57890 Sustainable Development East Asia and Pacific Region D I S C U S S I O N P A P E R S INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE IN POLICY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS FOR BROWNFIELD SITE MANAGEMENT September 2010 THE WORLD BANK SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC REGION D I S C U S S I O N P A P E R S INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE IN POLICY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS FOR BROWNFIELD SITE MANAGEMENT Yuyang Gong September 2010 THE WORLD BANK Washington, DC TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATION .................................................................................................. v FOREWORD .............................................................................................................................................vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................... vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... viii 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 CONTAMINATED SITE MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES IN CHINA ......................................... 1 1.2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY............................................................................... 1 2. UNITED STATES ............................................................................................................................. 3 2.1 POLICY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ............................................................................. 3 2.1.1 Superfund Act ..................................................................................................................... 3 2.1.2 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) ......................................... 5 2.1.3 Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (Brownfield Act) ......................................................................................................... 5 2.2 CLEAN-UP CRITERIA ............................................................................................................. 6 2.2.1 USEPA Soil Screening Guidance (SSG)............................................................................ 7 2.2.2 EPA Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) and Regional Screening Levels (RSL) ........................................................................................................................ 7 2.2.3 State Guidance Documents and Values ........................................................................... 8 2.3 SUPERFUND CLEANUP PROCESS ........................................................................................ 10 2.4 SUPERFUND REFORMS AND LESSONS FOR CHINA ............................................................ 12 2.5 PROCEDURE OF BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT .............................................................. 14 3. CANADA.......................................................................................................................................... 16 3.1 POLICY AND REGULATION.................................................................................................. 16 3.2 CLEAN-UP CRITERIA ........................................................................................................... 17 3.2.1 Interim Canadian Environmental Quality Criteria for Contaminated Sites............. 17 3.2.2 Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines .................................................................................. 17 3.3 CONTAMINATED SITE REMEDIATION FRAMEWORK ......................................................... 18 3.4 NATIONAL CONTAMINATED SITE REMEDIATION PROGRAM (NCSRP) VS. THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM IN THE UNITED STATES ................................................. 18 4. ASIA .................................................................................................................................................. 19 4.1 OVERVIEW OF THE ASIAN SITUATION ............................................................................... 19 4.2 JAPAN................................................................................................................................... 19 4.2.1 Soil ....................................................................................................................................... 19 4.2.2 Groundwater ..................................................................................................................... 21 4.3 TAIWAN, CHINA ................................................................................................................. 22 5. EUROPE ............................................................................................................................................ 23 5.1 CONTAMINATED SITE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK ........................................................ 23 5.2 STRATEGIES.......................................................................................................................... 25 5.2.1 Thematic Strategy on Soil Protection ............................................................................. 25 ii 5.2.2 EU Soil Framework Directive .......................................................................................... 25 5.2.2.1. Prevention and Inventory ............................................................................. 26 5.2.2.2. Remediation .................................................................................................... 27 5.2.3 Status of the EU Soil Framework Directive ................................................................... 28 5.3 CLEAN-UP CRITERIA IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES ............................................................... 28 5.4 UNITED KINGDOM .............................................................................................................. 30 5.4.1 Contaminated Land Framework..................................................................................... 30 5.4.2 Criteria ................................................................................................................................ 31 5.4.3 Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination .............................. 32 5.5 GERMANY ............................................................................................................................ 34 5.5.1 Framework for Contaminated Site Management ......................................................... 34 5.5.2 Risk-based Standards ....................................................................................................... 34 5.6 THE NETHERLANDS ............................................................................................................ 34 5.6.1 Framework of Contaminated Sites ................................................................................. 34 5.6.2 Remediation Criteria -- Stepwise System ..................................................................... 35 5.6.3 Dutch Target Values, Soil Remediation Intervention Values and Indicative Levels for Serious Contamination ................................................................................. 37 6. LATIN AMERICA .......................................................................................................................... 38 6.1 OVERVIEW OF THE LATIN AMERICAN SITUATION ............................................................ 38 6.2 BRAZIL ................................................................................................................................. 38 6.3 MEXICO ................................................................................................................................ 39 7. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. 40 7.1 SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CHINA ...................................................................... 40 7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................... 43 7.3 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................... 44 APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................... 46 A. US STATUTES, REGULATIONS, POLICIES AND GUIDELINES REGARDING CONTAMINATED SITES ...................................................................................................... 46 B. CANADIAN LEGISLATION, POLICY AND GUIDELINE LIST FOR CONTAMINATED SITES ............................................................................................... 49 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 51 iii LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 Summary of State Guidance Values, Standards and Programs .............................. 9 Table 2-2 Superfund Cleanup Process ....................................................................................... 11 Table 5-1 EU Environmental Policy Related to Contaminated Aspects ................................ 24 Table 5-2 Overview of General Practices for the Identification and Characterization of Contaminated Sites in Twenty Three European Countries ................................... 28 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1 Redevelopment Process of Brownfield Act of 2002 ............................................... 15 Figure 5-1 Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination in the UK ..... 33 Figure 5-2 Remediation criteria -- Stepwise system................................................................ 36 iv ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATION AAI All Appropriate Inquiries BBodSchV Federal Soil Protection and Contaminated Sites Ordinance CARACAS Concerted Action on Risk Assessment for Contaminated Sites in Europe CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act CLARINET Contaminated Land Rehabilitation Network for Environmental Technologies CLEA Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment CSoQGs Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPB Environmental Protection Bureaus EQS Environmental Quality Standard ESA Environmental Site Assessment HCVs Health Criteria Values ICRCL Inter-departmental Committee on the Redevelopment of Contaminated Land NCP National Contingency Plan NCSRP National Contaminated Sites Remediation Program NICOLE Network for Industrially Contaminated Land in Europe NPL National Priorities List PAHs Poly-Aromatic Hydrocarbons PRGs Preliminary Remediation Goals PRPs Potential Responsible Parties RBCA Risk-Based Corrective Action RSL Regional Screening Level TERESA Register on Contaminated Land Remediation Technologies TPHs Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons TSD Transportation, Storage and Disposal SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SCCL Soil Contamination Countermeasure Law SFD Soil Framework Directive SGVs Soil Guideline Values SSLs Soil Screening Levels SSG Soil Screening Guidance SVOCs Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds v FOREWORD Land contamination is a serious environmental and developmental problem in many countries, including China. If managed well, some contaminated sites (also referred to as `brownfields') can be an opportunity for urban renewal and development. Conversely, if brownfields are untouched due to legal concerns or lack of financial resources, or not properly remediated, they can present a serious threat to public health and the environment and become a barrier to local economic development. Fortunately, developing countries like China do not need to re-invent the wheel. Developed countries, such as the U.S.A., Canada, and the European Union, have accumulated experience through many years of tackling brownfield problems and have developed comprehensive and proven frameworks for brownfield site management. This report summarizes international experience which may be useful in developing China's approach to brownfield site management by offering a review of the related policies, regulations, and standards in the U.S.A., Canada, EU, several EU member countries (UK, the Netherlands, and Germany), Japan, and other countries or regions. The report highlights the complexity of the problem, with so many parties involved and the difficulties surrounding liability. At the same time, it identifies potential solutions for dealing with these complexities. While there is a great deal to learn from international experience, China faces a unique set of issues with regards to brownfield site management, including state-ownership of land, unprecedented speed of urban and economic development, as well as a high population density. Hence, finding a "solution with Chinese characteristics" is necessary. This requires the Chinese governments and professionals to not only actively learn from international experience, but also be creative in finding their own path in brownfield remediation and redevelopment. We sincerely hope that the review of international experience presented in this report will be useful to China; we also look forward to learning from the approach that China will eventually take to establish an effective management framework for brownfield remediation and redevelopment. Ede Jorge IjjaszVasquez Magda Lovei Sector Manager Sector Manager China & Mongolia Sustainable Development Social, Environment and Rural East Asia and the Pacific East Asia and the Pacific vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report is one of the outputs of the World comments. Ke Yuan assisted in desktop Bank Program "China: Brownfield editing. Remediation and Redevelopment". It was prepared by Yuyang Gong. Jian Xie and The World Bank program is managed by Jian Dimitri de Boer helped discuss and revise the Xie under the general guidance of John report. Roome, Klaus Rohland, Ede Jorge Ijjasz-Vasquez, and Magda Lovei at the The peer reviewers of the report were World Bank. Adriana Damianova, Christine Kessides, Catalina Marulanda and Anjali Acharya of The generous financial supports from the the World Bank and Lida Tan of the U.S. EPA. Governments of Canada and Italy are Carter Brandon, Victor Vergara and acknowledged. Christophe Crepin provided written vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Brownfields are contaminated sites, the reuse Furthermore, the Superfund Act authorized and redevelopment of which may be the US Environmental Protection Agency (US complicated by the presence of hazardous EPA) to compel any PRP, including current substances and contaminants. Brownfields landowners which did not operate during the pose large risks to the environment and time of contamination, to pay for site public health. Thus, cleaning up and remediation. Division of responsibility and reinvesting in brownfields is essential to costs between parties could then be left to the relieve pressures on public health and the parties themselves. The drawbacks of the act environment, and to mitigate potential social include, among many, the unexpected large unrest. Additionally, proper contaminated number of litigations caused, the unfair site management reduces development burden to small companies and a lack of pressures from green spaces and agricultural involvement of state and local actors (leaving lands. many decisions to federal authorities). In particular, the unlimited and uncertain As proper management of brownfields is liability for parties associated with both a new and important issue in China, contaminated lands scared away investors China can benefit by learning from the past and developers, and caused the contaminated experiences of other countries. This report lands to remain idle, undeveloped, and with presents an overview of policy and rusting facilities, to become brownfields. regulations on contaminated site These drawbacks have over the years been management in four different regions: North gradually addressed during multiple rounds America (the United States, Canada), Asia of the Superfund program reforms and Act (Japan and Taiwan, China), Europe amendments. Among them are the Small (European Union, United Kingdom, Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Germany, and the Netherlands) and Latin Revitalization Act (Brownfield Act) in 2002 America (Brazil and Mexico). and related brownfield initiatives and programs, which are well received by United States: The United States stakeholders, practical, and applicable to contaminated land remediation framework developing countries like China. Other largely comprises of the Comprehensive lessons learned from the United States Environmental Response, Compensation and Superfund experience include that Liability Act (CERCLA), better known as the contaminated site management bears high Superfund Act, passed in 1980. The costs and contamination containment may in Superfund Act established the primacy of the many cases be more effective than site "polluter pays principle", and holds a variety remediation. of parties (defined as potential responsible parties (PRPs) in the act) liable for the Canada: The Canadian policy framework cleanup of historical land contamination. remains highly fragmented as site viii contamination management remains a framework. In the past forty years, many responsibility of the provinces. Thus, federal developed countries have implemented involvement remains limited to financial and contaminated site management frameworks, technical assistance, as well as federal and many costly mistakes have been made, guidelines. The Canadian policy framework all of which China can learn from. highlights the complexity of contaminated site management as many different The following key conclusions can be drawn jurisdictions may be involved in from the analysis of contaminated site contaminated site management. management frameworks abroad: Clear identification of stakeholders and Asia: Japan and Taiwan (China) have mainly allocation of responsibilities: China followed the US in terms of policy. needs to balance between the "polluter Europe: European policy remains highly pays principle" and implementation fragmented among the EU member states, efficiency, to avoid lengthy and costly although a new Soil Framework Directive litigation procedures which do not (SFD) is under consideration, which would contribute to effective contaminated site make contaminated site management a management; responsibility at the EU level. The policies of Safeguard policies to contain risks three selected member states (the UK, related to existing brownfields: In many Germany and the Netherlands) are cases, rather than proceeding straight to particularly interesting in their risk-based remediation of a site, safeguards should approach, for example taking into be put in place to contain a site and consideration the intended use of a site for minimize any immediate dangers to the the establishment of target contaminant public and damage to the environment; values. Dutch policy stands out in its view of Adoption of risk-based clean-up targets: soil as a non-renewable resource and its view International experience shows that full of soil remediation as a process of restoring remediation is often excessively costly, soil functions. and that the optimal level of clean-up targets depends on the risks the site poses Latin America: As in many developing to its environment and the surrounding countries, currently there are no specific and population, which in turn largely depend comprehensive regulations for contaminated on the proximity of the brownfield to land remediation and redevelopment. But population centers and its intended use; countries like Brazil and Mexico are moving Financing mechanism: Drawing on the towards addressing brownfield remediation experience of the USA and other and redevelopment issues. countries, China needs to establish The extensive experience from other sustainable funding mechanisms for countries in contaminated site management contaminated site clean-up activities, in will facilitate China in rapidly developing an order to accelerate remediation activities effective contaminated site management on the most urgent sites. ix 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 CONTAMINATED SITE high prices of real estate and other factors, MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES more and more site investigations, risk assessments and cleanups of contaminated IN CHINA sites are taking place around China. In Recurring environmental incidents have response, governments at both central and led to increased public awareness of the provincial levels are conducting policy studies threats of environmental pollution to and scientific research projects, as well as public health and rapid urbanization is funding technology development and driving up land prices in Chinese cities. remediation demonstration projects. As a result of these developments, industrial plant relocations are numerous, It has become increasingly clear that China particularly of heavily polluting industrial needs a comprehensive policy, regulatory, plants, such as pesticide, coke, steel plants, technical, financial and management and chemical industry plants. These framework to effectively track, evaluate and relocations are leaving behind many clean up the numerous contaminated sites. contaminated sites in the cities, Currently, China has no specific law sometimes with various pollutants, as regulating contaminated site remediation and well as complex and serious soil and management. Soil protection provisions do groundwater contamination. exist in some generic legislation, in the form of air and water protection laws, solid waste Redevelopment of these contaminated laws, and toxic substance control acts. sites has led to injuries, and even deaths, However, due to their different objectives and of unprepared and ill-equipped scopes, they are often aimed at different construction workers, as a result of their aspects of the issue. As a result, existing exposure to dangerous fumes and toxic provisions, even if fully implemented, may chemicals. Reports of such incidents in not fully cover the whole range of threats the media have caused social unrest, and related to site contamination. Hence, learning caught the attention of the government at from the experiences of other countries is all levels. Public concerns over living in a essential for the Chinese government to residential building on a contaminated increase its capacity and preparedness to site have in fact led to contaminated lands manage issues related to site contamination. lying idle and abandoned. A case in point is a site in Wuhan City, which has been 1.2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF abandoned since 2006 when THE STUDY contamination was discovered during Contaminated site management is a broad construction. The government has since topic that covers a wide range of regulatory, been sued for liability. Thus, there is scientific, technological, financial and political mounting public pressure to safely aspects. The purpose of this study is to decontaminate and redevelop these sites. provide an overview of policies and As a result of this pressure, as well as regulatory frameworks for existing 1 contaminated site management and The countries and regions covered by this cleanup in developed and developing report are the United States, Canada, the countries, to review the experiences and European Union, selected EU member states lessons learnt in these countries, and to (United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany), make relevant recommendations for their Japan, China Taiwan, Brazil and Mexico. The application in China. The scope of this following five chapters are devoted each to study does not cover financing the US, Canada, Asia, Europe, and Latin mechanisms and technologies associated America respectively. A summary, discussion with contaminated site management. and recommendations for the Chinese context are provided in Chapter 7. 2 2. UNITED STATES 2.1 POLICY AND REGULATORY the "polluter pays principle", and to FRAMEWORK diminish the dangers and threats to public health and the environment posed by The United States framework for hazardous waste sites. The act stipulates contaminated site management consists that the polluter shall pay for the cleanup, mainly of the Comprehensive or that the Environmental Protection Environmental Response, Compensation Agency (EPA) pay for the cleanup first and and Liability Act (CERCLA) ­ also called subsequently sue the responsible parties for the Superfund Act ­ passed in 1980, its reimbursement. Under CERCLA, four amendments and associated programs. The classes of parties, termed "potential drawbacks of this Act have been identified responsible parties" (PRP), may be liable for and addressed over the years by a series of the contamination of a site. These PRPs are: changes, additions and reauthorizations. the current owner or operator of the site 2.1.1 Superfund Act (CERCLA section 107(a) (1)); The issue of contaminated sites first came to the owner or operator of a site at the the forefront in the US in the late 1970s time of disposal of a hazardous following catastrophic and high-profile substance, pollutant or contaminant environmental incidents such as those in the (CERCLA section 107(a) (2)); Love Canal 1 , the Times Beach, and the the person who arranged for the Valley of the Drums. In response, the US disposal of a hazardous substance, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation pollutant or contaminant at a site and Liability Act (CERCLA, 1980). CERCLA (CERCLA section 107(a) (3)); and, is commonly referred to as the Superfund the person who transported a hazardous Act because it made provisions for a specific substance, pollutant or contaminant to a trust fund. site; that transporter must have also selected that site for the disposal of the The Superfund Act was intended to provide hazardous substances, pollutants or con- the means to identify the responsible parties, taminants (CERCLA section 107(a) (4)). to fund the cleanup of impacted sites under One of the most important provisions of the 1 Love Canal is a neighborhood in Niagara Falls, New York, which became the subject of national and act is in establishing "strict, joint and several, international attention, controversy, and eventual and retroactive" liability for PRPs. "Strict environmental notoriety following the discovery of and retroactive" means that regardless of large amounts of toxic waste that had been buried beneath the neighborhood by a chemical company whether a PRP actually engaged in or which previously occupied the site. A survey contributed to the contamination, and conducted by the Love Canal Homeowners regardless of whether the act was legal at Association found that 56% of the children born from 1974-1978 had birth defects. the time or not, a PRP is liable for site 3 contamination and the Superfund Act the risks associated with releases or authorizes the EPA to compel a PRP to threats of releases of hazardous initiate site remediation. "Joint and several" substances. Although the risks means that when two or more PRPs are addressed by remedial actions are found liable for site contamination, the EPA serious, they lack the time-criticality of a may collect the entire cleanup cost from any removal action, and include such one of the parties, or from any and all of the measures as preventing the migration of parties in various amounts until the total pollutants and neutralization of toxic cost is paid in full. In other words, if any of substances. the PRPs do not have enough funds or assets to cover equal shares of the costs, the CERCLA also entailed the revision of the other parties must make up the difference. National Oil and Hazardous Substances The EPA leaves the burden of dividing Pollution Contingency Plan, commonly responsibilities and recovering the costs to referred to as the National Contingency Plan the PRPs themselves. Although this (NCP). The NCP is the US federal approach has the advantage of relieving the government's blueprint for responding to EPA of dividing responsibilities between both oil spills and hazardous substance PRPs, it has also led to massive litigations releases; it can be found at 40 C.F.R Part 300. among parties, in which "deep pocket" The NCP provided the guidelines and parties were in a better position to legally procedures needed to respond to releases protect themselves, leading to unfair and threats of releases of hazardous disadvantages to small enterprises. substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The NCP also established the National Priorities CERCLA authorizes two kinds of response List (NPL). The NPL, which appears as actions: Appendix B to the NCP, primarily serves as an information and management tool for the Removal actions. These are typically EPA, and helps the Agency prioritize sites short-term response actions, which are for cleanup. The NPL is updated periodically. taken to address spills or imminent The identification of a site for the NPL is spills requiring prompt response. intended primarily to guide the EPA in: Removal actions are classified as: (1) emergency; (2) time-critical; and (3) determining which sites warrant further non-time-critical. Removal responses are investigation and assessment regarding generally used to address localized risks the nature and extent of the human such as abandoned drums containing health and environmental risks hazardous substances, contaminated associated with the sites; surface soils posing acute risks to identifying what CERCLA-financed human health or the environment, etc. remedial actions may be appropriate; Remedial actions. These are usually notifying the public of sites the EPA more long-term response actions than a believes warrant further investigation; removal action. Remedial actions and, permanently and significantly reduce 4 serving notice to potentially responsible 5. increased the focus on human health parties that the EPA may initiate problems posed by hazardous waste sites; CERCLA-financed remedial action. 6. encouraged greater citizen participation in making decisions on how sites should 2.1.2 Superfund Amendments and be cleaned up; and Reauthorization Act (SARA) 7. increased the size of the trust fund. When CERCLA was passed in 1980, the authorities were ill-prepared. Little was 2.1.3 Small Business Liability Relief known about the nature and extent of site and Brownfields Revitalization contamination in US; and technologies for Act (Brownfield Act) contaminated site cleanup were very limited. As a result, the cleanup of the superfund The serious liability entailed by the sites was slow and costly. In addition, the Superfund Act keeps potential land law kept the enforcement and many other developers and investors away from superfund activities at the federal level, contaminated sites, leaving many leaving the states and local communities contaminated lands abandoned or idling. insufficiently engaged. Most importantly, They are referred to as brownfields. money in the trust fund quickly ran out. The Brownfields are the "real property, the Superfund Amendments and expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of Reauthorization Act (SARA) amended the which may be complicated by the presence CERCLA on October 17, 1986; the or potential presence of a hazardous amendment re-authorized and enlarged the substance, pollutant, or contaminant" fund. SARA, to a large extent, reflects the (definition from Public Law 107­118). In the American experience in implementing the early 1990's, the U.S. Conference of Mayors complex Superfund program during its first stated that `brownfields' are one of the most six years; it made several important changes critical problems facing cities. EPA and additions to the program, namely it: estimates there were 0.5 to 1 million Brownfield sites in the U.S. The escalating 1. stressed the importance of permanent brownfield problem has led to several major amendments to the Superfund Act; one remedies and innovative treatment important amendment is the Small Business technologies in cleaning up hazardous Liability Relief and Brownfields waste sites; Revitalization Act (Brownfield Act). This act 2. required Superfund actions to consider provides for liability relief as follows: the standards and requirements found in other State and Federal 1. Small business liability exemption (de environmental laws and regulations; micromis exemption): Exempts PRPs 3. provided new enforcement authorities disposing of <110 gallons of liquids or and settlement tools; <200 pounds of solids and small 4. increased State involvement in every businesses that disposed of only MSW phase of the Superfund program; from liability for NPL cleanup; 5 2. No future federal enforcement: Parties 2.2 CLEAN-UP CRITERIA doing cleanups under state voluntary Cleanups falling under the Superfund programs are protected against future program must assure protection of health Superfund enforcement; and the environment, and be cost-effective 3. Migrating pollution: The act provides in both the long-term and the short-term. protection from having to clean up SARA furthermore requires that cleanups pollution from an off-site source; meet applicable federal and state 4. Due diligence: The act allows the environmental standards, but the EPA may so-called "due diligence" (DD) defense waive a requirement when: for innocent perspective purchasers to fend off Superfund liability. The the action is part of a larger remedial precondition for the due diligence action that will meet the standards; defense is that the purchaser must have compliance would result in a greater conducted "all appropriate inquiries" risk than alternative options; (AAI) prior to acquisition. AAI entails compliance is impractical from an that all appropriate inquiries or engineering perspective; investigations of a property's an equivalent standard of performance environmental conditions must be is attained; undertaken, as well as a professional in the case of a state standard, the state assessment of potential liability for any has not consistently applied the contaminations. In this respect, the EPA standard elsewhere; or, accepts the American Society for Testing meeting the standard does not provide a and Materials (ASTM) E1527-05 balance between the need for protection standards on what constitutes AAI. If of health and the environment at the the party follows the ASTM's AAI facility, and the availability of amounts standards, it satisfies innocent in the fund to respond to other sites that landowner defense, which allows the also present a threat. party to avoid potential Superfund liability. SARA specifically requires cleanups to meet the Safe Drinking Water Act's recommended maximum contaminant The Brownfield Act also provides funds for levels (RMCLs), and the Clean Water Act's site assessment, cleanup and community job water quality criteria. Under SARA, the training for brownfield redevelopment. The EPA is directed to choose permanent Brownfield Act appears to be quite remedies when possible, as opposed to successful and is gaining wider support burying wastes in landfills. If a from stakeholders, such as local residents, nonpermanent treatment is employed, EPA land developers, landowners, investors and must review the site every five years to see local government. The program also funds if it presents a threat. States are given the the involvement of NGOs in brownfield opportunity to take an active role in assessment. choosing the cleanup method. 6 standardize and accelerate the evaluation In the initial stages of the Superfund, and cleanup of contaminated sites. The SSG contaminant removal and permanent provides site managers with a tiered cleanup were the main objectives. However, framework for developing risk-based, as high costs, technical impracticability and site-specific soil screening levels (SSLs). other obstacles became apparent over time, SSLs are not national cleanup standards; risk management became the main focus in instead, they are used to identify areas, setting cleanup standards. A common chemicals, and pathways of concern at sites concept in brownfield discussions is the that need further investigation through the `risk-based approach'. With a risk-based Remedial Investigation /Feasibility Study approach, it is recognized that and those that require no further action contamination does not, in itself, pose risks under CERCLA. In general, areas with to the environment and general public measured concentrations of contaminants (receptors). For there to be a risk to below SSLs may be exempted from further environment and public, there also need to federal attention; if actual contaminant be pathways to convey and expose the concentration in the soil is at or above SSLs, hazards; and there need to be sensitive further study, though not necessarily receptors. Thus, different environmental cleanup, is warranted. The three-tiered settings and land use will lead to different framework includes a set of conservative levels of risk. Rather than just considering and generic SSLs, a simple site-specific the option of "complete and permanent" approach for calculating SSLs, and a removal of contaminants, under a detailed site-specific modeling approach for risk-based approach, the risk is managed more comprehensive consideration of site either by containing the contamination, conditions in establishing SSLs. In 2002, setting restrictions on land use, or cleaning the EPA updated the 1996 SSG, keeping the up the contaminations to an acceptable risk soil screening framework in the original level. Currently, the Risk Based Corrective guidance while adding new scenarios and Action (RBCA) approach, developed by the exposure pathways, and incorporating new ASTM, is used by most states as a modeling data. Over time, the EPA has been framework for developing risk-based clean increasingly focusing on site-specific up criteria (refer to Table 2-1 below). development of SSLs (USEPA 2002). Presented below are two widely cited sets of guidelines, in the US and internationally, 2.2.2 EPA Region 9 Preliminary related to cleanup standards. Remediation Goals (PRGs) and Regional Screening Levels (RSL) 2.2.1 USEPA Soil Screening This set of guidelines, often called R9 PRGs for short, not only provides soil cleanup Guidance (SSG) values in a table form, but also has detailed In 1996, the EPA issued the Soil Screening technical information on calculating Guidance (SSG), a set of guidelines site-specific cleanup goals. PRGs are developed by the Agency to help frequently updated with toxicity values and 7 chemical physical constants. Exceeding a Table 2-1 for State Guidance Documents PRG suggests that further evaluation of and Values) contamination risks is appropriate. PRGs are chemical concentrations that correspond to fixed levels of risk (i.e. either a one-in-a million [10-6] cancer risk or a non-carcinogenic hazard quotient of 1 in soil, air, and water) (USEPA, 1996). Though their initial purposes or intended uses were different, in practice SSLs and PRGs are both derived from risk screening processes and function in similar ways. As a result, recently Region 9 PRGs have been harmonized with the risk-based screening levels used by Regions 3 and 6 into a single table: "Regional Screening Levels (RSL) for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites." These updated (May 2010) screening levels, along with a detailed user's guide and supplementary tables, can be accessed directly at USEPA website2. In addition, the website contains a Screening Level Calculator to facilitate calculations of site-specific screening levels. 2.2.3 State Guidance Documents and Values Each state has the jurisdiction and responsibility to protect the environment in accordance with Federal Law (e.g. Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act), and to enact laws as required. Most states have adopted a risk-based approach. However, each state interprets "risk-based" differently. Most states provide the methods for determining site-specific cleanup levels (refer to 2 See: http://www.epa.gov/region9/superfund/ prg/index.html. 8 Table 2-1 Summary of State Guidance Values, Standards and Programs States Criteria Alabama: Risk-based Corrective Action Alaska: Contaminated Sites Program Arizona: Soil Remediation Levels Arkansas ADEQ Hazardous Waste Division California OEHHA Standards/CHHSLs/Soil Screening Numbers/San Francisco Board of Water Screening Levels Colorado Soil Remediation Objectives Remediation Standard Regulations (RSRs); Proposed Remediation Standard Connecticut Regulations Delaware Remediation Standards Guidance Florida Soil Cleanup Target Levels Idaho Risk Evaluation Manual Illinois Risk-Based Cleanup Objectives Indiana Risk Integrated System of Closure (RISC) Iowa Statewide Standards for Soils in the Land Recycling Program Kansas Risk-Based Standards Kentucky Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) Louisiana Risk Evaluation/Corrective Action Program (RECAP) Maine Remedial Action Guidelines for Contaminated Soils Maximum Exposure Guidelines (MEGs) Maryland Generic Numeric Cleanup Standards for Groundwater and Soil Massachusetts Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) Michigan Part 201 Generic Cleanup Criteria Minnesota Soil Reference Values (SRVs) Mississippi Target Remediation Goals (TRGs) Missouri Cleanup Action Levels in Missouri (CALM) Missouri Risk-Based Corrective Actions for Tanks and Other Programs Montana Risk-Based Screening Levels (RBSLs) Montana Voluntary Cleanup and Redevelopment Act Nebraska Risk-based Screening Levels New Hampshire Risk Characterization and Management Policy New Jersey Soil Cleanup Criteria New Mexico Soil Screening Levels (SSLs) New York Determination of Soil Cleanup Objectives and Cleanup Levels Ohio Generic Cleanup Numbers Oregon Risk-Based Concentrations Pennsylvania Medium Specific Concentrations (MSCs) Rhode Island Metals Background Levels South Carolina Risk-Based Corrective Action for Tanks 9 States Criteria South Dakota Look-Up Tables Tennessee Cleanup Criteria for Petroleum Contaminated Sites Texas State Cleanup Levels Utah RCLs for UST Sites Virginia Voluntary Remediation Program Risk Assessment Guidance Washington: Cleanup Levels and Risk Calculations (CLARC) Site-specific Levels West Virginia Risk-Based Concentrations (RBCs) Wisconsin Remediation Levels Soil Cleanup Levels Look-Up Table Under the Voluntary Remediation Wyoming Program Sourced from: http://www.cleanuplevels.com/ 2.3 SUPERFUND CLEANUP PROCESS Liability Information System (CERCLIS), the EPA's computerized inventory of potential The Superfund cleanup process begins with hazardous substance release sites. EPA then site discovery or notification to the EPA of evaluates the potential for a release of possible releases of hazardous substances. hazardous substances from the site, following Sites are discovered by various parties, the steps listed in Table 2-2 outlining the including citizens, State agencies, and EPA Superfund Cleanup Process. Community Regional offices. Once discovered, sites are involvement, enforcement, and emergency entered into the Comprehensive response can occur at any time in the process. Environmental Response, Compensation, and 10 Table 2-2 Superfund Cleanup Process Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection Investigations of site conditions. If the release of hazardous substances requires PA/SI immediate or short-term response actions, these are addressed under the Emergency Response program of the Superfund. National Priorities List (NPL) Site Listing Process NPL Listing Listing of the most serious sites identified for possible long-term cleanup. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Determination of the nature and extent of contamination, assessment the RI/FS treatability of site contamination and evaluation the potential performance and cost of treatment technologies. Records of Decision Recording which cleanup method will be used at NPL sites. When cleanup ROD costs exceed US$25 million, they are reviewed by the National Remedy Review Board. Remedial Design/Remedial Action Preparation and implementation of plans and specifications for applying site RD/RA remedies. The bulk of the cleanup usually occurs during this phase. All new fund-financed remedies are reviewed by the National Priorities Panel. Construction Completion Construction Completion of physical cleanup construction, although this does not necessarily Completion indicate whether final cleanup levels have been achieved. Post Construction Completion Post Ensures that Superfund response actions provide long-term protection of Construction human health and the environment. Included here are Long-Term Response Completion Actions (LTRA), Operation and Maintenance, Institutional Controls, Five-Year Reviews and Remedy Optimization. National Priorities List Deletion NPL Delete Removes a site from the NPL once all response actions are complete and all cleanup goals have been achieved. Site Reuse/Redevelopment Cooperation with communities and other partners, to seek local know-how and Reuse investigate local planning and development needs. Return hazardous waste sites to safe and productive use. Sourced from: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/index.htm 11 2.4 SUPERFUND REFORMS AND tax basis and revenues, and increase of LESSONS FOR CHINA unemployment. The Superfund Act, by any standard, is one 2. Efficiency. The law was passed in of the most comprehensive laws regulating response to public outcry and in a political contaminated site cleanup and management. rush. In the first 9 years of implementation, Not only has it been pivotal in contaminated the program was hindered by problems site management in US, it also has and challenges such as duplicate and contributed a great deal to contaminated site management framework development in inefficient procedures, lack of detailed many other countries, including Japan and policy and specific regulations, lack of Canada. Many countries mirrored the technical knowledge on site Superfund Act for drafting their own contamination, unrealistic expectations of regulations. the cleanup progress, unavailability of effective and proven cleanup technologies, While widespread public and political and unrealistic risk assessment and support for cleaning up the contaminated cleanup standards. As a result, the sites persists in the US, the Superfund has Superfund program was widely perceived been burdened with disagreements and to be slow and costly. controversy from its inception. The CERCLA was passed in the last days of the 96th 3. State, local and public participation. Congress in a reactive flurry over the Love Initially the law did not involve the states Canal disaster. Over the years, and especially and local communities. Thus, it lacked in the earlier years, concerns and criticisms support from local communities, and it on the Superfund program have mainly remained unable to effect environmental focused on the following areas (Powell 1998): justice for impoverished inner cities where brownfields were concentrated. In fact, as 1. Liability. The law established the the Superfund Act, in its early stages, did principle of "strict, joint and several, and not consider the future use of sites, it retroactive" liability. While supporters separated local land planning and land claim it has successfully changed US redevelopment from the cleanup and hazardous waste management and management process of the contaminated corporation environmental behavior, lands. critics say it has also led to massive litigation and entails an unfair burden to Faced with mounting criticism in the course innocent and small business parties. Most of the late 1980's, the EPA began promoting importantly, it has resulted in many administrative changes to improve the contaminated sites remaining idle and Superfund program in 1989 by publishing the undeveloped, the so called "brownfields". "90-Day Study," which focused on aspects of These brownfields in turn cause many effective enforcement, expediting cleanup community problems such as decrease of response, and encouraging community participation. In June 1991, the EPA convened 12 another 30-day study task force whose work Mostly due to political reasons3, the Superfund culminated in initiatives to: (USEPA, 1994) reauthorization failed in 1995. 1. set aggressive cleanup targets; While there are many lessons that may be 2. streamline the Superfund process; drawn from the Superfund's experience over 3. prioritize high risk sites; the last three decades, the three key lessons 4. accelerate private party cleanups; can be drawn for China from the Superfund 5. refocus the debate on Superfund progress; experience include: and 6. review risk assessment and risk 1. Although the "polluter pays principle" is management policies. fair in theory, it may run into insurmountable problems when put to Both the "90-Day Study" and the "30-Day practice where numerous polluters may Study" provided the framework for the first have contributed to a site's contamination, set of Superfund administrative as in the case of China's numerous improvements. Based on these studies, the landfills, or dumping sites; EPA initiated Superfund Round 1 Reform, 2. Removal of contaminants from relocated which was announced in June 1993. This industrial sites may not be the only or reform encompassed nine new initiatives that even the final objective: management of were designed to: contaminant exposure risk, and its resulting threats to public health and the 1. increase enforcement fairness and reduce environment may be more important; and transaction costs; 3. Remediation of contaminated sites can be 2. improve cleanup effectiveness and very costly. Sustainable revenues and consistency; dedicated funds are required to support 3. expand meaningful public involvement; remediation of land contamination. and Priorities include developing mechanisms 4. enhance the states' role in the Superfund for land remediation and establishment of program; environmental remediation funds. 5. In addition, the EPA adopted eight continuing initiatives from the 90- and 30-day studies that were designed to improve the overall efficiency, effectiveness, and fairness of the Superfund program. Following Round 1, the EPA conducted 3 The elections of 1994 brought a Republican majority to both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Round 2 and 3 in 1995, in an effort to provide The new Congress did not share some of the basic a new mandate for the Superfund program. assumptions of its predecessors regarding the Superfund Act. In fact, many of the newly elected members of Congress favored repealing the Act altogether 13 2.5 PROCEDURE OF BROWNFIELD site assessment as well as risk and liability REDEVELOPMENT assessment. In some cases, apart from supervision, the government does not Lessons learnt from and reforms undertaken intervene in land redevelopment processes regarding the Superfund Act and its unless the developer violates certain rules. associated superfund programs led to the However, in the past ten to twenty years, Brownfield Act of 2002 and brownfield governments, especially local governments, programs. Figure 2.1 below presents the have become more and more active in procedure of brownfield redevelopment. providing technical, financial and policy Unlike the lengthy and complicated support to private parties in order to facilitate superfund site cleanup procedure, the revitalization of distressed areas. brownfield procedure is simpler and more streamlined. In brief, to develop a site, Local communities are one of the key whether polluted or not, developers have to resources for government supervision, as conduct the Phase I environmental site these have first-hand knowledge of the site's assessment (ESA) as a due diligence process history and demand for site planning and to satisfy the AAI requirement for future design, and ultimately are the final liability defense. If no contamination is beneficiaries of the site improvement. Among observed, developers can proceed with the the stakeholders, local communities are most site as normal real estate development. If concerned about the area's future as their evidence of contamination exists, Phase II site immediate interests are linked to the project assessment should be conducted. During development. Over decades, public scrutiny Phase II, the developers have to conduct a of environmental behavior has been placed in more careful investigation to identify the type, a paramount position: legislators have been quantity, and extent of the contamination. creating opportunities for community Based on this information, the developers participation, and the EPA requests public have to propose remedial options that are hearings and public filings of all both environmentally acceptable and property-related documents, in order to financially feasible (Li Xin, 2011). ensure public participation and information transparency. On the government's side, each governmental level assumes different responsibilities. Typically, federal and state In effect, evidence has shown that the success governments set up remediation standards of a project depends on whether it and rules on liability designation, which form incorporates the concerns of all stakeholders the regulatory framework for environmental into the process. 14 Figure 2-1 Redevelopment Process of Brownfield Act of 2002 Select Brownfield Site Phase I: Site Assessment and Due Diligence Obtain background information of site to determine if any of contamination and legal and financial risks - If there appears to be no contamination, begin redevelopment activities - If the site is potentially contaminated, conduct Phase II site investigation Phase II: Site Investigation Sample the site to identify the nature and extent of the contamination - If the contamination does not pose health or environmental risk, begin redevelopment activities - If there is high level of contamination, reassess the viability of project Evaluate Remedial Options Compile and assess possible remedial alternatives - If the remedial alternatives do not appear to be feasible, determine whether redevelopment is a viable option. Develop Remedy Implementation Plan Coordinate with stakeholders to design a remedy implementation plan Remedy Implementation - If additional contamination is discovered during the remedy implementation process, return to the site assessment phase to determine the extent of the contamination Begin Redevelopment Activities Source: Li Xin, 2011 (with author modifications) 15 3. CANADA 3.1 POLICY AND REGULATION Canada has established the Federal Contaminated Site Management Framework, Canadian soil pollution laws tend to be an integrated package of policies and best adopted on the provincial level and vary practice advisories for the establishment of a among jurisdictions. However, most consistent approach to the management of provincial regulations share the following federal contaminated sites. In 2003, the features: the "polluter pays principle"; government established the Federal retroactive liability for polluters; Contaminated Site Accelerated Action Plan, to non-polluters may also be held liable, on quicken the remediation of contaminated sites the basis of control of either the for which the federal government is contaminating activity or the responsible, especially of those that pose contaminated site; and personal liability, greatest risks to human health and the in some cases for officers and directors. In environment. effect, Canadian regulations are therefore quite similar to the regulations under the Relevant legislation and administrative American Superfund Act. policies at the federal level include the 1998 "Canadian Environmental Protection Act", the At the federal level, the technical 1996 "Guidance Manual for Developing guidelines, encompassing contaminated Site-specific Soil Quality Remediation sites, have been set by the cross-province Objectives for Contaminated Sites in Canada", coordination council, the Canadian and the 1997 "Recommended Canadian Soil Council of Ministers of the Environment Quality Guidelines" (Rodrigues, 2009). (CCME). It was the CCME in 1989 (nine years after the passing of the US Each Canadian province and territory is Superfund Act) that took its first major responsible for the development of their own step in dealing with the contaminated remediation criteria and guidelines for sites problem in Canada, by establishing contaminated site management, as well as the the National Contaminated Sites procedures for site-specific risk assessment Remediation Program (NCSRP), which implementation. In British Columbia and the was designed to provide both human and Yukon Territory, a stronger regulatory financial resources to jurisdictions across approach to direct the remediation and the country, to carry out the processes of redevelopment process has been taken, identifying and assessing contaminated whereby comprehensive legislation dealing sites and remediating high-risk `orphan with contaminated sites has been developed sites' (i.e. abandoned sites without and all aspects of the management of this proprietors), as well as to conduct process have been assigned to an overseeing research on issues such as remediation environmental department. Other regions, technologies, liability policies, and such as Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba, Nova clean-up criteria (Sousa, 2001). Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, 16 and Quebec, have adopted 3.2.1 Interim Canadian Environmental non-enforceable guidelines for clean-up Quality Criteria for Contaminated and redevelopment activities, allowing Sites the private sector greater leeway to regulate its own activities. The remaining Two sets of criteria -- site assessment criteria regions, such as Saskatchewan, and site remediation criteria -- are used for the Newfoundland, and the Northwest investigation of contaminated sites and the Territories which are in the process of definition of clean-up goals in Canada. updating their policies, are taking an National guidelines comprise both generic soil approach that is similar to the latter. quality criteria and guidance for developing site-specific criteria. The NCSRP has The Canadian Legislation, Policy and published environmental quality guidelines Guideline List for Contaminated Sites are for soil and water for initial assessment provided in Appendix B. The basic purposes (Assessment Criteria) and for setting framework is very similar to the US remedial targets for specific land use framework. (Remediation Criteria). 3.2 CLEAN-UP CRITERIA The Interim Assessment criteria present approximate background concentrations, In Canada, the provinces and territories which serve as benchmark values against are responsible for developing their own which the initial assessment of the degree of generic criteria and guidelines for contamination at a site can be made. The site-specific clean-up. The national Interim Remediation Criteria for soil are guidelines, developed and updated by the presented in the context of three types of land CCME (1991, 1996, 1997), contain both generic indices and suggestions for use, namely: agricultural; residential developing site specific criteria. These /parkland; and commercial/industrial. The have been directly adopted only by the criteria are generally protective of human and Northwest Territories and Manitoba; the environmental health for specified uses of soil other regions have used these primarily and water at contaminated sites. as a basis for developing their own criteria. Clean-up criteria are legally 3.2.2 Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines binding standards in British Columbia Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines (CSoQGs) and the Yukon Territory, while the other consider both human health and ecological provinces employ more flexible receptors. The final guidelines are set to guidelines that are not legally enforceable. protect the more sensitive of the two. CSoQGs Some regions have recently based their can be used as a benchmark to evaluate the clean-up approach on the Risk-Based need for further investigation or remediation Corrective Action (RBCA) model used in with respect to a specified land use. the US. (Rodrigues, 2009). Guidelines are applied to identify and classify sites, to assess the general degree of contamination at a site and to determine the 17 need for further action and as a basis for Originally funded primarily through a tax on remediation objectives. the chemical and petrochemical industries, the U.S. Superfund is used to address 3.3 CONTAMINATED SITE contamination of old and abandoned sites, REMEDIATION FRAMEWORK regardless of ownership. Action on seriously contaminated sites may take place before costs Components of the Contaminated Site have been recovered from responsible parties. Remediation Framework (CSRF) include: The NCSRP only covers contaminated sites under federal responsibility. Provinces, site assessment; municipalities and private landowners are identification of risks to the responsible for contaminated sites under their environment and human health; jurisdictions. evaluation of different remediation and risk management options; The Superfund program cleans up the nation's selection of a remediation technology uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and deals or risk management option; with emergency response activities, such as completion of an environmental spills. The NCSRP program does not deal with assessment of the proposed clean-up emergency response. In Canada, the polluter technology; is generally responsible for all costs and implementation of a remediation or actions needed to bring an emergency under site management strategy; and control, as well as the clean-up of any post-remediation monitoring. hazardous substances. Government agencies at the provincial, territorial and federal levels 3.4 NATIONAL CONTAMINATED have a shared responsibility for ensuring this SITE REMEDIATION PROGRAM work is effectively carried out and for providing technical assistance as required. (NCSRP) VS. THE SUPERFUND Which agency is responsible for a specific case, PROGRAM IN THE UNITED is determined by the location of the STATES emergency and the affected environment (land, water, inland, coastal, northern, etc.)4. There are several similarities between the NCSRP and the U.S. Superfund program. Both programs are based on the "polluter pays principle", and both programs use a system of prioritization that allows those sites considered as "highest risk" to be addressed first. 4 See: http://www.federalcontaminatedsites.gc.ca. 18 4. ASIA 4.1 OVERVIEW OF THE ASIAN 4.2 JAPAN SITUATION Unlike many Asian countries, Japan has a Soil and groundwater contaminations in relatively advanced soil and groundwater the Asian region arise from rapid regulatory framework in place. industrialization and poor environmental management. Policy and regulatory frameworks in Asia have lagged behind 4.2.1 Soil those in the US, Canada and Europe, but Soil pollution legislation was first issued in are now evolving rapidly. Most Asian August 1991, and amended in 1994 under the countries do not have specific regulations Basic Environmental Law. The Soil Pollution for soil and groundwater contamination Control Law, 2002, listed specific management. Provisions for site/soil contaminated industrial sites and substances, contamination management are indirectly and allowable concentrations. regulated or embedded in general statements of environmental law. Most The approach taken in Japan is that certain policies and legislation are of a highly industrial categories require soil assessment, general nature. Responsibility, liability such as petrochemical, polluting factories and and standards are often not clearly oil refineries. If a company does not fall under defined, although the basis for most one of the listed categories, it is not required regulations is the "polluter pays to do an assessment. These regulations seem principle". However, this principle is only to be focused more on soil than on applicable when the polluter can be groundwater, even though they do include identified. If this is not the case, liability groundwater regulations. There are currently falls back on the current owner or the 25 chemical substances listed with soil quality government. To enforce this properly, standards that the Japanese EPA can use for better legislation will need to be evaluation. formulated. Japanese regulations do not address the Japan and Taiwan (China) are exceptions. determination of liable or responsible parties. In general, having followed the US, they have comprehensive regulations in place, The Japan Soil Contamination Counter-measure and have adopted a risk-based approach Law (SCCL) was recently amended and to site remediation (thus keeping pace announced in April 2009. The drivers for such with the US framework). Their amendments were: regulations have adopted the "polluter pays principle", also in addition to setting An increased number of soil up remediation funds, similar to the contamination cases were found by means Superfund approach in the US. 19 of self-inspection (voluntary effort). risk of inhalation of the contaminated soil or Information about contaminated sites the substance, or ingestion e.g. by drinking needed to be available publicly to contaminated groundwater), Designated encourage better management; Areas are divided into two sub-classifications. More specifically, under the Amended SCCL, Soil excavation and removal was the Designated Areas are sub-classified into previously performed regardless of (i) areas requiring remediation; and (ii) areas the presence of any health risk. The where authorities must be notified when the need was felt for a framework in area is developed, and then registered which remediation methods accordingly. Additionally, the amendments correspond to the degree of severity of provide for remediation measures that must contamination and the level of be implemented for each sub-classification. environmental and public health risk, namely taking into account whether - Areas requiring remediation there are any sensitive receptors in the Land is placed in this sub-category when: vicinity and whether there are pathways for exposure of the the soil contains one or more of the 25 contamination to the environment and specified substances at levels above the public. statutory threshold in the Amended SCCL; There was a perceived need for proper this contamination causes, or will likely management of excavated soil, lead to, damage to human health either by following cases of improper disposal inhalation, ingestion, bodily contact or by of contaminated soil. drinking groundwater contaminated with the substance in question. The amendments became effective on April 1, 2010 (Ohta, 2010). For these areas, the prefectural governor requires any persons who own, administer or The pre-April 1st SCCL set out specific occupy the land ("Landowners etc.") to statutory limits for 25 specified harmful implement measures such as raising the substances. If any of these substances ground level, containing the contamination, were found in concentrations that and any other implementation measures that exceeded the relevant limits, and there are specifically required, including monitoring was a human health risk, then the land the contaminated groundwater. Further, will be classified as a designated area making any other changes to the land itself for ("Designated Area"). development or other reasons are, as a general rule, prohibited. The Amended SCCL includes Designated Areas that contains one or more of the - Areas where authorities must be notified specified substances in amounts that in the case of development exceed the statutory contamination This designation applies to land which threshold. Depending on the existence or contains one or more of the 25 specified likelihood of a risk to human health (i.e., substances at levels above the statutory 20 threshold, but where contamination does Enables Landowners etc. to identify the not cause, or is unlikely to cause, damage existence of soil contamination through a to human health. For land in this category, voluntary investigation, and request the remediation is not required until the land prefectural governor to categorize the land is to be developed, at which time the as a Designated Area based on the results Landowner etc. is required to give prior of the voluntary investigation if necessary; notification to the prefectural governor Strictly regulates the disposal of any and the area must be remediated in contaminated soil by requiring that (i) the accordance with the stipulations of the level of contamination of the 25 substances relevant Ministerial Ordinance. must be checked before any soil is If this newly created sub-classification of excavated and removed from the site, (ii) land becomes common and well accepted the removed soil must be treated by a in real estate transactions, then it is licensed factory or plant, (iii) a license will possible that brownfield issues in Japan now be required in order to may be resolved to some extent. However, remove/transport, dispose of and treat the because the new amendments also further contaminated soil, (iv) a manifest system regulate excavation and the removal of must be adopted. contaminated soil, this will increase excavation and removal costs, and 4.2.2 Groundwater Landowners etc. may refuse to take these remedial measures. Instead, Landowners The Environment Protection Agency established etc. may abandon contaminated land as the Environmental Quality Standard (EQS) for unsellable and/or not beneficial to develop groundwater in March 1997. if remediation is required. This sub-classification would then result in an There is a list of 24 chemical substances with expanded number of designated groundwater quality standards. These apply brownfields, but not necessarily any to all groundwater with the aim of protecting improvement in brownfield remediation. public water resources. Groundwater usage in Japan is not very common but it is used in The Amended SCCL also: some remote areas. Accidental releases of harmful substances and oil must be reported Includes provisions that trigger a soil immediately, and responsible industries will investigation whenever changes are have to pay a compensation if human health made to an area of land over 3,000 or the environment are affected. square meters in size; Aims to make soil contamination The Ordinance on Prevention of Groundwater reporting and investigations an Contamination came into force on August 1, expected component of real estate 2008, in Shiga Prefecture (in the Kinki Region) transactions. The success of these new of Japan. This was the first ordinance in Japan measures will depend on the level of that catered for groundwater pollution public awareness of soil prevention as well as pollution clean-up contamination; measures. 21 This ordinance attracted attention due to disclosed to the public by the Taiwan EPA; the obligation to investigate lands and and the site seriously endangers the national facilities that were decommissioned prior health and living environment. to the enforcement of the SCCL. Information about a site is required to be The ordinance also required that entered by the occupying enterprise into an monitoring wells be installed in facilities online database system, the Tier-I and Tier-II that handle hazardous substances, and Risk Assessment System, which has been that groundwater monitoring reports be developed by the Taiwan EPA. The system submitted to relevant authorities. classifies the site according to its risk level. 4.3 TAIWAN, CHINA The polluter of a remediation site is required to draw up a "Remediation Plan", but the Taiwan (China) regulations, to a large polluter can conduct their own risk extent, mirror the US Superfund program. assessment and set site-specific remedial Taiwan has a regulatory framework in targets to replace the generic standards for place which is governed by the Taiwan certain uses by considering three main Environmental Protection Administration pathways: ingestion, dermal contact, and (EPA), and operates under the Soil and inhalation of air from the soil. Site-specific Groundwater Pollution Remediation Act remediation plans are subject to approval by of February 2000. It is based on the the Taiwan EPA. "polluter pays principle". The Taiwan EPA has established the Soil and Polluted sites are classified based on the Groundwater Pollution Remediation Fund, a Soil Pollution Control Standards and fund similar to the US Superfund, to deal with Groundwater Pollution Control Standards. the legal, administrative, and remediation A detailed database of polluted sites is costs where responsible parties cannot be maintained. Contaminated sites are identified. This fund is financed by a specific grouped into two categories: tax on polluting industries, such as the petroleum, petrochemical and manufacturing Pollution Control Site: The source of soil industries. and groundwater pollution on the site has been identified and concentrations have exceeded the Soil and Groundwater Pollution Control Standards. Pollution Remediation Site: The site has been assessed and the information 22 5. EUROPE This chapter reviews contaminated site contaminations are still covered under management in the European Union (EU) individual state policies. as a whole, and three of its member countries -- the U.K, Germany, and the In addition, several coordinating agencies and Netherlands. programs have been set up by industry, researchers and member states in order to 5.1 CONTAMINATED SITE disseminate and exchange scientific MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK information regarding contaminated sites in Europe and abroad, including: During the last 20 to 30 years, soil protection policies have been developed CARACAS: Concerted Action on Risk and implemented in a stepwise manner, Assessment for Contaminated Sites in both nationally (particularly in the UK, Europe; the Netherlands and Germany) and at the EU level. Plans for the introduction of CLARINET: Contaminated Land measures and requirements for EU Rehabilitation Network for Environmental Member States to prevent new soil Technologies; contamination and remediate existing soil NICOLE: Network for Industrially contamination include the development Contaminated Land in Europe; of inventories of contaminated sites and NATO/CCMS: Evaluation of the definition of targets for prioritization Demonstrated and Emerging Technologies of remediation actions. These plans are for the Treatment of Contaminated Land expected to have important consequences and Groundwater. for soil management practice and national soil policies across Europe. (Rodrigues, 2009) Soil protection has not, to date, been subject to a specific legislative instrument at the EU level. The EU directives allow the union to play A number of aspects directly or indirectly a role in overseeing environmental related to soil contamination and remediation policy-making related to contaminated issues are addressed by waste, water, chemical, sites. As a first step towards a more impact assessment, environmental liability, comprehensive EU policy-making and air quality policies. These policies (that strategy regarding contaminated sites, a are not primarily oriented towards soil White Paper on Environmental Liability protection) focus mostly on regional rather was prepared to help harmonize the than local contamination and are limited when environmental legislation of member dealing with historical contamination and site states (European Commission, 1997). The development issues. A summary of these White Paper, however, deals with future polices is provided in Table 5-1. contamination, whereas past 23 Table 5-1 EU Environmental Policy Related to Contaminated Aspects Diffuse soil Local soil EU Environmental Policies contamination aspects contamination aspects Directly Indirectly Directly Indirectly Waste Waste Framework Directive (2006/12/EC, codified version of Directive 75/442/EEC as amended) Directive 91/689/EEC on Hazardous Waste, amended in 1994 Directive on the Disposal of Waste Oils (75/439/EEC amended in 2000) Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC) Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC) Directive2006/21/EC on the management of waste from the extractive industries Water Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) Bathing Water Directive (2006/7/EC) Air Quality Framework Directive Air (96/62/EC) and its Daughter Directives Directive on National Emissions Ceilings (2001/81/EC) Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (96/61/EC) Directive on Large Combustion Plants (LCPD) (2001/80/EC) Thematic strategy on the sustainable use Chemicals of pesticides Directive on Biocidal Products (98/8/EC) 62 Directive 91/414/EEC on plant protection products Environmental Impact Assessment Impact Directive (85/337/EEC amended in 1997 assessment and 2003) Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive (SEA) (2001/42/EC) Directive 2004/35/EC on environmental Environmen liability with regard to the prevention and tal liability remedying of environmental damage Source: Rodrigues, 2009. 24 5.2 STRATEGIES 5.2.2 EU Soil Framework Directive The view of soil as a non-renewable As discussed above, the Sixth Community resource is gaining wide support in the Environment Action Program called for the European Union. The sustainable development of a soil-protection strategy. development strategy 6th Environment Prior to this, soil had not been subjected to a Action Program (6th EAP) for the years specific protection policy at the EU level, 2000­2010 features seven thematic although some elements of soil protection can strategies, including one on soil be found in other EU policies, for example protection. those involving areas such as water, waste, chemical, pesticide and industrial pollution 5.2.1 Thematic Strategy on Soil prevention, as well as the protection of nature. Protection A common framework was justified in order to articulate the efforts of the member states to In order to address contaminated site improve the protection of soil and its identification and remediation, in sustainable use, to control trans-boundary September 2006 the Commission adopted soil-degradation effects, to protect aquatic and a proposal for a Thematic Strategy on Soil terrestrial eco-systems, and to preclude the Protection. This Strategy contains a distortion of competition between economic proposal for a Soil Framework Directive operators. (SFD). This proposal requires Member States to prevent soil contamination, to Work to address this policy gap has make an inventory of contaminated sites culminated in the Thematic Strategy on Soil and to remediate the sites identified. Protection, ((Com 2006) 231 final) as discussed Member States are also required to take above and the proposal for a new directive measures to raise awareness and to establishing a framework for soil protection promote the transfer of knowledge and ((Com 2006) 232 final) (Papanicolaou, 2007). experience on sustainable soil usage. This can include exchange of information such Briefly, the proposed Directive includes the as that on the best available technologies following elements: for the remediation of persistently organic pollutants (POPs)-containing sites (EC 1. The establishment of a common NIP, 2007). framework to protect soil on the basis of the principles of preservation of soil The Commission aims to develop functions, prevention of soil degradation, grounds for a common risk-based strategy to manage historical mitigation of its effects, restoration of contamination based on a step-by-step degraded soil and integration with other approach that would include the sectorial policies; collection of information on the full extent 2. The requirement to identify, describe and of site contamination problems in all assess the impact of various sectorial Member States, on associated risk policies on soil-degradation processes evaluation and on prioritization of aiming to protect soil functions; remediation needs. 25 3. The requirement for land users to take Framework Directive covers many of these precautionary measures when their aspects. Chapter III of the Proposal, titled intended use of soil can be expected to "Soil Contamination", directly covers significantly hamper soil functions; contaminated site management. It consists of two sections: Section One: Prevention and 4. An approach to soil sealing to ensure a Inventory, and Section Two: Remediation. more rational use of land and to Some key aspects are summarized below: maintain as many soil functions as possible (in essence a policy drive 5.2.2.1. Prevention and Inventory prioritizing brownfield redevelopment); Article 9 places Member States under the 5. The requirement to identify the areas obligation to take appropriate measures to at risk of erosion, organic matter limit intentional and unintentional decline, salinization, compaction and introduction of dangerous substances into the landslides, and an establishment of soil, in order to avoid accumulation that national program and measures; would hamper soil functions or pose 6. Measures to limit the introduction of significant risks to human health and the dangerous substances into soil, to environment. It will be up to each member avoid an accumulation in soil that state to decide what the `appropriate would hamper soil functions and measures' will be. The article excludes the create a risk to human health and the introduction of substances due to air environment (currently there are an deposition and due to a natural phenomenon of exceptional, inevitable and irresistible estimated 3.5 million contaminated character. sites in Europe); 7. The requirement to establish an Article 10 introduces an EU-wide definition of inventory of contaminated sites, a contaminated land: "Sites with a confirmed mechanism for funding the presence caused by man, of dangerous remediation of orphan sites, a substances of such a level that member states soil-status report and a national consider they pose a significant risk to human strategy for identified contaminated health or the environment" (dangerous site remediation. substances are those substances within the meaning of Council Directive 67/548/EC and The fact that the EU has treated soil as a Directive 1999/45/EC). It is thus up to each non-renewable resource, and is trying to member state to judge which sites within their tackle soil pollution issues from a jurisdiction are contaminated -- a common sustainable planning and development approach is not, therefore, guaranteed. view, can be a valuable lesson to Member states will be obliged to identify and developing countries. Treating soil as a draw up a national inventory of such sites, non-renewable resource implies that any taking into account a risk evaluation based on remediation approach must take into the current and approved future use of the account the sustainable use of the site and land. The inventory will be made public and the functions of the soil. The EU Soil reviewed every five years. The procedure for identification of contaminated sites is set out 26 in Article 11. Within five years of the substances that are linked to the Directive coming into force, Member potentially polluting activity of the site; States are to have identified the location the concentration levels at which there are of those sites where potentially sufficient reasons to believe that the soil-polluting activities referred to in dangerous substances in question pose a Annex II are taking place, or have taken significant risk to human health or to the placeAnnex II lists 11 categories of sites, environment. being establishments where dangerous substances are, or were, present in quantities equal to, or in access of, the The member states are to establish the amounts indicated in Part 1 and 2, methodology necessary for the determination column 2 of Annex I to Council Directive of concentration levels and to authorize the 96/82/EC. bodies that can provide the reports. As with the definition of contaminated sites, there The responsible authorities are to does not appear to be any obligation for all measure the concentration of dangerous member states to adopt a common approach. substances on sites where levels are potentially dangerous to human health 5.2.2.2. Remediation and the environment. On-site risk Having identified the contaminated sites, the assessments will have to be carried out for member states are obliged to ensure that these those sites, covering at least 10% of sites are then remediated so that they no longer within 5 years, 60% within 15 years and pose any significant risk to human health and the remainder within 25 years. the environment. In addition, appropriate mechanisms are to be set up by each state to Article 12 provides that, when a site on fund the remediation of the contaminated which a potentially polluting activity is sites where the polluter cannot be identified or taking place, or for which official records cannot be held liable under European or show that it has taken place is sold, the national legislation, or may not be made to owner of the site or the prospective buyer bear the cost of remediation. will have to make a soil-status report available to the competent authorities and Within seven years of implementation, the to the other party. The soil-status report member states must draw up national will have to be issued by an authorized remediation strategies including: remediation body or a person appointed by the targets, a prioritization strategy, starting with member states. This report is to include those sites that pose a significant risk to public the following details: health, a timetable for implementation, and allocation of funds. The remediation strategy the background history of the site, as has to be made public within eight years and available from official records; is to be reviewed every five years. a chemical analysis determining the concentration levels of the dangerous substances in the soil, limited to those 27 5.2.3 Status of the EU Soil 5.3 CLEAN-UP CRITERIA IN EUROPEAN Framework Directive COUNTRIES At the time of preparation of this report, Table 5-2 provides an overview of general the Framework Directive was at a draft practices for the identification and stage. The Directive has met strong characterization of contaminated sites in 23 resistance from Malta, the UK, Austria, European countries. The overriding aspect of the Netherlands, Germany, and France, as all these measures is that risk-based soil these are concerned about the quality objectives (particularly risks posed to implementation methods and costs of the public health and the environment) are proposal in each member country. guiding the process. In some cases, risk-based Another concern, mirroring relevant national guideline values and norms have debates in the US and Canada, is whether been developed for an effective and soil contamination may be considered to comparable classification of contaminated be a trans-boundary issue, like air and soils. These thresholds also represent different water pollution, which would justify levels of soil contamination and risks posed, EU-level legislation. Resistance from which require different actions, such as soil certain commercial interest groups, contamination investigation, risk assessment including real estate trade associations, and/or remediation. Guideline values are will focus on the disclosure of non-enforceable in most countries. In some compulsory soil-status reports to the countries, quality objectives and remediation regulator. These commercial interest targets are defined through site-specific risk groups believe that the Directive will not analysis, and specific guidelines for the only increase the cost of transactions, but development of risk assessments are available. that it may attract unwanted third-party Furthermore, some European countries apply attention in certain circumstances. multi-tiered approaches, combining both the Technology transfer, market maturity of use of screening guideline values for individual member countries, and preliminary identification of contaminated business interests are all obstacles to a sites, and site-specific risk assessment for union-wide directive. more detailed investigations. Table 5-2 Overview of General Practices for the Identification and Characterization of Contaminated Sites in Twenty Three European Countries Country Most common approach for the classification of contaminated Specific contaminated sites and definition of clean-up criteria land policy Austria Site-specific risk assessment Yes Belgium Site-specific risk assessment (exposure assessment) Yes (Flanders) Bulgaria Norms of maximum admissible contents of hazardous No substances in the soil Czech "ABC" limit values: A -- background values; B -- Possible No 28 Country Most common approach for the classification of contaminated Specific contaminated sites and definition of clean-up criteria land policy Republic adverse effects; C -- Significant risk to human health and the environment. Risk assessment approach for `B' cases. Denmark Risk-based guideline values Yes Estonia Target values and guidance values (based on risk to public Preliminary health) Finland Risk-based guideline values No France Site-specific risk assessment (tiered approach: preliminary site No investigation; simplified risk assessment; detailed risk assessment) Germany Risk-based soil screening values (trigger values) and action Yes values Hungary Limit values for soil and groundwater: A: background values; Preliminary B: Threshold values of contamination; C: Threshold values of measures; D: target values. (based on Dutch, German, US EPA and Canadian guidelines) Italy Original `limit value' approach has been included into a Yes `risk-based' multi-tier approach: Tier 1 -- screening values or contamination threshold values; Tier 2 -- site-specific target levels or risk threshold values Latvia Threshold values (Dutch threshold values used as reference) No Lithuania Standards for contaminated soil and groundwater drafted (in No line with Dutch threshold values). Site-specific simplified risk assessment. Norway Tiered approach: Tier 1 -- generic target values (threshold Part of "Pollution values (TVs) based on existing Dutch and Danish guidelines); Control Act" and Tier 2 -- site specific risk assessment (when TVs are exceeded); several specific Tier 3 -- Detailed investigation Guidelines Poland Standards for environmental protection are generally based on No fixed regulatory limits, but still no generic values for contaminated land. US EPA methods often used in site-specific risk assessments. Portugal Guideline values -- Ontario (Canada) guideline values used as No (under reference development) Slovakia Target values or permissible levels (former Dutch threshold Yes values list was adapted in 1994) Slovenia Limit, warning and critical concentration values of dangerous Yes substances in soil Spain Screening/guideline values and site-specific risk assessment Yes Sweden Site-specific risk assessment (exposure assessment). The No Swedish EPA defined guideline values for levels in polluted soils, for the most sensitive types of land-uses 29 Country Most common approach for the classification of contaminated Specific contaminated sites and definition of clean-up criteria land policy Switzerland Site-specific risk analysis. Intervention values for leachate and Yes gaseous phase. Netherlands Risk-based norms (criteria): target values and intervention Yes values United Site-specific risk assessment based on Yes Kingdom Source­Pathway­Receptor approach and on the definition of "pollutant linkage". Soil Guideline Values have been derived using the Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment (CLEA) model for three land uses. Source: Rodrigues, 2009. 5.4 UNITED KINGDOM Currently, contaminated land in the UK is identified on the basis of risk assessment. In 5.4.1 Contaminated Land England, Scotland and Wales, the Framework contaminated land regime is implemented through The Contaminated Land Regulations In the UK, the first institutional which enforce Part IIa of the Environment mechanism to address contaminated land Protection Act (1990). Section 57 of Part IIa issues was the Inter-departmental was introduced into the Environment Committee on the Redevelopment of Protection Act (1990) by the Environment Act Contaminated Land (ICRCL), which was (1995) and was implemented in April 2000 in set up in 1976 with the role of providing England, in July 2000 in Scotland and in July guidance on human health hazards 2001 in Wales. Part IIa introduced a new arising from the re-use of contaminated statutory regime for the identification, land, and coordinating advice on assessment and remediation of contaminated remedial measures. The ICRCL published land in the UK. In response, DEFRA and the the Guidance Note 59/83 (the 2nd edition, UK Environment Agency have developed dated July 1987), to guide practitioners risk-based procedures for assessing harm dealing with the various hazards and from contaminated sites to ecosystems types of contamination. This note defined (including surface waters) and human `trigger values' (threshold and action receptors. Comprehensive packages of values) for three main groups of technical guidance relevant to the assessment contaminants and for different planned of health risks arising from long-term land uses. These trigger values were exposure to soil contaminants have been formally withdrawn in 2002 by DEFRA published by DEFRA and the UK (Department for Environment, Food and Environment Agency. Following a revised Rural Affairs). approach towards contaminated land management, the UK has chosen to develop guideline values rather than standards, for the 30 assessment of risks within the overall receptor(s) and the pathway in a properly policy context of ensuring that land is justified conceptual model. Tier 2 is a Generic suitable for its actual or intended use. Quantitative Risk Assessment evaluation and (Luo, 2008) Tier 3 is a Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment. Soil Guideline Values (SGVs) A risk-based approach has been adopted were calculated for use in Tier 2 assessment for the management of contaminated land through the Contaminated Land Exposure in accordance with UK policy as set out in Assessment (CLEA) model. These SGVs are in the "Framework for Contaminated Land". fact intervention values that when exceeded This requires remedial action to be taken may trigger further assessment or remedial where: action. The CLEA model is partially probabilistic and overall exposure needs to be the contamination poses unacceptable calculated using the probability distribution actual or potential risks to health or functions of exposure parameters for each the environment; receptor. It should be emphasized that this there are appropriate and approach is advocated to allow prioritization of sites for further investigation and cost-effective means available to do so, subsequent "determination" of the taking into account actual or intended significance of potential exposure on a use of the site; contaminated site (requiring remediation remediation may also take place on a within a defined period). The involvement of "voluntary" basis, for instance as part the local community in the decision making of a redevelopment program. process from the earliest stages of the implementation of risk management is The assessment and management of land strongly encouraged by the UK contaminated contamination risks involves three main land management system. Moreover, soil components: remediation is closely linked to the planning regime and land development process. the source (i.e. the contamination) The Environmental Agency and DEFRA has the receptor (i.e. the entity that could published SGVs for 10 substances (DEFRA be affected) 2008). These SGVs are based on Health the pathway (i.e. the route by which a Criteria Values (HCVs) and describe the receptor can come into contact with concentration of contaminants in soil at which the contamination). there would be minimal risk to human health in four modeled generic land use situations: 5.4.2 Criteria residential with gardens; A multi-tiered approach was developed for the assessment of risks to both residential without gardens; humans and ecosystems. The first allotments, and requirement (Tier 1) for a human health commercial/industrial. risk assessment is the identification of linkages between the contaminant, the 31 The HCVs describe a level at which substances might pose either no appreciable risk or a minimal risk to human health, depending on whether the substance is a threshold or non-threshold substance. The Environmental Agency and DEFRA have published HCVs for 23 substances, including dioxins. 5.4.3 Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination In September 2004, the Environment Agency published the Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (CLR 11, 2004). The Model Procedures were developed to provide the technical framework for a risk management process when dealing with land contamination. The process involves identifying, and taking appropriate action to deal with land contamination in a way that is consistent with government policies and legislation within the UK. The procedure is presented in Figure 5-1. . 32 Figure 5-1 Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination in the UK 33 5.5 GERMANY soil-to-human, soil-to-plant, and soil-to- groundwater pathways), action values 5.5.1 Framework for Contaminated (concerning soil-to-human and soil-to-plant Site Management pathways) and precaution values (to prevent new soil pollution). Whenever possible, The German Federal Soil Protection Act considerations on the contaminants' came into force in 1998, and the bioavailability are to be included in exposure accompanying sublegal regulations in assessments. 1999. The Federal Soil Protection Act (FSPA) provides the measures to protect Trigger Values: When trigger values are and restore soil functions. The Federal exceeded, further investigation and Soil Protection and Contaminated Sites assessment of whether the site is Ordinance (BBodSchV) translates the act contaminated or not is necessary. (Federal Soil into specific requirements relating to Protection Act, Art.8) contaminated site soil protection and remediation. (Rodrigues, 2009) Action Values: When action values are exceeded, it is usually an indication of the The BBodSchV describes the main presence of a contaminated site, meaning that regulations for the identification, corrective measures are required to meet the investigation and assessment of provisions to prevent harmful soil changes. contamination, and for the planning and The corrective measures include excavation execution of remediation. The regulations and associated transport, disposal and cover: treatment (TSD) of excavated soil materials, remediation of the soil and contaminated sites, backfill of materials onto or into the especially regarding the rehabilitation objective, soil (pursuant to BBodSchV Article 6). containment and other safeguarding measures, requirements and values for the protection and land use restriction measures. identification, investigation and initial assessment of suspected contaminated 5.6 THE NETHERLANDS sites (BBodSchV Article 8 (1), No. 1 and 2). 5.6.1 Framework of Contaminated Sites requirements and values for the The Netherlands was one of the pioneering prevention of hazards and the remediation EU Member States to establish specific of harmful soil changes (harmful legislation on soil protection. Soil remediation impacts on soil functions that are able was given a legal status in 1983, and in 1987 to bring about hazards) and the Dutch "Soil Protection Act" came into contaminated sites (BBodSchV Article force. The first steps of the Dutch soil policy 8 (1), No. 3). included the definition of legal norms (intervention values) to regulate soil clean-up 5.5.2 Risk-based Standards as part of a multifunctional remediation approach. Soil policy developments in the last The Act includes three types of risk-based 20 years in the Netherlands also included the standards: trigger values (concerning 34 revision of remediation criteria, Below is a quick list of related regulations for developments on soil quality objectives site contamination in the Netherlands: and risk assessment procedures, increase in flexibility for local authorities in 1983 -- Interim Soil Remediation Act regulating contaminated land, 1987 -- Soil Protection Act encouragement of local participation in 1993 -- Landfill (Soil Protection) Decree the decision making process, a distinction 1994­1998 -- Circulars on Intervention Values between mobile and immobile cases of for Soil Remediation soil contamination, and the stimulation of 1996 -- Soil Protection Act (revised) private funding for soil remediation. (Rodrigues, 2009) 1998 -- Circular on Remediation Regulations Soil Protection Act A new framework of soil quality 1998 -- Storage in Underground Tanks Decree standards has been developed within the 1999 -- Building Materials Decree scope of the Dutch Soil Quality Decree, 2000 -- Circular on Target Values and which entered into force in January 2008. Intervention Values for Soil This framework includes broad national Remediation (rescinded by the standards derived for ten different soil amended Soil Remediation Circular functions, simplified into three broad 2008 on 1 October 2008/Soil Quality categories: residential areas; nature/ Decree on 1 July 2008 agriculture; and industry, on the basis of 2004 -- Soil Protection Act Appointment of human health risks, ecological risks and Competent Authority Municipalities agricultural production. It also includes a Decree, (amended) system to develop local standards. In brief, 2005 -- Industrial Sites Compulsory Soil the new system of standards comprises Survey Decree (amended) target values (based on Dutch 2006 -- Soil Remediation Financial Provisions background values), intervention values Decree (amended) (based on serious risk levels, determines the remediation urgency), and National 2006 -- Uniform Remediation Decree/Decision Soil Use Values (to determine remediation 2007 -- Soil Remediation Financial Provisions targets based on specific soil use related Regulations (amended) risks levels). 2006 -- Soil Protection Act (revised) 2007 -- Soil Protection Act Register of The National Soil Use Values are general Limitations Regulations soil quality standards to determine 2008 -- Soil Remediation Circular 2008 suitability for a specific type of soil use, 2008 -- Soil Quality Decree although local authorities may choose to develop their own Local Soil Use Values. If soil concentration values at a defined 5.6.2 Remediation Criteria -- Stepwise site surpass the intervention values, a System stepwise risk assessment system (Soil Remediation Criterion) is applied to The following remediation criterion method is define the urgency of remediation. used to determine whether unacceptable risks 35 exist for humans, for the ecosystem or of volatile compounds in the groundwater in the contamination spreading to the combination with high groundwater levels or groundwater: (VROM Circular, 2006) unsaturated soil underneath buildings. Step 1: Determining a Case of Serious Step 2: Standard Risk Assessment Contamination The second step is a generic model calculation. In the first step, a detailed survey is used The model calculation can be based on the as the basis for determining whether there results of the detailed survey. A distinction is is a case of serious contamination. A case made between risks for humans, the of serious contamination is deemed to be ecosystem and of the contamination present when the average concentration spreading. measured of at least one substance is Step 3: Location-Specific Risk Assessment higher than the intervention value in a soil volume of at least 25 m3 in the case of Step three consists of making additional soil contamination, or a pore-saturated measurements and/or additional model soil volume of at least 100 m3 in the case calculations. Concentration figures calculated of groundwater contamination. using the model can be replaced in the model calculations by the figures for concentrations In a few specific situations there may be a measured at the location. This makes the third case of serious contamination even if the step more location specific. Measurements or concentrations are below the intervention additional model calculations need not be values. This applies to what are termed made for every component of the generic susceptible land use functions: vegetable model calculation. garden/allotment, places where there are Figure 5-2 Remediation criteria -- Stepwise system Target Intervention Remediation Criterion Clean Management track Applicable Soil quality decree without restrictions Diffuse contamination Generic policy Maximal values residential and industry Area specific policy Local maximal values Inside area Outside and inside area Remediation track Soil Protection Act Point Source Case of serious contamination Not urgent Urgent: remediate in less 36 management than 4 years 5.6.3 Dutch Target Values, Soil contamination above which there is a case of Remediation Intervention serious soil contamination. Values and Indicative Levels The soil remediation intervention values are for Serious Contamination based on extensive studies of the National 1) Target Values Institute for Public Health and Environmental Protection (RIVM) of both human and The target values indicate the level below eco-toxicological effects of soil contaminants. which there is sustainable soil quality. In Human toxicological effects have been terms of curative policy, this means that quantified in the form of concentrations in the the target values indicate the level that soil above which the so-called maximum has to be achieved to fully recover the permissible risk (MPR) for humans may be functional properties of the soil for exceeded. For non-carcinogenic substances humans and plant and animal life. In this corresponds to the Tolerable Daily Intake addition, the target values give an (TDI). For carcinogenic substances this is indication of the benchmark for based on an additional chance of cancer environmental quality in the long term, incidence of 10-4 for lifetime exposure. It is on the assumption of negligible risks to assumed that all exposure routes are the ecosystem. The target values derive operational. (Dutch VROM, 2000) from the Integrated Environmental Quality Standards project (called INS), 3) Indicative Levels for Serious and were published in December 1997. Contamination The INS target values have been included in the Circular on Target Values and The RIVM's proposals for intervention values Intervention Values for Soil Remediation have resulted in intervention values not being (2000) with a few exceptions. The INS set for a number of substances. Indicative target values are underpinned by a risk levels for serious contamination are provided analysis wherever possible and apply to for these substances. The indicative levels individual substances. The same target have a greater degree of uncertainty than the values for soil and sediment as in the intervention levels. The status of the indicative present circular, which applies to soil levels consequently is not equal to the status remediation policy, are included in the of the intervention levels. Contaminant values Fourth Report on Water Management falling under or above the indicative levels (NW4). therefore do not have immediate consequences on a decision about the gravity 2) Soil Remediation Intervention Values of the contamination considered by the competent authority. Hence, the competent The soil remediation intervention values authority should bear in mind other indicate the level above which the considerations besides the indicative levels functional properties of the soil are when deciding whether there is a case of seriously impaired, and threaten human serious contamination. health, as well as plant and animal life. They are representative of the level of 37 6. LATIN AMERICA 6.1 OVERVIEW OF THE LATIN promoters of contaminated site management AMERICAN SITUATION and brownfield redevelopment in other Latin American countries, local governments in In general, like other developing countries, Brazil, with the leading example of São Paulo Latin American countries lack specific State, undertake the primary responsibility for legislation on contaminated land and soil contaminated site management. protection. Basic issues such as permission and licensing of site Presently, similar to other developing reutilization, contamination liability, and countries around the globe, contaminated site public funding of abandoned sites have management and brownfield redevelopment not been resolved. Nevertheless, some old in São Paulo State are covered under existing industrial sites are beginning to be reused, general laws on pollution control, such as the and the conversion process is generally São Paulo State Law 996 and its ordinance of happening without their environmental 1976. Moreover, São Paulo State addresses the history being thoroughly investigated and issue of the contaminated land mainly by remediated. Soil quality is not yet a factor means of implementing of institutional taken into account in urban planning and guidelines and directives, such as the land use. guideline values for soil and groundwater, and the directives for risk assessment and Brazil and Mexico are countries in Latin investigation procedures presented in America with comparatively advanced "Manual de gerenciamento de areas legal and institutional frameworks with contaminadas" (CETESB,1999). But the State respect to contaminated site management. has also prepared a new draft bill for soil Both have conducted cases of successful protection and contaminated site remediation. brownfield redevelopment. Contaminated site management and brownfield São Paulo State has established redevelopment policy and regulatory well-developed inventories of contaminated framework in these two countries are sites, using which 2000 sites have been presented below. registered, investigated and partly remediated. Successful reutilization of contaminated land 6.2 BRAZIL depends on the establishment of standards for Due to their strong local legislative soil use and close cooperation between powers (much different from other environmental and local planning authorities. countries in Latin America), local In São Paulo, attempts to streamline the governments in Brazil play a major role in licensing process for construction projects contaminated site management ­ similar have been made. The reuse of contaminated to the role of local governments in soils is directed by soil use-related guideline Canada and the EU. Therefore, while values, and the contamination situation is national governments are pivotal proposed to be fixed in the public registry of 38 the property. Almost all new real estate A recent ordinance defines the procedures for and building projects have to undergo an contaminated site investigation, risk environmental site assessment. assessment and remediation, as well as legal responsibilities (SEMARNAT, 2006). In The CAIXA, Brazil's main financer of addition, Mexico has set soil quality and urban development, housing and basic remediation standards for soil contaminated sanitation, whose several residential by hydrocarbons, PCB and heavy metals. building projects have suffered financial and juridical losses due to late detection Mexico is presently building up its inventory of soil contamination, has implemented of contaminated sites and potentially risk management procedures and contaminated sites, called SISCO (Sistema environmental site assessment tools in the Informático de Sitios Contaminados), and has credit sector, based on environmental due started a program for national priority sites. diligence. The procedures and tools guide Brownfield redevelopment is seen as an the loan business regarding housing opportunity to finance or co-finance the often construction on former commercial and costly cleanups of the sites, returning them to industrial sites with suspected soil or the economic cycle after remediation. The groundwater contamination. strategy to finance the remediation of Mexico's priority contaminated sites is geared 6.3 MEXICO towards its re-usage. The remediation of some priority sites in Mexico is financed by public Responsibility and liability with regard to funding, as the federal government is contaminated site management and responsible for contaminated site brownfield redevelopment in Mexico is management. In the case of contaminated sites regulated under the Solid Waste Act of of the petrochemical industry, a PEMEX 2003, which was reviewed in 2006. Special (Petróleos Mexicanos) refinery in Mexico DF guidelines regarding permission for real entirely finances contaminated site estate transfer and regulation liability is remediation. under development. Authorization of reuse of contaminated sites is established in the risk assessment and remediation framework. 39 7. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS environmental behavior. The following FOR CHINA lessons can be drawn from the experience of the US Superfund: The review of policy and regulatory frameworks for contaminated site It is important to find ways to assign management in developed and liability for sites where numerous parties developing countries indicates that there may have contributed to the pollution, are both similarities and differences such as landfills and dumping sites. between contaminated land and Ways must be found to effectively limit associated risk management approaches legal and administrative costs to across the world. Summarized below are the most relevant elements in various government parties and small businesses, frameworks, and their implications for which result from the risk of liability for establishing an effective site site remediation. contamination management framework in Regulators and enforcement agencies need China: to consider the limited effectiveness of pursuing minor parties which are not in a 1) Liability and the "Polluter Pays position to contribute significantly to the Principle" costs of cleanup. Site cleanup is extremely costly and the In general, most international policy and sustainability of funding mechanisms regulatory frameworks uphold the must be ensured (the Superfund trust is "polluter pays principle", although running out of money and currently relies determining liability on site on general fiscal revenue allocation). contamination cases is not always an easy task. Several countries have defined specific approaches to assign legal In the UK, on the other hand, the private responsibilities, manage orphan sites, and sector drives and funds the majority of land to combine private and public funding for development and remediation projects. In site remediation and redevelopment. some countries, as in the Netherlands, there is a hierarchy in terms of liability. This hierarchy In the US, the Superfund Act is intended starts with the polluter. If the polluter is not in to recover cleanup costs from potential a position to significantly contribute towards responsible parties (PRPs). Though the cleanup costs, responsibility shifts to the implementation has been highly land owner. If the land owner is not in a controversial and time- and budget position to contribute towards the cleanup consuming, most stakeholders would costs, responsibility shifts to the government. agree that the "polluter pays principle" There are specific mechanisms for the has effectively changed corporate protection of innocent land owners. 40 In China, land is owned by the Action on the national, regional and local government. Most industrial sites are levels is required to reach soil quality plants owned by state-owned-enterprises objectives. A shared responsibility scheme is (SOEs). If the owner or operator is first in likely to be more realistic and may make best line to cover site cleanup, responsibility use of resources at different levels. The will ultimately fall on the state. government at federal and central levels could Assignment of liability for activities focus on overall risk policies, technological involving joint ventures, and regarding research and development to share with the landfills and dumping sites, will not be an states. Provincial and local governments have easy task, as seen in the US Superfund their unique land development needs, as well program. as specific planning and zoning constraints and advantages, and could therefore 2) Central/Federal Government implement contaminated site redevelopment vs. Local Authorities projects in a more suitable and cost effective way. In the US, most Federal Laws delegate regulatory authority to approved state In the case of China, the brownfield site programs. Each state has jurisdiction and management policy and regulatory responsibility to protect the environment framework needs to consider the unique in accordance with Federal Law (e.g. characteristics of China, such as large Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. differences between different regions in terms However, the 1980 CERCLA did not of economic and social development, delegate the authority to state and local availability of supporting infrastructures, such governments, and early implementation as landfills and transportation, storage and of the law proved to be less effective. disposal (TSD) facilities, enabling capacities Subsequent reforms and amendments such as knowledge and technical skills, site (SARA) have allowed the Superfund to pollution history, the extent and nature of site facilitate effective collaboration with state contamination, and, most importantly, and local communities. population density and thus the consequences of exposure risk. Therefore, regional and Regulating interventions in contaminated phased approaches seem to be prudent in sites is often complicated by the division establishing the framework. between federal and state responsibilities. Federal intervention is required when soil 3) Historical vs. Current and Future and groundwater contamination are Contamination trans-boundary issues. The issue is an ongoing debate in the European Union, In the US, the Superfund deals specifically where the Soil Framework Directive with historical abandoned sites; the law is retroactive. In the Netherlands, the cut-off remains at a draft stage, and is unlikely to date for the definition historical contamination be finalized in the short term. is 1987. For contamination prior to 1987, the responsible party may adopt a risk-based approach immediately and the state will 41 support remediation. For contamination normally categorized by agriculture, after 1987, responsibility falls on the residential, and industrial/commercial use. responsible party to have the Site-specific risk assessments and cleanup contamination "cleaned as quickly as targets are generally conducted considering possible, irrespective of concentration and present and future land use of the site under risk of pollutants". investigation. In general, existing EU policies In China, most industrial sites are located in concerning soil protection do not apply to cities and are sometimes in prime real estate contamination which occurred prior to its areas. After redevelopment, these sites may be entry into force. Historical contamination used for residential or commercial purposes. is expected to be addressed by the Thus, returning the contaminated sites to proposed EU Soil Framework Directive. pristine status at first may seem prudent and attractive. However, most of these sites have a In China, most state-owned enterprises pollution history of over half a century or have gone through some form of longer, and due to urgent need for ownership restructuring; the dates of redevelopment, the time available for these ownership changes are traceable. remediation is very constrained. High cleanup However, few such transactions have costs and time constraints for development been accompanied by environmental site mean that it is not feasible to clean sites to the assessment (ESA) or AAI to define extent that they are suitable for any use. baselines or reference points. Thus, Technologies may not even be available to whether China will set a certain cutoff effectively reach some stringent cleanup date for historical pollution liability is still targets. Other potential land uses, such as an a matter of debate. However, China industrial park or even a golf course, may be a should develop regulations to prevent more economical and practical choice. pollution and avoid the creation of future contaminated sites. Fortunately, China has strong central and provincial planning capabilities, and simple state-ownership of lands. This can be a great 4) Land Use Options and Cleanup advantage in coupling future land use with Approaches site remediation. Even in cases where earlier national 5) Acceptable Risk Levels and Social, policies have emphasized multifunctional Economic and Political Impacts remediation (permanent contaminant removal), as in the US and the Netherlands, the general tendency now is In most countries, soil screening values are to move towards "fitness-for-use" based on the application of exposure and remediation objectives in most developed toxicological modeling. "Acceptable risk" for countries. In some cases where generic non-threshold compounds (carcinogens) is criteria have been developed, these values expressed in terms of incremental lifetime are developed based on the types of cancer risk and ranges between 10-6 and 10-4 in specific future land uses, which are different countries. For example, 10-4 is 42 commonly used in the Netherlands, while is therefore a matter of convention. (Ferguson 10-6 is used in the US, and 10-5 is adopted and Denner, 1994) by many countries, including Germany and Sweden. For threshold substances, Another key aspect in cleanup standard the exposure concentration is deemed development is the establishment of the acceptable up to a threshold dose (based exposure conceptual model, namely the on toxicological evidences and assessment identification of potential pathways of factors), in all countries. exposure to contaminated soil for human and ecological receptors. It can be interpreted as a The establishment of risk-based screening scientific issue, however it is not solely and cleanup values has scientific, scientific. By defining the potential receptors of concern and types of use of the land, the socio-economic and political conceptual model sets the type of use which consequences. Social, economic, political the land has to be safeguarded for, and the and scientific issues can often be highly extent of protection for the most sensitive interlinked and difficult to distinguish subgroups of the population. The conceptual from one another. model, therefore, is "conventional" and based on both political and scientific judgment. The The wide range for "acceptable" merging of scientific and political judgment is thresholds can be interpreted as a political present in both screening and site-specific risk choice, but the implementation in risk assessment, but is clearly more relevant in the assessment procedures is not solely screening due to the application of standard political. "10-6 excess lifetime cancer risk" conceptual models. The emphasis in this text should not simply be treated as a on "conventional" aspects is not to say that quantitative statement about risk, as "1 scientific and political issues in risk incremental cancer over 1 million exposed assessment cannot be distinguished. On the persons". The significance of "10-6 excess contrary, it is important that "conventional" lifetime cancer risk" has to be judged in components of risk assessment are clearly relation to the conservative assumptions identified to make the interaction between adopted in the risk estimation and finally scientists and decision makers more compared to the level of risk posed by transparent and efficient. (Carlon, 2007) other sources, such as the risk of inhalation of contaminated air (air 7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS pollution vs. soil pollution) or risks from Based on the review of the policy and smoking (as it is estimated under the regulatory framework in other countries and same conservative assumptions). In regions, the following concluding practice, "10-6 excess lifetime cancer risk" recommendations for a policy and regulatory is an operational threshold agreed framework on contaminated sites in China can between policy makers and scientists be made. The framework should include: based on judgments of conservatism, public perception, and social and a specific regulation which requires risk economic acceptability of implications; it management and clearly specifies how to 43 implement risk-based assessment and assessment of social and economic impacts cleanup approaches, and ensures that and adjusting related policies and all regulatory instruments are regulations; consistent with the aforementioned safeguard requirements which refer to risk-based approach; environmental covenants and deed acceptable risk-based policy which restrictions to allow for flexible and balances environment and public cost-effective risk management, smooth health protection, technical property transfer and assurance of practicality, and social, economic and pollution liability, minimize the spread of political impacts; contaminants and limit risk exposure; realistic criteria and clear procedures provisions focusing on future land use and which set screening values, action zoning, soil quality and functions, and levels, and site-specific clean up outcomes and benefits of remediation; targets; when screening values are capacity building, a set of technical exceeded, clear guidance must be requirements, guidelines and procedures, provided regarding site investigation, engineering manuals to enable risk assessment and site remediation, practitioners and officials to adequately as well as exit mechanisms for "no implement site assessment and clean up; further action" and site closure; provisions which not only tackle historical a prioritizing system to determine the and existing contaminated sites, but also different levels of risk and urgency in monitor and prevent future site contaminated land management; contamination. institutional arrangements which assign clear responsibilities and 7.3 CONCLUSIONS authority to the central, regional and local governments, in order to most The extensive experience from other countries in contaminated site management will effectively implement site assessment facilitate China in rapidly developing an and cleanup, and to minimize effective contaminated site management inconsistency between different framework. In the past forty years, many government levels and differing local countries have implemented contaminated interpretations; site management frameworks, and many quality assurance and quality control costly mistakes have been made. (QA/QC) and performance monitoring mechanisms for external The following key conclusions can be drawn third party independent oversight, from the analysis of brownfield site and public and local community management frameworks abroad: participation; management tools for site inventory, Clear identification of stakeholders and case study database, liability records allocation of responsibilities: China needs for knowledge sharing, and for the to balance between the "polluter pays 44 principle" and implementation Adoption of risk-based clean-up targets: efficiency, to avoid lengthy and costly International experience shows that full litigation procedures which do not remediation is often excessively costly, and contribute to effective contaminated that the optimal level of clean-up targets site management, and to ensure depends on the risks the site poses to its funding and procedures which can be environment and the surrounding applied when the original polluter population, which in turn largely depend on cannot be identified or is unable to its proximity to population centers and its sufficiently contribute; intended use. Adopting risk-based clean-up Safeguard policies to contain risks targets has emerged as good practice; related to existing brownfields: Financing mechanisms: Drawing on the Given the limited amount of resources experience of the USA and other countries, and the large number of sites needing China needs to establish sustainable remediation, in many cases rather funding mechanisms for contaminated site than a thorough site remediation, clean-up activities, so that remediation safeguards should be put in place to activities on the most urgent sites can be effectively contain a site and minimize sped up, in some cases take place even any immediate dangers to the public before it is certain who will ultimately pay and damage to the environment; for it. 45 APPENDIX A. US STATUTES, REGULATIONS, establishes requirements for Superfund POLICIES AND GUIDELINES cooperative agreements and Superfund States Contracts (SSCs) that are specific REGARDING CONTAMINATED requirements under CERLCA. This SITES regulation outlines the use and payment of Statutes state cost sharing requirements in the Superfund program. CERCLA The Comprehensive Environmental Policy and Guidance Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, known as the Superfund Act, I. Institutional Control-Specific was enacted to address abandoned - Institutional Controls: A Citizen's Guide to hazardous waste sites in the U.S. The law Understanding Institutional Controls at has subsequently been amended, by the Superfund, Brownfields, Federal Facilities, Superfund Amendments and Underground Storage Tank, and Resource Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and Conservation and Recovery Act Cleanups, the Small Business Liability Relief and February 2005, OSWER 9355.0-98, EPA- Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002. 540-R-04-003, - Strategy to Ensure Institutional Control Oil Pollution Act of 1990 Implementation at Superfund Sites, The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 provides September 2004, OSWER 9355.0-106, authority to respond to spills of oil. - Institutional Controls: A Guide to Implementing, Monitoring and Enforcing Regulations Institutional Controls at Superfund, - National Contingency Plan (NCP) Brownfields, Federal Facility, UST and RCRA The National Oil and Hazardous Corrective Action Cleanups, (Draft), February Substance Pollution Contingency Plan 2003, OSWER 9355.0-89, EPA 540-R-04-002, (NCP) is the regulation that - Institutional Controls: A Site Manager's Guide implements CERCLA and the Oil to Identifying, Evaluating and Selecting Pollution Act under the response Institutional Controls at Superfund and RCRA program. It provides the blueprint for Corrective Action Cleanups, September 2000, responding to both oil spills and OSWER 9355.0-7-4FS-P, EPA 540-F-00-005. hazardous substances releases. II. Remedy Selection - Subpart O - National Oil and Hazardous Substances The Subpart O regulation applies to Contingency Plan, CERCLA-authorized grants to States. - A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed It complements EPA's general Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy financial assistance regulation and Selection Decision Documents, 46 - Rules of Thumb for Superfund Remedy - Presumptive Response Strategy and Ex-Situ Selection, August 1997, OSWER Treatment Technologies for Contaminated 9355.0-69, EPA 540-R-97-013, Ground Water at CERCLA Sites, October - Role of Costs in the Superfund Remedy 1996, OSWER Directive 9238.1-12, Selection Process, September 1996, EPA/540/R-96/023, OSWER 9200.3-23FS, EPA - Methods for Monitoring Pump and Treat 540/F-96/018, Performance, Part 2, June 1994, ORD - Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy publication, EPA/600/R-94/123, Selection Process, May 1995, OSWER - General Methods for Remedial Operation 9355.7-04, Performance Evaluation, January 1992, ORD - CERCLA Orientation Manual, October publication, EPA/600/R-92/002, 1992, EPA/542/R-92/005, - A Guide to Remedial Actions for Contaminated - Role of Baseline Risk Assessments in Ground Water, April 1989, OSWER Superfund Remedy Selection Decisions, Directive 9283.1-2FS, Fact Sheet for 1988 April 1991, OSWER 9355.0-30, Guidance, - Getting Ready: Scoping the RI/FS, - Guidance on Remedial Actions for November 1989, OSWER Directive Contaminated Ground Water at Superfund 9355.3-01FS1, Sites, December 1988, EPA/540/G-88/003. - Guidance for Conducting RI/FS under CERCLA, October 1988, OSWER V. Media- and Contaminant-Specific Directive 9355.3-01, EPA 540/G-89/004. Guidance - Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil III. Related Specifically to Remedy Screening Levels for Superfund Sites, Updates - Principles for Managing Contaminated - Strategy to Ensure Institutional Sediment Risk at Hazardous Waste Sites, Control Implementation at Superfund February 2002, OSWER Directive Sites, September 2004, OSWER 9285.6-08, 9355.0-106, - Abandoned Mine Site Characterization and - A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Cleanup Handbook, August 2000, Region 8, 9, Plans, Records of Decision, and Other and 10 publication, EPA 910-B-00-001, Remedy Selection Decision Documents, - Conducting Remedial Investigations/Feasibility July 1999, OSWER9200.1-23.P, EPA Studies at Municipal Landfills, February 1991, 540-R-98-031. EPA 540/P-9/001, - Guidance on Remedial Actions for Superfund IV. Ground Water Remedies Sites with PCB Contamination, August 1990, OSWER 9355.4-01, EPA 540/G-90/007. - Use of Alternate Concentration Limits (ACLs) in Superfund Cleanups, July 19, VI. Post-Construction Completion 2005, OSWER Directive 9200.4-39, - Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation at - NCP Guidance on O&M Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and - Close-Out Procedures for National Priorities Underground Storage Tank Sites, April List Sites, January 2000, OSWER Directive 1999, OSWER Directive 9200.4-17P, 9320.2-09A-P, EPA 540-R-98-016, 47 - Comprehensive Five-Year Review VII. Land Use/Reuse Guidance, June 2001, OSWER No. - Guidance for Preparing Superfund Ready for 9355.7-03B-P, EPA 540-R-01-007 Reuse Determinations, February 2004, - Operation and Maintenance in the OSWER 9365.0-33, Superfund Program, May 2001, OSWER - Reusing Superfund Sites: Commercial Use 9200.1-37FS, EPA 540-F-01-004 Where Waste is Left on Site, Feb. 2002, - O&M Report Template for Ground Water OSWER 92330.0-100, Remedies (With Emphasis on Pump and - Reuse Assessments: A Tool to Implement the Treat Systems), April 2005, OSWER Superfund Land Use Directive, June 2001, 9283.1-22FS, EPA 542-R-05-0101, OSWER 9355.7-06P, - Transfer of Long-Term Response Action - Reusing Superfund Sites: Recreational Reuse of (LTRA) Projects to States, July 2003, Land above Hazardous Waste Containment OSWER 9355.0-81FS, EPA Areas, March 2001, OSWER 9230.0-0-93, 540-F-01-021. EPA 540-K-01-002 . 48 B. CANADIAN LEGISLATION, Guidelines POLICY AND GUIDELINE LIST FOR CONTAMINATED SITES - National Classification System for Contaminated Sites (NCSCS) -- Guidance Document, CCME (2008) (a method for Legislation evaluating contaminated sites according to their current or potential adverse impact - Canadian Environmental Protection Act, on human health and the environment), 1999 - Environmental Code of Practice for - Fisheries Act Aboveground and Underground Storage Tank - Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Systems Containing Petroleum and Allied - Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act Petroleum Products, CCME (2003), - Recommended Principles on Contaminated Policies Sites Liability, CCME (2006) (The publication updates CCME's principles - Treasury Board Policy on Management of dealing with contaminated site-related Real Property, liability by adding another principle that - Treasury Board Reporting Standard on provides for the possibility of transfer of Real Property, environmental regulatory liability for a - Treasury Board Policy on Accounting for contaminated site from the seller to the Costs and Liabilities Related to buyer under specific conditions established Contaminated Sites, by governments, which would assure site - Indian and Northern Affairs Canada clean-up. The new principle promotes the Contaminated Sites Management Policy redevelopment of brownfields and vacant (offers guidance on the management of and underutilized commercial properties contaminated sites located on reserve lands, across Canada, while ensuring human and on federal lands north of the 60th parallel, environmental safety.), and on any other lands under the - Federal Contaminated Sites Guidance on responsibility of Indian and Northern Human Health Risk Assessment in Canada, Affairs Canada), Health Canada, - Indian and Northern Affairs Canada Mine - Federal Contaminated Sites Risk Assessment in Site Reclamation Policy for the Northwest Canada Part I: Guidance on Human Health Territories, Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment - Calls for better management of the (PQRA), Northwest Territories' natural - Federal Contaminated Sites Risk Assessment in resources to ensure that mining Canada Part II: Health Canada Toxicological operations do not leave behind Reference Values (TRVS), environmental or health hazards and a - Federal Contaminated Sites Risk Assessment in financial burden for the Canadian Canada Part III: Guidance on Peer Review of taxpayer. Human Health Risk Assessments for Federal Contaminated Sites in Canada, 49 - Addressing Psychosocial Factors through - TAB #13: Soil Remediation Low Capacity Building: A Guide for Managers Temperature Thermal Desorption of Contaminated Sites (The guide - TAB #14: Contaminated Sites Remediation provides an introduction to Framework (CSRF) -Environment Canada understanding the psychosocial effects - TAB #15: Risk Assessment -- Application of individuals living and working near and The Screening Process a contaminated site.). - TAB #16: Risk Assessment -- Exposure Model, Toxicity Analysis and Evaluation Technical Assistance - TAB #17: Risk Management For Contaminated Sites - Framework - TAB #1: Jar Headspace Analytical - TAB #18: Risk Management For Screening Procedure Contaminated Sites -- Acceptable and - TAB #1B: Understanding Organic Unacceptable Risk Vapor Survey Findings - TAB #19: Intrinsic Remediation -- An - TAB #2: Site Assessment Procedures Introduction - TAB #3: Electromagnetic Surveys & - TAB #20: Intrinsic Remediation -- Ground Penetrating Radar Biodegradation - TAB #4: Sampling & Analysis of - TAB #21: Intrinsic Remediation -- Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soil Attenuation Mechanism and Contaminant - TAB #5: Sampling & Analysis of Transport Hydrocarbon Contaminated - TAB #22: In-Situ Remediation Groundwater Technologies For Contaminated Sites - TAB #6: Alternative Field Screening - TAB #23: Ex-Situ Remediation Methods Technologies For Contaminated Sites - TAB #7: Developing a Terms of - TAB #24: Remediation Technologies For Reference for Contaminated Site Groundwater Contamination Remediation - TAB #25: A Basic Outline of Ontario's - TAB #8: When is a Site "Clean" Land-Use Guidelines - TAB #9: Emergency Response - TAB #26: Restoration Criteria in Ontario's Procedures at a Contaminated Site Land-Use Guideline - TAB #10: Health & Safety Procedures - TAB #27: Expedited Site Characterization: for Contaminated Sites Process - TAB #11: Legislation Applicable to the - TAB #28: Expedited Site Characterization: CSRP Criteria for Selecting Tools and - TAB #12: Developing a Community Technologies Relations Program for Contaminated - TAB #29: Expedited Site Characterization: Sites Tools and Technologies 50 REFERENCES Andrew King, BP (2006), Regulatory Dutch VROM (2000), The Circular on Target Approaches to Addressing Soil and Values and Intervention Values for Soil Groundwater Contamination, ppt Remediation, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, the CCME (1991), Interim Canadian Netherlands, February 4th, 2000 Environmental Quality Criteria for Contaminated Sites, Report CCME Defra and the Environment Agency (2002), CLR 9 EPC-CS34, Canadian Council of Ministers Contaminants in Soils; Collation of of the Environment (CCME), September Toxicological Data and Intake Values for 1991 Humans CCME (2007), Canadian Soil Quality DEFRA (2008) Guidance on the Legal Definition of Guidelines for Protection of Contaminated Land, Department for Environmental and Human Health, Environment Food and Rural Affairs of United Canadian Council of Ministers of the Kingdom, July 2008 Environment (CCME), updated in ECB (2003), European Commission Technical September 2007 Guidance Document on Risk Assessment, C. De Sousa (2001), Contaminated Sites: The European Communities, European Chemicals Canadian Situation in an International Bureau Context, Journal of Environmental EC NIP (2007), Community Implementation Plan Management 62, 131­154 for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent CCME/WM-TRE013E (1991), National Organic Pollutants, Commission of the Guidelines for Decommissioning European Communities Industrial Sites, CCME/WM TRE013E Ferguson and Denner (1994), Developing CLR 11 (2004), Model Procedures for the Guideline (Trigger) Values for Contaminants Management of Land Contamination, in Soil: Underlying Risk Analysis and Risk Environment Agency and Department for Management Concepts. Land Contamination Environment Food and Rural Affairs of and Reclamation, 2 (3):117-123 United Kingdom, September 2004 GONG, Yuyang (2007), United States Experience in CLARINET (2002), Remediation of Environmental Emergency Planning and Contaminated Land Technology Response (Background Paper for China Water Implementation in Europe, Contaminated AAA program) Land Rehabilitation Network for Japan, NIP (2005), The National Implementation Environmental Technologies Report, Plan of Japan under the Stockholm Convention October 2002 on Persistent Organic Pollutants, 24 June 2005 Claudio Carlon (2007), Derivation Methods of Karl Wolfram Schäfer a.o. (1996), International Soil Screening Values in Europe, A review Experience and Expertise in Registration and Evaluation of National Procedure Investigation, Assessment, and Clean-Up of towards Harmonization, ISBN: Contaminated Military Sites, 978-92-79-05238-5 Umweltbundesamt, Berlin, Germany 51 LI, Fasheng (2010), Current Status Review on Ohta, Hideo (2010) Soil Contamination Prevention Remediation and Redevelopment of Law amendments ­ Do They Solve the Contaminated Land in China, 2010 Brownfield Problem in Real Estate (Background Paper in this WB project) Transactions? http://www.bakermckenzie.com/zh-CHS/N Li, Xin. (2011), Recycling Urban Industrial LTokyoSoilContaminationPreventionLawAme Land in China, Ph.D. Dissertation, ndmentsApr10/ Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of S.M. Rodriguesa, M.E. Pereiraa, E. Ferreira da Silva Technology, Cambridge, MA. (2009), A Review of Regulatory Decisions for (forthcoming). Environmental Protection: Part I -- Challenges in the Implementation of National Soil Policies, NEPM (1999), Guideline on the Investigation Environment International 35, 202­213 Levels for Soil and Groundwater, Assessment of Site Contamination USEPA (1994), Superfund Administrative Measures, Australia National Improvements Closure Reports June 23, Environment Protection 1994-September 30, 1994 Papanicolaou, Chris (2007), The Proposed USEPA (1996), SSG User's Guide and Technical New Soil Framework Directive, The Land Background Document (U.S. EPA, 1996c and Remediation Year Book 2007 by the 1996b), EPA540/R-96/018 Environmental Industries Commission. USEPA (2002), U.S. Environmental Protection Philippines NIP (2006), National Agency, Supplemental Guidance for Implementation Plan for Stockholm Developing Soil screening level for Superfund Convention on POPs, Philippines Sites, Office of Emergency and Remedial Department of Environment and Natural Response, Washington, DC 20460 Resources, 19 June 2006 UK PIN (2007), National Implementation Plan for POWELL (1998), Amending CERCLA to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Encourage the Redevelopment of Organic Pollutants, United Kingdom of Great Brownfields: Issues, Concerns, and Britain and Northern Ireland, April 2007. Recommendations, 1998 VROM Circular (2006), Soil Remediation Circular Qishi Luoa, Philip Catneyb and David Lernerc 2006, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning (2008), Risk-Based Management of and the Environment of the Netherlands, as Contaminated Land in the UK: Lessons amended on 1 October 2008 for China, Journal of Environmental The World Bank (2007), WATER POLLUTION Management 90, 1123­1134, 2009 EMERGENCIES IN CHINA - Prevention and Response (Policy Note, China Water AAA Program) 52 This report is one of the study reports of the World Bank Knowledge Product "China: Brownfield Remediation and Redevelopment". It was prepared by the Sustainable Development Department of the East Asia and Pacific Region of the World Bank. Environmental and natural resources management issues are an integral part of the development challenge in the East Asia and Pacific (EAP) Region. The World Bank's Environment Strategy in the East Asia and Pacific Region has provided the conceptual framework for setting priorities, strengthening the policy and institutional frameworks for sustainable development, and addressing key environmental and social development challenges through projects, programs, policy dialogue, non-lending services, and partnerships. This study provides a forum for discussions on good practices and policy issues within the development community and with client countries. For more information and to view the reports of the SEA TA Program, please visit http://www.worldbank.org/eapenvironment/sea-asia. Sustainable Development Department East Asia and Pacific Region The World Bank Washington, D.C. September 2010 This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development /The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on maps in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of denoted boundaries. The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally promptly grant permission to reproduce portions of the work. For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA, telephone 978-750-8400, fax 978-750-4470, www.copyright.com. All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA, fax 202-522-2422, e-mail pubrights@worldbank.org.