IED implementation. Return to the initial state in Germany- Criteria to evaluate a significant increase of pollution and related remediation

Transcription

1 Für Mensch & Umwelt October Oslo IED implementation Return to the initial state in Germany- Criteria to evaluate a significant increase of pollution and related remediation Joerg Frauenstein Section II 2.6 / Soil Protection Measures

2 Agenda 1 Further steps for implementing the IED in Germany 2 Procedural stages and approaches 3 Criteria and Assessment 4 Route Map and Outlook Acknowledgement: Ad-hoc commission of the Working Group on Soil Protection Issues of the German Federal States and the Federal Government (Bund/Länder-Arbeitsgemeinschaft Bodenschutz, LABO) in cooperation with the Working Group on Water Issues of the German Federal States and the Federal Government (Bund/Länder-Arbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser, LAWA and Working Group on Emission reduction of the German Federal States and the Federal Government (LAI). 2

3 Procedural steps of IED (Art. 22) National guideline in preparation (Finalisation expected: I/2017) 3

4 Current Route map Presentation of a draft guideline Statements and comments from the administrative site of states and competent authorities Statements and comments from stakeholders Nationwide workshop Incorporation of improvements Collation of a second feedback Formal approval by LABO English version will be prepared Recommendation for implementation by conference of German environmental ministers

5 IED requirements and concentions The Baseline Report is solely related to pollution caused during operation of approved installations within the site of installation area. NO Baseline Report = NO comparision = NO remediation measures return to the initial state. Awareness about comparability of Baseline report and documentation of site closure e.g. sampling points, analytical methods, etc. Apples and Oranges! Degradation and the formation of Metabolites, whenever hazardous, are also covered by IED. The Baseline report is no compensation for a missing legal regime for historic contaminated site or a regulation on soil protection! The existing IED regulations will not guarantee a harmonized implementation among Member States. 5

6 Procedure of execution 1. Announcement of the definitive cessation by the operator 2. Existence of a baseline report? 3. Documentation of final cessation (DFC) 4. Approval by competent authority 5. Key question: Significant increase of pollution? 6. Possible Obligations to achieve the initial state 7. A risk based approach is not the intention of IED! 8. Proportionality for any measures related obligations

7 How to characterise a significant pollution Expectancy (strengthen precautionary aspects- better BREF s should mean a less of pollution) Requirements: Easy implementation and execution Absolute vs. relative limits A practical solution should take into account uncertainties in sampling, sample preparation and analytical methods Among discussed proposals we decided to implement: Threshold of Significance = BLR-Concentration *1,5 + X 7

8 Analytical Comparison Minor amount

9 Threshold of significance Site closure Cases and Obligations Concentration DFC [mg/kg] Concentration BLR [mg/kg] Concentration RC < C BLR *1,5 +X Zone without obligation regarding Article 25 IED 9

10 Fall short of limits for significance and hazard Duties related to IED Return to the initial state No significant increase of pollution, no obligations. Duties related to historical contamination (Soil Protection Act) No obligations Return to the satisfactory state No requirements. 10

11 Exceedance the limit of significance - fall short of the hazard limit Duties related to IED Return to the initial state significant increase of pollution, obligation for a remediation if technical feasibile. Case specific approval of proportionality. Duties related to historical contamination (Soil Protection Act) No obligations Return to the satisfactory state No requirements 11

12 Fall short the limit of significance and exceedance of the hazard limit Duties related to IED Return to the initial state No significant increase of pollution, no obligation. Return to the satisfactory state No satisfactory state - the operator has to explain with the Records of Cessation how to achieve a satisfactory state. Documents have to be complete and comprehensible in order to enable a legal and objective approval by the competent authority. Case specific approval of proportionality. Duties related to historical contamination (Soil Protection Act) With an exceedance of "hazard limits" a formal obligation for remediation actions in the regime of the soil protection act exists. Kind and range are result of a site specific review by the authority. 12

13 Exceedance of limits for significance and hazard Duties related to IED Return to the initial state significant increase of pollution, obligation for a remediation if technical feasibile. Case specific approval of proportionality. Return to the satisfactory state No satisfactory state - the operator has to explain with the Records of Cessation how to achieve a satisfactory state. Documents have to be complete and comprehensible in order to enable a legal and objective approval by the competent authority. Case specific approval of proportionality. Duties related to historical contamination (Soil Protection Act) With an exceedance of "hazard limits" a formal obligation for remediation actions in the regime of the soil protection act exists. Kind and range are result of a site specific review by the authority. 13

14 Assessment of Mixtures for a limited number of substances Obligation to return the site into initial state Article 25 IED Return the site to a satisfactory state Concentration RC [mg/kg] Concentration BLR [mg/kg] Concentration RC < C BLR *1,5+X Zone without obligation regarding Article 25 IED Mixture 1 Mixture 2 14

15 Historical Contamination on the site German positions Historic contaminations does not fall under the IED-regime. It is essential for the operator to preserve comprehensive evidence about the site conditions (BLR) in order to limit own responsibilities. Communication among operator and authority might help to find a site specific and more sustainable solution: Reuse of existing infrastructure and buildings and the so caused unattainability of hot spots/sources; Temporary preservation of facilities secured under the VAwS (Ordinance on facilities for handling Substances constituting a Hazard to Water); Public-Private contracts or financial guarantees in order to ensure remediation actions (Brownfield development); Preference to Brownfield development instead of Greenfield loss; Operator models with a transfer of liability, e.g. for Megasites (industrial parks). 15

16 Stakeholders feedback from a nationwide workshop Precise date of definitive cessation may vary? A installation may lose status E earlier! From the operators point of view BLR and DFC comparison in terms of a BROWNFIELD reuse not very suitable! Pragmatic solutions/ incentives for Brownfields are missing! Parallel existence of return-obligations and soil protection law are difficult to understand and to implement Difficulties to quantify and to qualify exactly any soils (due to heterogeneity, matrix effects, etc.) Any financial securing without concrete suspicion seems will not be accepted by industry. Relevance of pollution / Proportionality of measures

17 Approaches discussed Financial securities Contracts under public-law Insurance, funds, others Assessment 1.5-fold output value should rather have the function of a trigger value. The relevance factor will get a flexibility depending on analytical methods constaints and measurement uncertainties Others Nessesity of a Frame-BLR for complex sites with more than one installation Flexible of obligations to achieve the initial state

18 Remaining issues for the German Working Group Guiding principles (case specific execution, etc.) are considered as necessary introduction and explanations for a better understanding within the guideline are necessary! Proportional expenditures for the preparation of the DFC are crucial for acceptance! Substance evaluation urgently require further development (transnational and transnational cooperation) Pragmatic solutions for historical" sites, transfer of site specific information Financial securing of obligations to achieve the initial state

19 Thank You, any questions? Joerg Frauenstein II 2.6 Soil Protection Measures / Hier steht der Veranstaltungstitel in 12 Punkt 19