Contaminated Land Politics in Switzerland - Tackling the "Sins of Yesterday" under the Principle of Appropriateness

Transcription

1 International Seminar on In-Situ Remediation of Contaminated Sites 4./ Sao Paulo, Brazil Contaminated Land Politics in Switzerland - Tackling the "Sins of Yesterday" under the Principle of Appropriateness Dr. Christoph Wenger Swiss Agency for Environment, Forests and Landscape

2 Contaminated Land Politics in Switzerland Tackling the "Sins of Yesterday" under the Principle of Appropriateness In Switzerland there are some 50,000 polluted sites to register of which some 3000 are considered to be in need of remediation and thus classified as contaminated sites. The Swiss contaminated land policy strongly follows the principle of proportionality which is anchored in the federal constitution. This allows to limit the overall investigation and remediation costs to an estimated 3 billion US-Dollars. Appropriateness in the Swiss contaminated land politics is based on 4 columns: the proper principle of proportionality in the constitution, the principle of stopping emissions at the source, the principle of co-operation with the private sectors and the well balanced regulations of bearing the costs in the Federal Law relating to the Protection of the Environment. These principles have been specified in the Contaminated Sites Ordinance (1998) and the Ordinance relating to the Funding of Site Remediation (2000). The contaminated land management in Switzerland has to follow a four-step procedure which allows to manage the 50'000 polluted sites in a costeffective, pragmatic manner: Registration, preliminary investigation, detailed investigation, remediation. The preliminary investigation has the purpose to evaluate if the site leads to harmful effects or if there is a substantial danger that such effects may arise. Not the amount or concentration of hazardous substances in a site is essential, but the substantial possibility for the transmission of such substances to a sensitive environment. The ordinance accepts a certain contamination of the environment depending on the use of soil or water. The general remediation objective of the Swiss contaminated land legislation is to stop harmful emissions at the source. Therefore the ordinance accepts as remediation measures: decontamination, confinement and with respect to soil use also use-restrictions. The ordinance prescribes in certain cases even the deviation from the numerical remediation objectives and is in fact defining the proportionality for contaminated land management. The authorities are required to endeavour agreements with the responsible parties for remediation. Until today, about 90% of all remediations in Switzerland are executed on the basis of an agreement and only 10% need an official order of the authorities. In most of the former cases the negotiations lead to appropriate solutions by utilising the full possibilities of the ordinance, in single cases even beyond the legal frame. In Switzerland the specific regulations for bearing the costs of contaminated land management follow clearly the polluter-pays principle but also allow the possibility for proportional cost allocations among different polluters. But if one or several polluters are not able to bear the costs or do not exist anymore, their share in the costs have to be borne by the state. In such cases and in the clean-up of urban waste landfills the federal government takes over 40% of remediation costs. Thus, Switzerland does not follow the "deep-pocket principle". Among the approximately 200 remediated sites in Switzerland, there is a substantial number of successful examples with appropriate solutions: in-situ remediations with full or partly decontamination (microbiological degradation, reactive walls), with confinement methods or just use-restrictions for the soil. The particular savings in single cases were up to a factor of ten.

3 What is Switzerland? like that?

4 Switzerland is different... Chromium VI-Emissions! it s also like that! hundred thousands of tons of chemical waste! Brownfields!

5 Contaminated land in Switzerland no significant mining activities hardly any heavy industries few extended industrial areas no war-related contamination long tradition of waste incineration but... high population densities little construction land available, expensive land high concentration of industry and landfills intensively farmed soil, high quality requirements intensively used groundwater (80% of drinking water) most contaminated sites lie on groundwater deposits few large sites - many small sites

6 Contaminated land in Switzerland Rhine Basel Zurich Danube Berne Lausanne Geneva Rhône Lugano

7 Tasks to do Until 2025: polluted sites to register polluted sites to investigate contaminated sites to remediate above 3 billion US$ overall costs 1/3 orphan sites to finance

8 Principle of proportionality (Constitution) Constitution: Governmental action must be appropriate Principle of sustainability Stop emissions at source Co-operation with economy Principle of causality

9 Swiss legal frame for contaminated land Federal law relating to the protection of the environment (1983, totally revised 1995): obligation to remediate, register open to the public, regulation of bearing the costs, funding Federal ordinance relating to the remediation of polluted sites (1998; CSO) Federal ordinance relating to the funding of the remediation of contaminated sites (2000; OFCS) Directives of the SAEFL (Establishment of the register, Procedures of analyses and sampling (air, water, soil), Assessment of the substantial danger for groundwater, Establishment of the remediation project)

10 General objectives stop emissions at the source long term, sustainable elimination of hazard solution to the contaminated sites problem within a generation priority on severe contaminated sites co-operation among those affected polluter-pays principle, no deep-pocket principle stepwise management of polluted sites

11 Stepwise management 1. Step Risk assessment Registration Initial evaluation 2. Step Preliminary investigation Assessment 3. Step Detailed investigation Polluted site? Assessment 4. Step Remediation project Contaminated site? (needs remediation) Remediation Objectives and urgency of remediation? Contaminated sites eliminated!

12 Principle of risk assessment (1.-3. steps) Pollution potential Examples: Cr-VI-pollution in industrial soil, no groundwater Release potential Exposure and importance of the natural ressources Dioxine barrel inside Matterhorn

13 Natural ressources to be protected Soil fertility: playgrounds, home gardening: high protection agriculture, horticulture: medium protection industrial, others: no protection Air: Indoor air: high protection (habitants, workers) outdoor air: only protection against heavy dust, odour surface waters directly affected groundwater: drinking water wells: high protection level exploitable groundwater: medium protection level non-exploitable groundwater: low protection level

14 3. Step: Detailed investigation Detailed risk assessment site specific remediation objectives + urgency remediation objective = need for remediation deviation from general objectives, if (e.g. groundwater): a. total environmental impact can be lessened b. disproportionate costs would otherwise result; and c. exploitation of affected groundwater is secured and surface waters in connection with these groundwaters fulfil the general requirements of the water protection legislation

15 4. Step: Remediation Status quo Measures Result Pollution potential Release potential Exposure and importance of natural resources Decontamination (Reduction of the pollution potential) Confinement (Reduction of the release potential) Restriction of soil use C.Site C.Site C.Site natural resource natural resource natural resource

16 Remediation methods Decontamination Securing measures Restriction of utilization of soil Off-site/On-site: Excavation and treatment In situ: biological processes, soil vapour extraction, hydraulic measures, reactive wall systems, phytoremediation, vitrification p.p. Complete encapsulation Base or surface sealing Barrier wall in the groundwater flow Drainage Diversion or lowering the groundwater level Immobilisation, vitrification p.p. Fencing Prohibit use, restrictions to farming use

17 Example Berne: Soil vapour extraction small textile cleanings in the middle of the cities often in basement high percentage of pollution with PER/TRI very mobile, persistent mostly groundwater contamination no chance for excavation or barriers soil vapour extraction!

18 Example Willisau: Reactive wall Wood injection plant t Cr-contamination, m deep hot-spots and plumes under buildingsdrinking water well bedrock in 40m, important drinking water deposit drinking water well closed in 2001, other wells downstream excavation + washing: up to 20 mio. US$ reactive wall! appr. 1 mio. US$ deepest reactive wall research project SAEFL- Federal institute of technology

19 Example Bever: Bio-Puster m3 mainly urban waste, sewage sludge above groundwater, river Inn high ammonium, chlorine, heavy metals waste-gaz emanations very sensitive touristic area (St. Moritz) decontamination is no option Bio-Puster seems optimal!

20 Example Valais: Sealing 4 landfills: m3 in total Waste from electrolysis sewage sludge mixed with demolition waste main groundwater deposit, river Rhône drinking water, irrigation F, CN, Al in groundwater danger for landslide 1996: Greenpeace

21 Example Valais: Options CONCEPT 1 : PRAMONT / SCHNIDRIGEN SEPARAT Steg Colline CONCEPT 2 : CONCENTRATION IN PRAMONT Steg Colline Pramont Schnidrigen 6 M io. US$ Pramont 26 km Schnidrigen 15 M io. US$ CONCEPT 3 : CONCENTRATION IN TSARAROGNE (new landfill) Steg Colline 26 km Schnidrigen Pramont Tsararogne 22 Mio. US$ CONCEPT 4 : TREATMENT / RECYCLING R Steg Colline Schnidrigen Pramont >150 Mio. US$

22 SAEFL Summer 1999 Example Valais: Solution Autumn 1999 Spring 2001 even praised by Greenpeace!!!

23 Conclusions... no perfect solutions necessary, we do after-care few urgent cases, mostly time enough to be creative polluter has to pay, guarantee for financial means if necessary but let s do it, don t shift it next generations clear environmental benefit, but appropriate solutions no action just for action excavation only as ultimo ratio, but may be necessary in single cases no unemployed persons, no bankruptcy because of remediation no money - no remediation solutions must be accepted by all those involved clear and comprehensive solutions (evaluation, measures) therefore: communication - mediation - co-operation appropriate sustainability...

24 Curriculum Dr. Christoph Wenger Head of Contaminated Sites Section - Federal Agency for Environment, Forests and Landscape (), Berne, Switzerland Christoph Wenger is Ph.D. in Geology at the University of Berne. He was project manager for mineral resources at the Swiss Geotechnical Commission at Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Vice-director at Matter Oekolotec in Aarau and Project manager for contaminated land at the Swiss EPA. Since 1993 he is Director of Contaminated Land Section at the Swiss EPA and member of the extended board of the Swiss EPA. Christoph.Wenger@buwal.admin.ch