AUSTRIA where we stay, what we need in future MÜLLER-GRABHERR / BERGTHALER / ORTMANN

Transcription

1 AUSTRIA where we stay, what we need in future MÜLLER-GRABHERR / BERGTHALER / ORTMANN COMMON FORUM, Vienna,

2 2 at the heart of Europe

3 holding a sharing on a wide spectrum of natural systems and cultural background AUSTRIA Total area: ~ km² 60 % mountains (~ 1/3 populated) climate: atlantic/continental/illyric precipitation: < 500 to > mm 8.8 mio. inhabitants ~ 100 persons per km² Vienna: 1.8 mio. inhab. BOHEMIA MORAVIA SLOVAKIA PANNONIA GORIZIA THE BALKANS Conditioned by Austria's extremely diverse lithological structure, the sharp changes in relief and the varying climate, soils also change over very short distances. (AUSTRIA-WIKI) 3

4 OUTLINE Policy objectives & legal framing Risk Assessment and Management generally & highlights Financing & funding remediation projects 4

5 5 Legal background in Austria Water Act (WRG 1959) rather strict zero-contamination -policy ± since 2002 implementing the WFD Contaminated Sites Remediation Act (ALSAG 1989) waste taxation system to finance a national program on historically contaminated sites (rev. legislation pending) Waste Management Act (AWG 1990/2002) addressing contaminated soil WATCH OUT soil protection responsibility of 9 provinces no legislation at Federal level

6 Contaminated Site Markets entirely market driven (no regulation or incentives) construction sector & brownfields abandoned activity/use, not necessarily contaminated historical Site (!) Contamination new soil & groundwater contamination (site or diffuse) serious Federal funding program Commercial Code, Waste Management Act, Water Act

7 Mio. EUR Public remedation budget total ( ): ~ 1,24 bio. EURO 120 waste levy - annual revenue national budget withdrawal budget for subsidies 0 Source: BMLFUW, KPC 2016 year 7

8 Early 1990ies goals are accomplished! solutions to scandals & public uprise! policy response (1989): introducing a waste-tax incentive to reduce waste generation raise funds for remediation remediating national priority sites, e.g. Fischer Deponie (landfills, CHC barrels) Arnoldstein (lead- and zinc-smelter)

9 National Funding program (until 2016) projects approved number of projects costs [ ] aid [ ] remediation Mio. 837 Mio. research Mio. 16 Mio. total Mio. 853 Mio. Source: KPC 2017 =>Average aid remediation: 3,2 M average rate: 77 % => Currently about 90 projects in operation Construction sector & brownfields (an educated guess) excavated contaminated soil: ~ 1 Mio t / year > 80 % landfilled (average costs 80 / t) annual costs: > 60 Mio. EUR

10 European comparisons Europe (39 nations) estimate: 2,5 Mio. sites (1,2 Mio. sites registered) sites remediation/management necessary annual costs: 2 30 / inhabitant average public investment: 42 % (25 90 %) Source: JRC 2014 Austria estimate: (up to 5.000) sites to be remediated total costs: 5 6 Bil. EURO (10 12 Bil. EURO) (annual costs in 2016: ~ 6,5 / inhabitant) average public investment : 76,5 %

11 OPTIONS APPRAISAL (obligatory for public funding) Federal funding guidelines for Remediation: "Maximum ecological effect under acceptable cost" Obligatory for funding: Environmental-economic assessment for => identifying the best alternative (since 1990) Modified Cost-Effectiveness-Analysis (MCEA) as standardised assessment-tool (introduced in 2012) o derived on a hierarchy of remediation goals o defined by key principles 11

12 Modified Cost-Effectiveness-Analysis (MCEA) (obligatory for public funding) The goals of the uppermost level ( overall objectives ) and their weighting are derived from national laws, guidelines and other relevant international documents Upper-level goals and their weighting remain pre-defined by the public funder Three Level-1-goals (overall objectives): (1) Ecology => Weight 60 % (2) Local development => Weight 20 % (3) Project stability => Weight 20 % source: KPC,

13 MISSION STATEMENT (2009) (Participatory Process for Visioning) Key objective 2 Measures (remediate, isolate, monitor, control land use) at seriously contaminated sites within two generations = 2050!! Key objective 4 Designing measures may take site-specific and land use related conditions into account. Human health risks and ecological risks must be managed adequately. Key objective 6 BMLFUW, 2009 Framing conditions for reusing and integrating contaminated sites back into economic cycle shall be improved.

14 Human Health Risk Assessment [EAA Guidance, 2011] Land use, activities & exposure pathway Industry, business and traffic areas Residential areas oral Agriculture and horticulture Recreation areas dermal dermal dermal inhalativ inhalativ House- -garden Waterwell inhalativ inhalativ Source: Environment Agency Austria,

15 Trigger values according to ÖNORM S (2014 ) Comparative summary (tables 1, 2 & 3) * residential (e.g. gardening) or agricultural use: site-specific risk analysis ** further investigation of contaminant uptake by plant TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons PCDD/F dioxins and furans PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (16 reference substances) PCB polychlorinated biphenyls (7 reference substances) 15 Source: ÖNORM S :2014

16 Remediation technologies (incl. combination) containment Source: Kommunalkredit Public Consulting 2014 Pump & treat others new technologies # permeable barriers # thermal in-situ dig & dump surface sealing Innovation? resistive market low acceptance on in-situ landfill gas treatment or soil vapour extraction

17 Challenges ahead Contaminated site management until 2025 Major revision of the existing legal framework (water act, waste management, land use planning) pending Financing historical burdens: Necessary amount (5 20 Billion?) -Who pays? Improving eco-efficiency ( factor 4 ) effective and accelerated investigation tailor-made solution for remediation (improved common understanding with regard to prevent & limit, and sustainability)

18 REMEDIATION ROTTEBALLENDEPONIE PILL adaptive, flexible, cost- & eco-efficient legal order (1999) dig&dump-project cost estimate: >> 25 Mio. solution (investigation & new concept) tailored remediation targets eastern part: surface cover commercial area: no measures western part: in-situ aeration truck-transport minimised source: ÖWAV, 2014 courtesy: H. Passer costs: 5,5 Mio Reduction of costs[ ]: > 75 % FACTOR 4 -PROJECT

19 Contaminated sites & creating values Gusswerkstraße (Steyr) former landfill + oil pollution remediation: ~ 17 Mio. : BMW motor-factory Steyr investment : ~ 380 Mio. employees: ~ annual turn-over: ~ Mio. : Environment Agency Austria Gasometer Simmering Kitzmantelfabrik

20 Embedding CLM to Strategic Land Management: (a circular flow) Reducing desealing as compensation soil sealing - minimising soil sealing along new projects minimising soil sealing - desealing to compensate Steering land use - protection of productive agricultural soils reusing - protection of brownfields ecological niches LAND RESOURCE RESOURCE Management Management Reducing maintaining inner urban land take - reusing brownfields - enhancing inner optimising use intensity urban built land - optimising use intensity Soil management - avoiding disturbance of soil functions (compaction!) - maximum reuse of soil (on-/off-site) Source: Environment Agency Austria,

21 Contaminated site management 2020 Contaminated sites projects are a routine in urban & spatial planning - Changing the image e.g. creating better visibility and encouragement by demonstration projects - Risks are made transparent, comprehensible & calculable (projects are safe, ecological effective and economical viable) accurate information/data extensive communication - Opportunities are taken - certainty of justice and planning

22 AUSTRIA where we stay, what we need in future MÜLLER-GRABHERR / BERGTHALER / ORTMANN COMMON FORUM, Vienna,