contaminated land politics in switzerland tackling the...

SAEFLSAEFLSAEFLSAEFLBUWALBUWALBUWALBUWALOFEFPOFEFPOFEFPOFEFPUFAFPUFAFPUFAFPUFAFP

International Seminar on In-SituRemediation of Contaminated Sites4./5.11.02 - Sao Paulo, Brazil

Contaminated Land Politics in Switzerland-

Tackling the "Sins of Yesterday" under thePrinciple of Appropriateness

Dr. Christoph WengerSwiss Agency for Environment, Forests and Landscape


Contaminated Land Politics in SwitzerlandTackling 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 ascontaminated sites. The Swiss contaminated land policy strongly follows the principle of proportionality which is anchored in the federal constitution. Thisallows 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 ofstopping emissions at the source, the principle of co-operation with the private sectors and the well balanced regulations of bearing the costs in theFederal 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 cost-effective, 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 mayarise. Not the amount or concentration of hazardous substances in a site is essential, but the substantial possibility for the transmission of suchsubstances 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 acceptsas remediation measures: decontamination, confinement and – with respect to soil use – also use-restrictions. The ordinance prescribes in certain caseseven 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 inSwitzerland are executed on the basis of an agreement and only 10% need an official order of the authorities. In most of the former cases thenegotiations 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 allowthe possibility for proportional cost allocations among different polluters. But if one or several polluters are not able to bear the costs or do not existanymore, 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 takesover 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-situremediations with full or partly decontamination (microbiological degradation, reactive walls), with confinement methods or just use-restrictions for thesoil. The particular savings in single cases were up to a factor of ten.


What is Switzerland?

like that?

Ch

rom

ium

VI-

Em

issi

on

s!

Brownfields!


Switzerland is different...

it’s also like that!

hundred thousands of tons of chemical waste!


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

• 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

but...

Berne

Zurich

LuganoGeneva

Lausanne

Basel

Rhine

Rhône

Danube

Berne

Zurich

LuganoGeneva

Lausanne

Basel


Contaminated land in Switzerland


Tasks to do

Until 2025:

• 50’000 polluted sites to register

• 15’000 polluted sites to investigate

• 3000-4000 contaminated sites to remediate

• above 3 billion US$ overall costs

• 1/3 orphan sites to finance


Principle of proportionality (Constitution)

Sto

p e

mis

sio

ns

at s

ou

rce

Co

-op

erat

ion

wit

h e

con

om

y

Pri

nci

ple

of c

ausa

lity

Pri

nci

ple

of s

ust

ain

abili

ty

§ § §

Constitution:Governmental action must be appropriate


Swiss legal frame for contaminated land

• Federal law relating to the protection of the environment(1983, totally revised 1995): obligation to remediate, registeropen 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 ofcontaminated 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)


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


Stepwise management

1. Step

Registration

Initialevaluation

Polluted site?

Contaminated siteseliminated !

2. Step

Preliminary investigation

Assessment

Contaminated site?(needs remediation)

Risk assessment

3. Step

Detailed investigation

Assessment

Objectives and urgencyof remediation?

4. Step

Remediation project

Remediation


Principle of risk assessment (1.-3. steps)

Pollution potential

Releasepotential

Exposure and importanceof the natural ressources

Dioxine barrel inside Matterhorn

Cr-VI-pollution in industrialsoil, no groundwater

Examples:


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


3. Step: Detailed investigation

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 surfacewaters in connection with these groundwaters fulfil thegeneral requirements of the water protection legislation

Detailed risk assessment

site specific remediation objectives + urgency


4. Step: Remediation

ResultStatus quo

Pollution potential

Releasepotential

Exposure and importanceof natural resources

naturalresource

C.Site

C.Site

C.Site

Measures

Decontamination(Reduction of the pollution potential)

Confinement(Reduction of therelease potential)

Restriction ofsoil use

naturalresource

naturalresource


Remediation methods

FencingProhibit use, restrictions to farming use

Restriction ofutilization of soil

Off-site/On-site: Excavation and treatmentIn situ: biological processes, soil vapourextraction, hydraulic measures, reactive wallsystems, phytoremediation, vitrification p.p.

Decontamination

Complete encapsulation Base or surface sealingBarrier wall in the groundwater flowDrainage Diversion or lowering the groundwater level Immobilisation, vitrification p.p.

Securingmeasures


Example Berne: Soil vapour extraction

• 800-1000 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!


Example Willisau: Reactive wall

• Wood injection plant• 50’000 t Cr-contamination, 12-15 m deep• hot-spots and plumes under buildings• bedrock in 40m, important drinking water deposit• drinking water well closed in 2001, other wells downstream• excavation + washing: up to 20 mio. US$

drinking water well

• reactive wall! appr. 1 mio. US$• deepest reactive wall• research project SAEFL- Federal institute of technology


Example Bever: Bio-Puster

• 700’000m3 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!


Example Valais: Sealing

• 4 landfills: 1930-1996• 350’000 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


Example Valais: Options

Steg

Schnidrigen

Colline

Pramont

CONCEPT 2 :

C O N C E N T R A T I O N I N P R A M O N T

26 km

15 M io. US$

Steg

Schnidrigen

Colline

Pramont

CONCEPT 4 :

T R E A T M E N T / R E C Y C L I N G

R

>150 M io. US$

Steg

Schnidrigen

Colline

Pramont

CONCEPT 3 :

C O N C E N T R A T I O N I N T S A R A R O G N E

(new landfill)

T sararogne

26 km

22 M io. US$

Steg

Schnidrigen

Colline

Pramont

CONCEPT 1 :

P R A M O N T / S C H N I D R I G E N

SEPARAT

6 M io. US$

Summer 1999


Example Valais: Solution

Autumn 1999

Spring 2001

even praised by Greenpeace!!!


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

ðð “appropriate sustainability”...


CurriculumDr. Christoph WengerHead of Contaminated Sites Section - Federal Agency for Environment, Forestsand Landscape (BUWAL), 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.

E-mail: [email protected]

contaminated land politics in switzerland tackling the...

Documents