| BACKGROUND |

CURRENT STATE ANDFUTURE PROSPECTS

OF REMEDIAL SOIL PROTECTION

Imprint

Editor UmweltbundesamtWörlitzer Platz 1 06844 Dessau-Roßlau

E-Mail: pressestelle@uba.deInternet: www.umweltbundesamt.de

Author: Jörg FrauensteinSection II 2.6

Design: UBA

Coverphoto: © Tom LiMa / Fotolia

1

1 Introduction

The legal basis for soil protection in the FederalRepublic of Germany is:

The Act on Protection against HarmfulChanges to Soil and on Rehabilitation of Con-taminated Sites (Federal Soil Protection Act)(Bundes-Bodenschutzgesetz - BBodSchG) of1998 [1]

The Federal Soil Protection and Contamina-ted Sites Ordinance (BBodSchV) of 1999 [2].

In Germany, the Federal Government has legisla-tive competence in the field of soil protection.The Länder (German federal states), in turn, areresponsible for enforcement of the BBodSchGand the BBodSchV; they may also issue supple-mentary procedural regulations.

According to Article 1 BBodschG, the purpose ofthe Act is inter alia to pprrootteecctt aanndd rreessttoorree tthheeffuunnccttiioonnss ooff tthhee ssooiill oonn aa ppeerrmmaanneenntt ssuussttaaiinnaabblleebbaassiiss.. TThheessee aaccttiioonnss sshhaallll iinncclluuddee pprreevveennttiioonn ooffhhaarrmmffuull ssooiill cchhaannggeess aass wweellll aass rreehhaabbiilliittaattiinnggssooiill,, ccoonnttaammiinnaatteedd ssiitteess aanndd wwaatteerrss ccoonnttaammiinnaa--tteedd bbyy ssuucchh ssiitteess iinn ssuucchh aa wwaayy tthhaatt aannyy ccoonnttaa--mmiinnaattiioonn rreemmaaiinnss ppeerrmmaanneennttllyy bbeellooww tthheehhaazzaarrdd tthhrreesshhoolldd.. Whilst prevention aims to pro-tect and preserve soil functions on a long-termbasis, the object of remediation is mainly toavert concrete hazards in a spatial, temporal andmanageable causative context.

"Remedial soil protection" encompasses a tieredprocedure in which a suspicion is verified suc-cessively and with least-possible effort and inwhich the circumstances of the individual caseat hand are taken into account in decidingwhether or not a need for remediation exists. Itcomprises the systematic stages of identifying,investigating and assessing suspect sites and sitessuspected of being contaminated with a view totheir hazard potential, determining whetherremediation is necessary, remediating identifiedharmful soil changes and contaminated sites,and carrying out, where necessary, aftercaremeasures following final inspection of the reme-dial measure.

2 Basis and measures of remedial soilprotection

Article 2 (2) no. 1 of BBodSchG states that thesoil performs natural functions

a) as a basis for life and a habitat for people,animals, plants and soil organisms,

b) as part of natural systems, especially bymeans of its water and nutrient cycles,

c) as a medium for decomposition, balanceand restoration as a result of its filtering,buffering and substance-converting pro-perties, and especially groundwater pro-tection.

Pollutant and other impacts such as erosion,compaction, loss of organic material, salinisati-on, contamination, etc., may adversely affectthese natural soil functions to such a degree asto result in harmful soil changes (as defined inArticle 2 (3) BBodSchG).

Pollutant inputs into the soil may lead to impair-ment of natural soil functions or to hazards ordamage to other protected assets as a result ofaccumulation, retardation, transport, reaction ordegradation processes. They may originate frompoint, area or diffuse sources and give rise toharmful soil changes or contaminated sites (asdefined in Article 3 (5) BBodSchG).

Contaminated sites within the meaning ofBBodSchG are former waste disposal sites andformer industrial sites that cause harmful soilchanges or other hazards for individuals or thegeneral public. This includes, for example, sitesat which in the past waste has been treated, sto-red or landfilled (former waste disposal sites) orenvironmentally hazardous substances havebeen handled (former industrial sites).

In Germany, contaminated sites are dealt withby applying a tiered scheme which has provedto be robust and reliable in enforcement. Usingthis methodology, the suspicion of site contami-nation in terms of the existence, concentrationand behaviour of hazardous substances andtheir effects on relevant transfer routes, pro-tected assets and receptors is successively veri-fied on the basis of available information andtargeted investigations. It is usually not until thefinal risk assessment that the competent authori-ty decides whether a site is contaminated andmust be cleaned up. The investigation andassessment steps on the way to that decision are

Current State and Future Prospects of Remedial Soil Protection- Background paper - 1

1 Editorial deadline: August 2009

2

sequenced so as to enable the authority to deci-de at each stage about necessary further stepson the basis of the information available at thetime. As the number of investigation stepsincreases, so do the specific costs incurred andthe reliability of the conclusions drawn. Thismethodology is no dogma, but enables the com-petent authority to consider a suspicion ashaving been ruled out on the basis of the availa-ble information, to close knowledge gapsthrough further investigations or to initiateimmediate measures to avert hazards.

Key determinants for the potential hazards cau-sed by pollutant inputs are the type and quanti-ty of the pollutants, their dispersal / opportuni-ties to disperse via relevant transfer pathways,and their potential effect on relevant protectedassets/receptors.

Determining the hazard potential / extent ofdamage is the object of an exploratory investiga-tion and, if necessary, a detailed investigation asdefined in Article 2 nos. 3 and 4 BBodSchV. Pol-lutant inputs do not per se justify the need forhazard prevention; rather, this requires a riskassessment to be performed:

For a final risk assessment, the relevant circums-tances (in terms of damage, site, protected assetand use) of the individual case need to be consi-dered and evaluated.

The obligations in relation to hazard preventionare set out in Article 4 BBodSchG :

TThhee ssooiill aanndd ccoonnttaammiinnaatteedd ssiitteess,, aanndd aannyy wwaatteerrppoolllluuttiioonn ccaauusseedd bbyy hhaarrmmffuull ssooiill cchhaannggeess oorr ccoonn--ttaammiinnaatteedd ssiitteess,, sshhaallll bbee rreemmeeddiiaatteedd iinn ssuucchh aammaannnneerr tthhaatt nnoo hhaazzaarrddss,, ccoonnssiiddeerraabbllee ddiissaaddvvaann--ttaaggeess oorr ccoonnssiiddeerraabbllee nnuuiissaanncceess ffoorr iinnddiivviidduuaallssoorr tthhee ggeenneerraall ppuubblliicc ooccccuurr iinn tthhee lloonngg tteerrmm..

Depending on the pedological, hydrogeologicaland hydraulic conditions at the site, its presentand future use (as permitted under planninglaw), the properties of the pollutants, the rele-vant transfer / effect pathways and the protectedassets affected, different options and different

Protected assets:

human health

water resources and quality,

air quality

soil with natural functions

nature and landscape

3

4

possible measures or combination of measuresmay usually be considered for hazard preventi-on.

The remediation investigation regulated byAnnex 3 to BBodSchV is a comparative review ofsuitable measures (e.g. remediation methodsand strategies). In this review, the principle ofproportionality must be observed: The measuresstipulated by the competent authority, and theirconsequences for the party obligated to carrythem out, must be in reasonable proportion tothe hazard to be prevented. This means that pre-ference must be given to that measure / combi-nation of measures which while being equallyeffective represents the "milder means" (i.e. isnecessary) and which exhibits an adequate cost-benefit ratio.

According to Article 2 (7) BBodSchG, possiblemeasures for long-term hazard prevention (reme-diation) include not only decontamination mea-sures, in which pollutants are removed or redu-ced, but also containment measures, which pre-vent or reduce spreading of pollutants in a las-ting way.

Aftercare measures will be necessary wheneverany remaining pollution potential demands thatthe effectiveness and functioning of remediationstructures and facilities be maintained for thelong term and effect pathways be monitored.

If suitable remedial measures are disproportio-nate, protective or restrictive measures may be

applied. However, for sites which became conta-minated after the date the BBodSchG enteredinto force, i.e. 1 March 1999, only decontamina-tion is allowed.

The costs and time necessary to achieve theremediation objectives defined (and for anynecessary aftercare) may vary considerably,depending on what combinations of measurescan be used.

Since the hazard prevention obligation pursuantto Article 4 (3) BBodSchG is based on the precau-tionary principle, coverage of the remediationcosts is a key question and often presents a keyhurdle for the implementation of necessary mea-sures, as it is not always possible to identify aparty obligated to carry out remediation andcall that party to task.

3 The system of values under theBBodSchG und BBodSchV

The principle enshrined in the BBodSchG forremedial soil protection is hazard prevention. Inthe BBodSchV, the material standards for hazardassessment are further specified in the form oftrigger values and action values for certain path-ways and pollutants.

Trigger values are concentrations that, if excee-ded, require an investigation to be undertaken

5

on a case-by-case basis, taking into account therelevant land use. Concentrations below the trig-ger value rule out any suspicion of a hazard forthe pollutant concerned, i.e. the suspicion ofharmful soil changes is deemed unfounded andno further investigations are necessary. If con-centrations are above the trigger value, thenthis gives cause to suspect that harmful soilchanges exist or that the site is contaminatedand requires further assessment steps to clarifyand evaluate the suspicion.

Action values are concentrations that, if excee-ded, shall normally be deemed to indicate thepresence of a harmful soil change or site conta-mination, taking the relevant soil use intoaccount, and the need to initiate measures.

Annex 2 to BBodSchV contains use-related trig-ger values for pollutants for assessment of thesoil - human health, soil - groundwater and soil -plant pathways as well as actions values for pol-lutants for assessment of the soil - human healthand soil - plant pathways.

The following criteria in particular are relevantfor the derivation of trigger and action valuesfor the soil - human health pathway:

Substance properties that influence spreadingof substances and, possibly, their availabilityfor uptake,

Soil properties that affect substance com-pounds and their behaviour in the environ-ment;

Human behaviour patterns (play, work, garde-ning, etc.) together with different age-specificexposure durations at the places where theseactivities usually take place,

Different routes of uptake (through gastroin-testinal tract when ingesting food or drinkingwater or via inhalation of dust), and

The quality and number of the available data(statistical data, epidemiological findings).

The BBodSchV does not contain any action valu-es for the soil - human health pathway - otherthan those for dioxins / furans - because thetechnical bases and methods are still lackingthat would be needed to express a given actionvalue as the amount of a soil pollutant thatwould be available for human resorption. Measu-rement of the portion that is available forresorption, of the total amount of a given pollu-tant in the soil, is considered to be an importantmethodological prerequisite for introduction ofaction values.

The methods and standards used to derive thetrigger and action values listed in Annex 2 have

been published in the Federal Law Gazette (Bun-desanzeiger) No. 161a of 28 August 1999 as wellas in "Berechnung von Prüfwerten zur Bewertungvon Altlasten" (Calculation of trigger values forthe assessment of contaminated sites) (ERICHSCHMIDT VERLAG, Berlin, 1999). Article 4 (5)BBodSchV provides that these methods and stan-dards must be taken into account when derivingtrigger or action values for additional pollutants.

In order to be able to respond more quickly tothe urgent need of enforcement authorities forbinding trigger values, the legislation should bechanged to allow values to be periodicallyupdated, derived and authorised also outside theinstrument of an amendment to the Ordinance.

Due to the complexity of the circumstances ofeach individual case (such as geological andhydrogeological site characteristics, specificnature of the damage, relevance of the pro-tected assets affected by specific uses), no thres-holds have been legally prescribed for determi-ning the need for remediation, nor have reme-diation target values been defined. Instead, thecompetent authorities were accorded a conside-rable degree of discretion, which has proved itsworth in enforcement.

4 Interfaces with other areas of legislation und issues

The BBodSchG applies to harmful soil changesand contaminated sites as far as the provisionsof other areas of legislation as listed in Article 3BBodSchG do not regulate impacts on soil. Theseother areas of legislation concern recycling /waste, hazardous goods, fertilisers / plant pro-tection / genetic engineering, agriculture andforestry, construction of transport infrastructure,planning law / land use planning, mining andpollution control. As a result, there is a need tointegrate soil-related requirements into variousareas of legislation in order to gradually achievecompatibility between the systems of valuesapplied in waste, water and soil legislation.

Since remedial soil protection in the Germanlegal system is geared to preventing hazards, theprovisions of the BBodSchG alone cannot ensurethat remediated sites also meet the demands ofregional planners and urban developers for anysubsequent use or the specific requirements ofthe site and property market. Therefore, inefforts to reintegrate contaminated sites into the

6

real estate market (site redevelopment)2, particu-lar attention must be paid to the conditions andlegal regimes of building and planning law andthe particularities of programmes to promoteregional economic development.

Based on a model decree of ARGE BAU3 on poli-cy regarding sites with soil pollution, particular-ly contaminated sites, in land use planning andin building permission procedures, recommen-dations have been issued in some Länder thataddress the interfaces with planning law andland use planning.

Site redevelopment can make a significant contri-bution to achieving the 30 ha/d land-take targetset in the German sustainability strategy4, but inpractice it has also established itself as a driver forremedial soil protection. One example to illustra-te this is the new building of the Federal Environ-ment Agency in Dessau-Rosslau, where site rede-velopment not only helped to overcome the nega-tive image of this former derelict industrial site inthe "Gas Quarter" in Dessau but also allowedmore remediation to be carried out than what isusually done and what is required for hazard pre-vention under soil protection legislation.

IInn tthhee ooppiinniioonn ooff tthhee FFeeddeerraall EEnnvviirroonnmmeenntt AAggeenn--ccyy,, hhaazzaarrdd pprreevveennttiioonn iinn rreemmeeddiiaall ssooiill pprrootteeccttiioonnmmeeaannss tthhaatt eeccoollooggiiccaall ccoonncceessssiioonnss nneeeedd ttoo bbeemmaaddee iinn tteerrmmss ooff rreessttoorraabbllee ssooiill qquuaalliittyy.. SSuussttaaii--nneedd pprrootteeccttiioonn ooff ssooiill qquuaalliittyy ccaann oonnllyy bbee aacchhiiee--vveedd bbyy tthhee mmeeaannss pprroovviiddeedd bbyy pprreevveennttiivvee ssooiillpprrootteeccttiioonn.. TThhee rreeqquuiirreemmeennttss ffoorr pprrootteeccttiioonn oofftthhee mmeeddiiuumm ""ssooiill"" mmuusstt tthheerreeffoorree bbee eeffffeeccttiivveellyyiinntteeggrraatteedd,, aatt tthhee pprreeccaauuttiioonnaarryy lleevveell,, iinnttooaaffffeecctteedd lleeggiissllaattiivvee ffiieellddss ((ppaarrttiiccuullaarrllyy llaanndd uusseeppllaannnniinngg,, aaggrriiccuullttuurree aanndd ffoorreessttrryy,, aanndd nnaattuurreeccoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn)).. OOnnllyy iinn tthhiiss wwaayy ccaann tthhee hhiigghhccoossttss ooff rreemmeeddiiaall ssooiill pprrootteeccttiioonn bbee nnoottiicceeaabbllyyrreedduucceedd iinn tthhee mmeeddiiuumm aanndd lloonngg tteerrmm..

5 Past development and current status of remedial soil protection

5.1 Legal basis and enforcement in Germany

Enforcement of the legal provisions on remedialsoil protection is the responsibility of the Länder.They must define the specific requirements.

Numerous manuals, guidelines and other mate-rials exist in the Länder, providing assessmentcriteria for the authorities responsible for soilprotection and concrete guidance for expertsand investigating bodies.

Due to historical developments before theBBodSchG and BBodSchV entered into force, theway registers are kept and contaminated sitesdealt with varies between the Länder, althoughthe methodologies are based on the same tech-nical principles. There are also differences in theway contaminated sites are financed and in howthose sites are dealt with for which the partyobligated to carry out remediation cannot beascertained and/or called to task.

Due to advances in science and technology andthe experience gained in enforcement, thesecondary legislation needs to be updated. TheGerman Federal Environment Ministry has detai-led necessary adjustments and updates in a keyissues paper on amendment of the BBodSchV:

Fundamental revision of Annex 1 toBBodSchV (Requirements concerning sam-pling, methods of analysis and quality assu-rance during the investigations):

Update all references to standards and establish investigation methods for new priority pollutants,

Update the methods for estimating sub-stance inputs to groundwater from suspectsites and sites suspected of being contami-nated),

Determination of the equivalence of analy-tical methods in laboratory practice anddealing with measurement uncertainty in enforcement;

Data collection for, and updating and supple-menting the trigger and action values listedin Annex 2 to BBodSchV;

Harmonising the trigger values for evaluationof the soil - groundwater pathway with theLAWA5 marginal thresholds, and formulationof implementing rules;

Taking natural attenuation into considerationwhen deciding on remedial, protective andrestrictive measures;

2 Site redevelopment (Flächenrecycling) means the use-related reinte-gration into economic and natural cycles of properties which havelost their previous function and use - such as decommissionedindustrial and commercial sites, military sites, traffic areas and thelike - by means of planning and economic policy measures (defini-tion by technical committee of the Ingenieurtechnischer Verbandfür Altlastenmanagement und Flachenrecycling e.V. (ITVA)[3])

3 Working group of the ministers or senators of the 16 Länderresponsible for urban development, building and housing (Con-ference of German Federal and Länder Building Ministers)

4 In 2002 the German Federal Government adopted the nationalsustainable development strategy "Perspectives for Germany". One ofits quantitative targets is to reduce land-take from what is currentlyabout 104 hectares per day to 30 hectares per day by 2020. [4]

5 In 2004, the Joint Water Commission of the Länder (Länderarbeits-gemeinschaft Wasser, LAWA) derived so-called marginal thresholds(Geringfügigkeitsschwellenwerte, GFS) for 71 individual substancesand summative parameters. The marginal threshold defines theboundary between an insignificant change in chemical groundwa-ter quality and harmful contamination.

7

Comparable procedures for prevention ofobvious harmful soil changes in case of acci-dents and imminent danger.

Exchange of information between the FederalGovernment and the Länder takes place via thebodies of the Joint Soil Protection Commission ofthe Federal Government and the Länder (LABO).Specific technical problems are dealt with intemporary ad-hoc working groups, in which theFederal Environment Agency participates.

TThhee FFeeddeerraall EEnnvviirroonnmmeenntt aaddvvooccaatteess,, aallssoo ffrroommtthhee vviieewwppooiinntt ooff qquuaalliittyy aassssuurraannccee,, tthhee ddeevveelloopp--mmeenntt aanndd aapppplliiccaattiioonn ooff nnaattiioonnaallllyy uunniiffoorrmmaapppprrooaacchheess ttoo rreemmeeddiiaall ssooiill pprrootteeccttiioonn.. TThheeddeevveellooppmmeenntt ooff ddeettaaiilleedd rreeqquuiirreemmeennttss aannddaasssseessssmmeenntt ttoooollss ttaakkeess ppllaaccee iinn tthhee JJooiinntt SSooiill PPrroo--tteeccttiioonn CCoommmmiissssiioonn ooff tthhee LLäännddeerr ((LLAABBOO)) aanndd iittssccoommmmiitttteeeess aanndd wwoorrkkiinngg ggrroouuppss,, iinn ssttaannddaarrddiissaa--ttiioonn bbooddiieess ((DDIINN,, CCEENN,, IISSOO)),, iinn aassssoocciiaattiioonnss((IITTVVAA,, BBVVAA)) aanndd tthhrroouugghh RR++DD pprroojjeeccttss.. TThhee FFeeddee--rraall EEnnvviirroonnmmeenntt AAggeennccyy ssuuppppoorrttss tthheessee aaccttiivviittiieessaanndd ccoonnttrriibbuutteess ttoo tthheemm tthhrroouugghh tthhee sseeccrreettaarriiaattssooff tthhee EExxppeerrtt CCoouunncciill oonn SSooiill IInnvveessttiiggaattiioonnss ((FFBBUU))aanndd tthhee FFeeddeerraall EEnnvviirroonnmmeenntt AAggeennccyy SSooiill PPrroo--tteeccttiioonn CCoommmmiissssiioonn ((KKBBUU))..

5.2 Current status of contaminated sitestreatment and research in Germany

Although Germany has undertaken large effortssince the mid-1980s to clean up contaminatedsites and nearly all sites in Germany have beenregistered, the registers of the Länder still con-tain around 304,000 (as at 08/2009) sitessuspected of being contaminated. A final hazardassessment was performed for some 25 % ofsuspect sites, and for about 10 % of these sitesremedial measures have been initiated or alrea-dy been completed. In our experience, however,only about 10-15 % of suspect sites actuallyrequire remediation.

In addition, there are about 29,000 sites current-ly or formerly used for military purposes by theGerman Armed Forces or visiting forces andfederally owned sites in civil use. These sites,which do not fall within the responsibility of theLänder, have been registered and subjected to aninitial assessment. They include 13,970 siteswhich have been investigated with the aim ofperforming a hazard assessment. For 1,643 fede-rally owned sites, remediation plans have alrea-dy been drawn up or remediation carried out.The latter figures refer not only to site contami-nation, but also to harmful soil changes andresulting groundwater pollution.

The Federal Republic of Germany has investedconsiderably in research to support the work oncontaminated sites. Over € 300 million havebeen spent so far within the sphere of the Fede-ral Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF)alone, when adding the contributions of thirdparties. As a result, the scientific and technicalbasis for remediating harmful soil changes andcontaminated sites has improved considerably inGermany. A network of competent engineeringproviders and an appropriate remediation infra-structure have made the "contaminated sitesproblem" largely manageable, from a strictlytechnical point of view. This does not preclude,however, that a remediation method might notbe commercially available in a given case orthat the acceptance of innovative technologicalor management concepts may continue to posea problem in enforcement.

When choosing remedial measures, the inter-actions between them, and their environmentalimpacts are increasingly taken into accountusing life-cycle analysis. In this context, greaterconsideration is also given to social and econo-mic aspects of remediation and site redevelop-ment. Another focus of interest for the partiesinvolved in remediation is to increase the effecti-veness of soil and groundwater remediationthrough development of complex remediationstrategies and innovative methods while consis-tently applying BATNEEC6 criteria.

Accordingly, BMBF funding priorities and jointresearch projects address the priority need forresearch to advance the state of the art in sci-ence and technology through the interplay ofinnovation and sustainability; for example:

KORA - Controlled natural retention anddegradation of pollutants in the remediationof contaminated groundwater and soil [5],

RUBIN - Use of permeable reactive barriersfor contaminated sites remediation, [6]

REFINA - Reduction of land-take and sustaina-ble land management [7],

SAFIRA II - Concepts for revitalising contami-nated soil and groundwater at megasites [8],

TASK - Centre of Competence for Soil, Waterand Site Revitalisation [9].

Especially when damage is large-scale and com-plex (as is the case with waste dumps at formerlignite mining sites or with traditional largeindustrial sites of e.g. the chemical industry),conventional measures will not normally allow

6 Best Available Techniques Not Entailing Excessive Cost3

8

the damage to be remediated or hazards to beprevented within a foreseeable period and byproportionate means. In such cases, the definiti-on of appropriate remediation objectives and ofoptimal configurations of source and plumeremediation measures presents a particular chal-lenge. In the opinion of the Federal Environ-ment Agency, this also requires new manage-ment concepts that are based on a fundamentaltechnical consensus (e.g. to accept innovativeremedial approaches) in enforcement.

5.3 National remediation programmes

With German unification, ownership of contami-nated sites on the territory of the former GDR(East Germany), and thus the responsibility fortheir remediation, passed either to the new Län-der or to the Federal Republic of Germany. InDecember 1992, the Federal Government / Treu-handanstalt (THA)7 and the Länder Berlin, Bran-denburg, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania,Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt and Thuringia enteredinto an administrative agreement on the finan-cing of remediation at contaminated industrialsites administered by the THA, with the aim ofpromoting investment at these sites and safegu-arding and creating jobs.

The agreement regulates proportionate fundingof measures by the Federal Government and theLänder, with the prerequisite that the competentLand authorities exempt investors from the liabi-lity and costs for any environmental damagecaused prior to 1 July 1990, in accordance withthe Environmental Framework Act and the Obs-tacles Removal Act. Exemption granted, thedemands enforced on the Länder are split 60(Federal Government) to 40 (Länder). A cost ratioof 75 (Federal Government) to 25 (Länder) wasset for so-called large-scale ecological projects.These costs are reduced by the amount borne bythe buyer of a THA-administered company. Over€ 3 billion have been spent to date on 21 large-scale projects.

Remediation of lignite mining sites is anothertask which the Federal Government and the Län-der have been fulfilling jointly since 1992 on thebasis of continued administrative agreements,with investment of over € 8 billion so far. The

4th Federal Government/Länder administrativeagreement on the financing of lignite miningremediation entered into force on 1 January2008 and has a duration of 5 years, securingcontinued financing of lignite mining remediati-on in the period 2008-2012 with a volume ofover € 1 billion. Specific measures for remediati-on of lignite mining sites are funded by theFederal Government and the Länder at a ratio of3 to 1, whereas funding of supplementary mea-sures aimed at preventing hazards resultingfrom the rise of the groundwater table is sharedequally between the Federal Government andthe Länder. Another mining remediation pro-gramme is remediation of the former Wismuturanium mining sites, which is due to be com-pleted by 2015. In its case, the Federal Govern-ment has sole financial responsibility with anestimated budget of € 6.2 billion.

About € 400 million were allocated to the conta-minated sites programme of the German ArmedForces in the period 1991 to 2008.

5.4 Remediation infrastructure

The market for soil remediation services in Ger-many is constantly changing. In the 1990s theaim was to develop and make available afunctioning remediation infrastructure. Later,the "hunt for soil" began. Operators of soil treat-ment plants "struggled" to obtain sufficientquantities of soil to ensure the long-term econo-mic viability of their plants. This was counte-racted above all by scientific-methodologicaladvances in hazard assessment and correspon-ding adaptations of the remediation concepts,which aimed to progressively reduce the propor-tion of soil to be treated. In addition, stationarysoil treatment plants started to see competitionfrom mobile and semi-mobile plants, which -optimised specific to each project - were oftenthe economically more attractive alternative.Also, remediation concepts increasingly includedseparate requirements for sub-areas, which ten-ded to create a need for modular remediationsystems. Overall, the Federal Republic of Germa-ny has a sufficient remediation infrastructure.An authorised plant capacity of over 7,000,000t/a today is proof of a steady capacity increasesince 1995 and appears to provide sufficientresources to additionally treat soil-like materialssuch as street cleaning waste or material fromother countries. In 2009, 8 thermal, 23 chemi-cal-physical and 62 biological soil treatment

7 The TTrreeuuhhaannddaannssttaalltt (THA, also called "Treuhand" for short) was afederal public-law agency in Germany established at the time theGDR (former East Germany) was in its final phase. Its task was toprivatise the GDR's state-owned companies according to the princi-ples of a market economy or, where this was not possible, todecommission them, and "to safeguard the companies' efficiencyand competitiveness" (Article 8 of the Treuhand Act).

9

plants were in stationary operation in Germany[9]. In addition, there are a number of authori-

sed pre-treatment plants and intermediate stora-ge facilities.

* BW-Baden-Württemberg, BY-Bavaria, BE-Berlin, BB-Brandenburg, HB-Bremen, HH-Hamburg, HE-Hesse, MV-Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, NI-Lower Saxony, NW-Northrhine-Westphalia, RP-Rhineland-Palatinate, SL-Saarland, SN-Saxony, ST-Saxony-Anhalt, SH-Schleswig-Holstein, TH-Thuringia

10

6 European Union

Soil protection is an integral part of media-rela-ted environmental protection and needs to beadequately regulated at both European andnational level. While Germany had establishedmodern soil protection legislation as early as1999, today interest focuses on current activitiesof the European Commission towards the adopti-on of a European soil framework directive.

While soil protection has numerous interfaceswith other international environmental issues,such as greater competition for fertile soil as aresult of climate change, increased cultivation ofenergy crops, growing demand for food, land-take, a relevant additional aspect in the contextof European policy is that differences in environ-mental protection requirements between Mem-ber States distort competition within their com-mon market. This can only be eliminatedthrough EC framework legislation which requi-res Member States to adhere to uniform environ-mental standards.

On 22 September 2006 the European Commissi-on presented its Thematic Strategy for Soil Pro-tection, an impact analysis and a proposal for asoil framework directive (SFD) [10].

Criticisms from Germany, particularly the Län-der, address the following points: overall, an"overregulation", insufficient consideration ofthe principle of subsidiarity, lacking freedom ofMember States to regulate risks to soil, and highcosts. In two decisions, the Bundesrat (FederalCouncil) expressed its opposition to the SFD. Atthe EU Ministerial Council meeting of 20 Decem-ber 2007, the German Government togetherwith four other Member States (UK, NL, A, F)voted against the adoption of a political commit-ment. This general position of Germany againstan SFD continues to hold and was reaffirmed atthe EU Environment Council meeting on 15March 2010. The Joint Soil Protection Commissi-on of the Federal Government and the Länder(LABO) has also repeatedly underlined its opposi-tion to the SFD.

The Federal Environment Agency advocates theSFD from a technical perspective, but does seepotential for improvement. Of particular impor-tance are clear outline procedures as well as sub-stantive requirements for a uniform level of soilprotection, taking into account land use on aEuropean scale, without excessive obligations forreporting to the European Commission.

The Federal Environment Agency supports the

setting of minimum standards for soil that arebinding on all Member States, for reasons ofenvironmental and resource protection. Thisholds especially for remedial soil protection, asthe qualitative divergences between "old" and"new" Member States are grave in this area. Inthe opinion of the German Council of Environ-mental Advisors (SRU)8, adoption of the SFDwould open up a new field of environmentalpolicy action and provide significant impetus tothe national legislation (SRU 2008). Knowledgetransfer and transnational research cooperationcould help significantly to approximate existingdivergences in the level of protection and to sol-ve similar problems more efficiently.

AAccccoorrddiinngg ttoo tthhee EEuurrooppeeaann EEnnvviirroonnmmeenntt AAggeennccyy((EEEEAA)),, tthheerree aarree aatt lleeaasstt 11..88 mmiilllliioonn ssuussppeecctt ssiitteessiinn EEuurrooppee99[[1111]]..

AA EEuurrooppeeaann ssooiill ffrraammeewwoorrkk ddiirreeccttiivvee wwoouulldd pprroo--mmoottee ssoollvviinngg tthhee iimmppoorrttaanntt eennvviirroonnmmeennttaall pprroo--bblleemm ooff ccoonnttaammiinnaatteedd ssiitteess aanndd ppoolliittiiccaallllyyuuppggrraaddee eeffffoorrttss ttoo tthhiiss eenndd,, aanndd iitt ccoouulldd eennssuurreetthhaatt eexxiissttiinngg eexxppeerriieennccee wwiitthh tthhee mmaannaaggeemmeennttooff ccoonnttaammiinnaatteedd ssiitteess iiss uuttiilliisseedd tthhrroouugghhoouutt tthheeEEUU.. SSooiill qquuaalliittyy ffrroomm aa pprreevveennttiivvee oorr rreemmeeddiiaallppooiinntt ooff vviieeww sshhoouulldd bbee mmeeaassuurreedd aaccccoorrddiinngg ttoouunniiffoorrmm ssttaannddaarrddss iinn bbootthh GGeerrmmaannyy aanndd EEuurrooppeeaanndd sshhoouulldd nnoott mmiirrrroorr tthhee lleevveell ooff eeccoonnoommiiccddeevveellooppmmeenntt ooff aannyy ppaarrttiiccuullaarr MMeemmbbeerr SSttaattee..

TThhee FFeeddeerraall EEnnvviirroonnmmeenntt AAggeennccyy tthheerreeffoorreeaaddvvooccaatteess tthhee iinnttrroodduuccttiioonn aanndd ddeevveellooppmmeenntt ooffaa EEuurrooppeeaann ssooiill ffrraammeewwoorrkk ddiirreeccttiivvee,, wwiitthh tthheeffoolllloowwiinngg ccoonnddiittiioonnss::

Consistent integration with relevant fields oflegislation for integrated soil protection (IPPCDirective10[12]- SFD - Environmental LiabilityDirective [13]) to streamline enforcement:This would, for example, provide the opportu-nity in future to combine the PollutantsRelease and Transfer Register (PRTR) emissi-ons register and the contaminated sites regis-ter in a compatible way via appropriate inter-faces. The data and information that existson in-service installations could then be effi-ciently transferred to the contaminated sitesregister at the time they are decommissio-ned, which would effectively reduce duplicati-ve data keeping, which is still common today,

8 The German Council of Environmental Advisors (Sachverständigen-rat für Umweltfragen, SRU) is a body giving scientific advice to theGerman Federal Government. Its mandate is to describe the envi-ronmental situation and environmental policy in the Federal Repu-blic of Germany and its development trends and to identify undes-irable developments in environmental policy and possibilities foravoiding or eliminating them.

9 As at 2007 (incomplete data base)

10 Directive concerning integrated pollution prevention and control

11

and secure site- and installation-specific infor-mation without any losses;

Consistent implementation of the principle ofcompartmental environmental protection incombination with the establishment of har-monised substantive requirements (triggervalues, threshold values, action values…);

A tiered evaluation methodology adequate tothe risk, based on a coherent review of availa-ble information, in particular historical, secto-ral and substance-related information, priorto any sampling and analysis;

A sound, case-specific exploration of hazards(identification of relevant contaminant sour-ces, description and evaluation of relevantpathways including effects of environmental-ly harmful substances on affected protectedassets and assessment as to whether this givesrise to concrete hazards) as a basis for thedecision on the need for remediation (decisi-on-making discretion);

Specification of remediation measures andobjectives in the course of a discretionaryselection process, taking the principle of pro-portionality into account (suitability, necessi-ty, reasonableness);

Implementation of use-related and proportio-nate remedial measures in keeping withregional planning and land use planningneeds ("fit for use" as a defined element ofcontaminated site/derelict site strategy);

(Gradual) introduction of a soil quality report,to be prepared for a site when there ischange of ownership, as an effective meansfor securing information and reducing theadministrative workload in the investigationof suspect sites in the course of substitute per-formance;

Adoption of an EU strategy for the manage-ment of contaminated sites which must becomplemented by national action program-mes.

7 Future fields of action in remedialsoil protection

BBaasseedd oonn tthhee aabboovvee,, tthhee FFeeddeerraall EEnnvviirroonnmmeennttAAggeennccyy sseeeess tthhee ffoolllloowwiinngg sshhoorrtt-- aanndd mmeeddiiuumm--tteerrmm ttaasskkss aanndd mmeeaassuurreess iinn rreemmeeddiiaall ssooiill pprroo--tteeccttiioonn::

Contributing to economically and ecological-ly acceptable solutions to the contaminatedsites problem:

Develop off-site hazard assessmentmethods (investigation, modelling, foreca-sting, monitoring, indicators),

work out innovative remediation strategies(see section 5.2) (with a special focus onmegasites),

further develop criteria and strategies forremediating groundwater degradationdue to contaminated sites,

review and supplement the trigger andaction values of Annex 2 to BBodSchV,

improve assessment of the soil - ground-water pathway: Harmonisation of valuesand concepts (marginal thresholds - trig-ger values for leachate, assessment con-cepts under BBodSchV, the Federal WaterAct (WHG), landfill legislation, for utilisa-tion of mineral waste),

give adequate consideration to naturalattenuation, particularly in the context ofremediation (translate the results of theKORA funding priority of the Federal Mini-stry of Education and Research into enfor-ceable requirements),

introduce financial and insurance ele-ments in order to ensure that necessaryremediation is carried out when a party soobligated does not exist or cannot be cal-led to task,

achieve a reversal of the burden of proofin case of suspected contaminationthrough introduction of a soil qualityreport/site certificate , so that the distur-ber can be immediately called to task,

define requirements for remedial soil pro-tection for installations covered by theIPPC Directive (soil-protection-compliantoperation, decommissioning);

Promoting subsequent use of remediated sites(site redevelopment) as a contribution toreducing land-take from currently 104 hecta-res/day to 30 hectares/day:

Promote the establishment of derelict/con-taminated site registers,

develop municipal and inter-municipalapproaches for the management of conta-minated and derelict sites (e.g. indicators),

identify coordination and communicationdeficits in administration and developgeneral or project-related structural impro-vements,

identify approaches under soil protectionand planning law to promoting site rede-velopment and present formulas for action(e.g. remediation planning pursuant toArticles 13 and 14 of BBodSchG),

accelerate the unsealing of sealed ground;

Creating the basis for minimising diffuse sub-stance inputs:

Qualify and quantify inputs from diffusesources and diffuse-input scenarios,

Create a sound data base and develop har-monised assessment methods for inputs tosoil and groundwater from diffuse sources.

8 Links, References and further information

[1] http://www.bmu.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/soilprotectionact.pdf

[2] http://www.bmu.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/bbodschv_uk.pdf

[3] http://www.itv-altlasten.de/[4] http://www.bundesregierung.de/Webs/

Breg/nachhaltigkeit/DE/Startseite/Startsei-te.html

[5] http://www.natural-attenuation.de/con-tent.php?lang=en

[6] http://www.rubin-online.de/english/intro-duction/index.html

[7] http://www.refina-info.de/en/[8] http://www.ufz.de/index.php?de=13244[9] http://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=17107[10] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/

cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=en&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2006&nu_doc=231

[11] http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/overview-of-progress-in-the-management-of-contaminated-sites-in-euro-pe

[12] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUri-Serv.do?uri=CELEX:32008L0001:EN:NOT

[13] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smar-tapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=en&type_doc=Directive&an_doc=2004&nu_doc=35

Further information:

Federal Ministry for the Environment, NatureConservation and Nuclear Safety:http://www.bmu.de

Federal Environment Agency:http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/

Environmental Information of German Authori-ties: http://www.portalu.de

EUGRIS - Portal for Soil and Water Managementin Europe: http://www.eugris.info/

Editorial deadline: August 2009

Contact: Jörg Frauenstein,joerg.frauenstein@uba.deSection "Soil Protection Measures"

12