the other hand, the most dangerous contaminated sites are tackled by the federal governments USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency), which is given important financial and administrative power.

5 DefinitionsThe definitions of soil contamination show the common technical understanding of the selected countries regarding the risk potential of soil contamination. However, the definitions vary according to the different ways of considering risks as significant - through exceeding of generally fixed soil quality standards, of certain intervention values, or of standards set at the discretion of the authorities, on the one hand, through individual risk assessments, on the other - and to the type of sites not falling under the definition: e.g., military sites are frequently excluded from the general definition and from contaminated site legislation. In Japan, only contaminated agricultural sites are covered by present legislation.

7 LiabilityThe majority of the selected countries hold the responsible parties strictly, jointly, and severally liable, with the exception of Austria, Denmark, and the United Kingdom. France applies strict, but not joint and several liability. Liability is retrospective in most of the states studied. Frequently, certain groups of responsible persons, such as innocent or bona fide private houseowners are exempted from the duty of paying for remediation of their ground. In some cases, authorities are explicitly held responsible for faulty decisions concerning contaminated sites. In virtually all systems, polluters will be held responsible; exceptions are the Austrian and English systems where polluters have the defence of insufficient state of knowledge in the past, and the Danish system in which the polluter will be held liable only if the pollution occurred after the Environmental Protection Act

10 Listing and Delisting

37

came into force. This is barred by the statute of limitations after 20 years. In most systems, another potentially responsible party is the holder of power over the site, in some cases even if he did not have or ought not to have had any knowledge of the contamination at the time he bought the ground. Occasionally, lenders will be held liable as well, in particular if their role within the enterprise that caused the contamination went beyond purely financial interests. Liability shares, in the case of several responsible parties, will be occasionally allocated at the discretion of the authorities, or else by the courts. Typically, parties held financially liable under the regime of joint and several liability will be entitled to seek contributions from their fellow responsible parties.

influential responsible parties (house building and renting companies, citizens opposition groups), more advanced schemes try to mobilize the initiative of responsible parties by technical help schemes combined with some financial assistance if necessary, e.g., in the respective programs in some states of the USA.

9 Identification and RegistrationNot all countries require their authorities to actively search for contaminated sites. On the contrary, in some countries, such as Victoria1 Australia, and the United Kingdom, in particular the strategy is to care for identification and treatment only if danger is imminent or may be a concern if the use of the site changes. It is left to the market to decide if a use change is intended and action may thus be required. If a site is suspect of being contaminated, the duty to investigate is with the authorities, at the one extreme, or a potentially responsible party may be ordered to carry out the investigation, at the other. In Germany, e.g., the practice is to order the potentially responsible party to investigate his ground and reimburse the costs, if the suspicion is not verified. The passing-on of information on site contamination is subject to varying rules according to the respective data protection schemes. The range of rules starts with public contaminated site registers providing the full extent of available information and ends with the right of inspecting the files containing only administrative action on the respective site. Between these two extremes, extracts from the complete contaminated site register may be provided. Some of these contain those sites in particular, where responsible parties have refused to take the necessary remediary action.

8 Financing Models and Assistance SchemesFor those cases in which responsible parties cannot be found or are not sufficiently solvent, states have established financing models of varying type and complexity. They range from government funds that are financed from tax revenues - occasionally,civil protection means are used for the clean-up of contaminated sites - to funds financed by levies charged to specific groups, such as levies on hazardous wastes or on potentially hazardous raw chemicals (US Superfund). Frequently, mixed financing models are in use. A special case is the owners contribution to remediation costs according to the Danish loss-of-value regulation, which may be used by the owner to accelerate the treatment of his contaminated site, which is the responsibility of the Government. Most of the states which hold polluters and owners liable for clean-up have developed more or less comprehensive and elaborated assistance programs in order to prevent hardship and to provide an incentive to the responsible parties to take the initiative for cleaning up their contaminated sites. The traditional reason for granting assistance being political pressure from politically

10 Listing and DelistingAfter listing a contaminated site or a site suspected of contamination, procedures to

38


publish the listed data vary according to data protection schemes and to legal links between responsibility for remediation and ground transactions. In some states, the land register will contain a copy of the listed information or, at least, a reference to the list of contaminated sites. Other states will separately publish the full or partial contents of the list; New Jersey uses both ways, presumably due to the necessity to remediate as a precondition for ground transactions and to the will to make every effort to inform potential buyers of contaminations. Delisting after successful remediation is handled much more restrictively. Most states tend to keep a site once registered on the list or in the land register for an indefinite time, albeit with a note referring to the remediation. Only few states will remove remediated sites from the registers; Victoria/Australia, will require an auditor's certificate stating that the site has been thoroughly cleaned up and is ready for multifunctional use.

(Hazard Ranking System), on the one hand, and the Canadian NCS (National Classification System), lending itself to manual evaluation, on the other. Some of the decision models are computerized; whereas in the Canadian NCS, computerization serves only as a tool to simplify the already simple bookkeeping and report preparation, other models need computerization for the calculation of risk potentials along the various exposure pathways. Again, complex extremes are the HRS and the British CLEA (Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment) model which applies Monte Carlo methods to evaluate risk through the distribution of the different exposure pathways. Beyond national borders, the Dutch CSOIL-based HESP (Human Exposure to Soil Pollutants) model is in use, which is established and updated by Shell International.

12 Action Thresholds11 Risk AssessmentIn some states, risk assessments will be carried out by the administration in principle, other states will have them carried out by external consultants only. Victoria/Australia has established a specific auditors' system for this purpose. Most states, however, use a mixed approach, external consultants regularly assessing the risks and authorities performing an assessment of their own only from time to time. Lists of intervention or soil quality values, such as the Dutch list, are widely used, at least for decisions based on initial investigations. Some countries explicitly state that their approach is to regularly use such lists and take recourse to detailed risk assessment only if this appears to be justified by specific circumstances, such as the size and complexity of the contamination case. Other countries, however, rely only on detailed risk assessment for each individual case. In those cases where they are defined, the decision models are of varying complexity.The extremes are USEPA's highly complex HRSMeasures to deal with contaminated sites are triggered by:

(1) exceeding of certain threshold values; this will cause further investigative action, at least; (2) the classification of certain sites as potentially hazardous; in FlanderdBelgium, a survey of an area of land is compulsory if a potentially problematic industrial use is discontinued or if pollution is suspected, and it is to be sold; ( 3 ) the intention to use a site for more sensitive purposes; this method is used by those countries in particular which do not require authorities to actively search for sites suspect of contamination; (4) ground transactions (New Jersey, USA, FlanderdBelgium).Some countries use more than one of these thresholds. In most countries, the triggered action will consist of a deeper investigation of the case. Only few systems stringently require remedia-

15 Monitoring

39

tion, if action thresholds are exceeded. In most systems, however, it is left to the discretion of the authorities to decide upon the need for remediation.

13 Priority SettingPriorities are mostly set on technical considerations. However, decisions based on purely technical reasoning, such as within USEPA's computer-assisted HRS, are rather rare, political considerations playing a significant role as well. Some countries such as Australia in particular rely, partially at least, on market forces within their systems in order to set priorities. In some cases, in the USA in particular, there are additional systems established to provide incentives for voluntary remediation.

of monitoring and maintenance of the containment have to be taken into account. In some cases, containment will imply the need to monitor the site every 5 years. In the USA, the costs of aftercare for the sites on the National Priority List that have been merely contained will have to be borne by the affected federal states, whereas for thorough clean-up, they would have to bear only part of the total cost, thus providing a powerful incentive for thorough decontamination.

15 MonitoringMonitoring comprises sampling and analysis. The statistical criteria to be applied govern sampling, the definition of toxicity analytical methods. The statistical criteria in use for acceptable soil contamination range among0

14 Remediation GoalsThe most ambitious goal of restoring soil multifunctionality is pursued only in few countries, above all inThe Netherlands where this is explicitely stated as policy. Most countries regard as sufficient compliance with action thresholds and in particular reaching soil quality as defined by the intended use and the protection of sensitive targets. Remediation goals are usually based on individual assessments which are frequently supported by lists of soil quality values. However, in some cases a certain preference for thorough clean-up is established by issuing remediation certificates and, more important, by delisting remediated sites only on condition that multifunctionality has been restored. Containment and decontamination measures are treated as equivalent by many countries, containment being economically preferable to decontamination in most cases. The Dutch model explicitly defines how to balance the decision. Technically, the containment is required to comply with the IBC (isolation, control, monitoring) criteria, and economically, not only the investment costs but also the costs

0

0

keeping the soil quality criteria for each individual sample point by point; this criterion is the most stringent and adequate only for homogeneous soil which may be obtained by certain treatment, such as thermal treatment, or in cases of homogeneous sludges; random grainy impurities may yield strongly misleading results; keeping the soil quality criteria in mixed samples or by averaging over a certain number of samples; this criterion overcompensates for grainy impurities and may not keep track of clustered contaminants; keeping the soil quality criteria in a certain percentile - usually 90-95% - of the samples taken; the origin of this criterion is in geology where systematically elevated concentrations of certain minerals are looked for; this method appears to be most appropriate for the statistics of remediated soil which is considered to be in a state close to natural.

In virtually all states, soil quality is defined in terms of concentrations of individual chemicals or groups of chemicals for which the toxic-

40


ity has been determined by animal tests. Che- consensus of the parties appears to meet with mically monitoring only these may lead to over- problems despite relatively generous financial looking hazards not covered by the selected assistance. A special case is provided by the chemicals.The direct determination of soil tox- system of Victoria/Australia where an Enviicity - which basically describes soil quality - is ronment Protection Authority was established generally not pursued. However, reliable and which is independent of Government and fast test batteries whose results may be com- which may and does take government institupared to animal tests appear to exist, e.g., the tions to court for environmental offence. dormant larvae assay developed by PEKSOONE In addition, some countries purposely mobiat Ghent University (PERSOONE al., 1993). lize market forces, e.g., by authorizing ground et The philosophy behind them would be to transactions only on condition that soil quality study toxicity first and then analyze the soil for will not pose risks to the intended use, or by esthe agent causing it in order to systematically tablishing incentive systems for voluntary reremove the hazard. mediation.

16 OrganizationThe responsibility for managing contaminated sites is with the central authorities in most countries. In states organized along federal lines, usually relatively efficient institutions harmonize the guidelines for tackling the problem, at least. In the USA and Canada they actively participate(d) in programs for the remediation of the most severe contamination cases. The responsible party will be defined by the authorities, in most systems. Only com

Documents

Biotechnology - Vol 11b - Soil Decontamination