Land Quality Management Ltd For: Defra SP1004 International Processes for Identification and Remediation of Contaminated Land Report No.: 1023-0 Status: Final December 2013 This page intentionally left blank Land Quality Management Ltd For: Defra International Processes for Identification and Remediation of Contaminated Land Final December 2013 To: From: Defra Land Quality Management Ltd Noble House, The Sir Colin Campbell Building 17 Smith Square, University of Nottingham Innovation Park London SW1P 3JR Triumph Road Nottingham NG7 2TU Tel: 0115 7484080 e-mail [email protected] This page intentionally left blank Land Quality Management Ltd Document Control Client Defra Project Title International Processes for Identification and Remediation of Contaminated Land Authors C. P. Nathanail1, R.P. Bardos2, A. Gillett1, C. McCaffrey1, R. Ogden1, D. Scott1, J. Nathanail1 and other contributors to individual country appendices. 1Land Quality Management Ltd 2R3 Environmental Limited LQM Report Number 1023-0 Client Reference Number SP1004 SID 5 Document Version Final Main Author See above Approved for issue by Dr C P Nathanail Position Director Date 24 December 2013 Status Open access This document has been prepared by Land Quality Management Ltd within the terms of the Contract, scope of work, and resources agreed in writing with the client. Land Quality Management Ltd has no responsibility to the client and/or others for any matters outside the scope of the above agreement. This document is intended for the sole use of the client indicated above and Land Quality Management Ltd accepts no responsibility of whatever nature to third parties to whom this document or any part of this document is made known. Any such party relies upon that information at their own risk. Land Quality Management Ltd possess a non-exclusive and non-transferable Ordnance Survey Licence, but do not possess any right to sub-license any of the rights granted by this licence to any party. Under the terms of Land Quality Management Ltd Ordnance Survey Licence, copying of figures containing Ordnance Survey data or using figures for any purpose other than as part of this report is not permitted. Land Quality Management Ltd 2013 This page intentionally left blank LQM REPORT 1023-0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Contaminated land is recognised to be a complex challenge usually requiring considerable time, significant expertise and substantial funds to define and tackle. International convergence in policy reflects two decades of sharing experiences at various national, European and international fora, collaborative projects through the EU and the revolution in information dissemination brought about by national bodies embracing the internet as a means of communication. However, this means neither uniformity nor stasis. Patterns of behaviour do emerge. Countries go through an exploration stage where funding is in plentiful supply, pioneering projects establish local reputations, inventories reveal the extent of impacted land and the process of dealing with the legacy of contamination gets under way. Risk based approaches are widely adopted, though the foundational role of the conceptual model (ASTM, 2008; Environment Agency, 2004) and the legal context are not so widely appreciated. Many regimes have a narrative definition of contaminated land. There is little evidence that inspected sites deemed not to need remediation are causing harm to health or the environment. This suggests that regulators are making sensibly precautionary decisions. Problems do arise where there is reluctance or an inability to make a decision. LQM REPORT 1023-0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This page intentionally left blank LQM REPORT 1023-0 CONTENTS CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 1 2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................. 2 3 DEFINITION OF "CONTAMINATED" AND "NOT CONTAMINATED" LAND4 3.1 Number-based thresholds.......................................................................................... 11 4 EFFECTIVENESS OF EACH COUNTRY'S MEANS OF DECIDING WHAT LAND IS CONTAMINATED............................................................................................... 15 4.1 Risk based approach .................................................................................................. 15 4.2 Budgets ........................................................................................................................ 16 4.3 Auditors and accreditation........................................................................................ 17 4.4 Epistemology............................................................................................................... 18 4.5 Interaction with other regimes.................................................................................. 19 4.6 Proportionate.............................................................................................................. 20 4.7 Targeted ...................................................................................................................... 22 4.8 Consistency ................................................................................................................. 22 4.9 Transparency.............................................................................................................. 24 4.10 Disclosure vs. notification.......................................................................................... 25 4.11 Skills and guidance..................................................................................................... 26 5 PRACTICE..................................................................................................................... 28 5.1 Inventories................................................................................................................... 28 5.2 Gasworks..................................................................................................................... 30 5.3 Mining ......................................................................................................................... 31 5.4 Megasites..................................................................................................................... 31 5.5 Waste including former landfills .............................................................................. 32 5.6 Vapour intrusion ........................................................................................................ 33 5.7 Military land ............................................................................................................... 33 5.8 Brownfields ................................................................................................................. 34 6 REMEDIATION ............................................................................................................ 35 6.1 Monitored natural attenuation (MNA) .................................................................... 35 7 COUNTRY ESTIMATES OF THE SCALE OF THE TASK ................................... 36 8 DECIDING ON WHO PAYS........................................................................................ 39 8.1 Financial liability attribution .................................................................................... 40 8.2 Orphan sites................................................................................................................ 41 9 NATIONAL CONTAMINATED LAND SECTORS.................................................. 43 9.1 Availability of remediation technologies.................................................................. 43 10 PERCEIVED SUCCESS ............................................................................................... 45 11 EXTERNAL PERCEPTIONS ...................................................................................... 48 12 TRENDING ISSUES...................................................................................................... 49 12.1 Sustainable remediation ............................................................................................ 49 12.2 Total solutions............................................................................................................. 49 LQM REPORT 1023-0 CONTENTS 12.3 Holistic site management........................................................................................... 50 12.4 Harmonisation, convergence and standardisation.................................................. 50 12.5 Climate change and soil health ................................................................................. 50 13 BROAD LESSONS LEARNT....................................................................................... 52 13.1 Positives.......................................................................................................................52 13.2 Negatives ..................................................................................................................... 52 14 OVERALL IMPLICATIONS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED LAND....................................................................................................................................... 54 15 LIMITATIONS .............................................................................................................. 55 16 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................