Contaminated Land Remediation: Legal Issues and Recommendations for China

Zhao, Xiaobo

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-31615-9_6

Xiaobo Zhao²

711 Accesses

Abstract

Both the US and UK have developed a series of terminologies and procedures to regulate remediation activities. This chapter discusses land remediation mechanisms in the US and UK, and how these mechanisms may apply in China. Among others, the decision criteria and the time point for initiating a redevelopment, together with the remediation standards for a contaminated site have been covered by this Chapter. Technical issues related to remediation are, based on a comparative study between the US and UK, examined. In addition, principles and mechanisms that would promote a sustainable remediation in China are developed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 84.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Antonio Marcomini, Glenn W Suter II and Andrea Critto, Decision Support Systems for Risk-Based Management of Contaminated Sites (Springer, 2009) 116.
2.
Frank A Swartjes (ed), Dealing with Contaminated Sites: from Theory towards Practical Application (Springer, 2011) 39.
3.
Such technology includes, for example, the in situ or ex situ technology, as discussed in the following sections. See Marcomini et al., above n 1 116.
4.
42 USC §§ 9601-75 (2006); Pub L No 96-510, 94 Stat 2767 (1980).
5.
Environmental Protection Act 1990 (UK) c 43. Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 was brought into force in England on 1st April 2000, by insertion of section 57 of Environment Act 1995 into the 1990 Act. For more details about Environmental Protection Act 1990 see Chap. 5 Sect. 5.1..
6.
Jonathan Isted and Peter Kavanagh, ‘The Contaminated Land Provisions of the Environment Act 1995: the Toughest Challenge yet for Environmental Insurers’ (1995) 3(11) International Insurance Law Review 389.
7.
More discussions on Remediation Liabilities may see Chaps. 4, 5.
8.
The Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation ) Regulations 2009 (UK) No 153.
9.
See Chap. 1.
10.
Marcomini et al., above n 1, 115-7.
11.
There are many definitions and concepts of sustainable development. There is also a vast literature on sustainable development, which also provides alternative definitions, concepts, principles, criteria, indicators, and references. However, this concept was first systemically discussed by the Brundtland Commission in the international environmental law conference. For more historical information about the ‘sustainable development’, see Peter P Rogers, Kazi FJalal and John A Boyd, An Introduction to Sustainable Development (Glen Educational Foundation Inc, 2008) 22.
12.
Gro Harlem Brundtland and World Commission on Environment Development, Our common future (Oxford University Press, 1987).
13.
Rogers et al., above n 11, 42.
14.
Ibid.
15.
Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests were adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992. More information about the Agent 21 can be found on wensite: http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/index.shtml.
16.
Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organisations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment. See United Nations Conference on Environment Development, The Earth Summit: the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), International Environmental Law and Policy Series (Graham & Trotman, 1993).
17.
Scottish Executive Her Majesty’s Government, Welsh Assembly Government & Northern Ireland Office, One future—different paths: the UK’s shared framework for sustainable development (Defra, 2005).
18.
M Postle et al., Cost-benefit Analysis for Remediation of Land Contamination (Environment Agency, 1999).
19.
Ibid.
20.
Defra, Defra Circular 01/2006 Environmental Protection Act 1990: part 2A contaminated land (Defra, September 2006).
21.
Ibid 108-26.
22.
Swartjes, above n 2, 1046.
23.
Ibid.
24.
Jan Paul Acton et al., Superfund and transaction costs : the experiences of insurers and very large industrial firms (RAND Corporation, 1992).
25.
James Boyd, ‘Environmental Remediation Law and Economies in Transition’ (1999) RFF 99-21 <http://www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-DP-99-21.pdf>.
26.
UK Environment Agency, Costs and Benefits Associated with Remediation of Contaminated Groundwater: A Framework for Assessment, Technical Report P278 (Environment Agency, 2000) 43.
27.
Ibid.
28.
Ibid 44.
29.
For example, EPA, ‘Guidance on Remedial Actions for Superfund Sites with PCB Contamination’ (EPA/540/G-90/007, August 1990) <http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/remedy/pdf/540g-90007-s.pdf>; EPA, ‘Revised Interim Soil Lead Guidance for CERCLA Sites and RCRA Corrective Action Facilities’ (OSWER Directive No 9355.4-12, August 1994) <http://www.epa.gov/superfund/lead/products/oswerdir.pdf>; P E Hardisty and E Ozdemiroglu, ‘Costs and Benefits Associated with Remediation of Contaminated Groundwater: A Review of the Issues’ (R&D Technical Report P278, Environment Agency, 1999) <http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/PDF/STR-P278-E-E.pdf>; M Postle et al., ‘Cost-benefit Analysis for Remediation of Land Contamination’ (R & D Technical Report P316, UK Environment Agency, 1999) <http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/PDF/STR-P316-E-E.pdf>; P A Marsland and M A Carey, Methodology for the Derivation of Remedial Targets for Soil and Groundwater to Protect Water Resources, R&D Publication (UK Environment Agency, 1999); M A Carey, J R Finnamore and M J Morrey, Guidance on the Assessment and Monitoring of Natural Attenuation of Contaminants in Groundwater, R & D publication No 95 (UK Environment Agency, 2000); Defra, The Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment Model (CLEA): Technical Basis and Algorithms, R & D Publication No CLR 10 (Defra, 2002); M A Carey, P A Marsland and J W N Smith, Methodology for the Derivation of Remedial Targets (UK Environment Agency, 2006).
30.
Swartjes, above n 2, 1046.
31.
Boyd, above n 25.
32.
Ibid.
33.
Ibid.
34.
One of the reasons to encourage benefit-cost analysis is that it stimulates a full accounting of the consequences of different actions.
35.
UK Environmental Agency, above n 26, 45.
36.
The NPL is published as Appendix B of the NCP 40 CFR part 300.
37.
EPA, Hazard Ranking System Guidance Manual (US EPA, 1992) 2.
38.
Ibid 2–3.
39.
Roger D Griffin, Principles of Hazardous Materials Management (CRC Press, 2009) 184.
40.
40 CFR part 300.
41.
US EPA, National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan Overview (19 August 2011) <http://www.epa.gov/osweroe1/content/lawsregs/ncpover.htm>.
42.
Valerie Fogelman, Environmental Liabilities and Insurance in England and the United States (Witherby, 2005) 162.
43.
The 1968 plan provided the first comprehensive system of accident reporting, spill containment, and cleanup, and established a response headquarters, a national reaction team, and regional reaction teams. EPA, above n 41.
44.
33 USC §1321(d) (1994).
45.
47 Fed Reg 31, 180 (1982).
46.
59 Fed Reg 47, 416 (1994).
47.
40 CFR § 300.405 (1994).
48.
42 USC § 9605(d) (1980).
49.
United States v JG-24 Inc, 309 F Supp 2d 230 (DPR, 2004).
50.
For more information about the Superfund Site Information, see EPA website, http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/siteinfo.htm.
51.
Fogelman, above n 42, 168.
52.
This procedure, as we will discuss later, includes a Preliminary Assessment, a Site Inspection, an Expanded Site Inspection, listing on the National Priorities List (NPL), conducting a Remedial Investigation (RI), Feasibility Study, signing a Record of Decision (RD) detailing the planned remedial action, completing all remedial actions, formally deleting the site from the NPL, taking enforcement actions against liable parties, and conducting removal actions or other actions to stabilize site conditions. See EPA, Amendment to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution (29 March 1995) EPA <http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WASTE/1995/March/Day-29/pr-184.html>.
53.
EPA, Archival of CERCLIS Sites, No EPA 500-F-97-089, April 1997.
54.
Fogelman, above n 42.
55.
EPA, above n 53.
56.
GAO, ‘Hazardous Waste Sites: Improved Effectiveness of Controls at Sites could Better Protect the Public: Report to Congressional Requesters’ (GAO, 2005) <http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05163.pdf>.
57.
A site can be deleted from CERCLIS and added to the CERCLIS Archive by the EPA if certain conditions were met. These conditions include: (1) the site is not contaminated; (2) the site is contaminated but the contamination is not serious enough for it to be listed on the NPL or to qualify for a non-NPL clean up; (3) the contamination has been cleaned up without the need to list the site on the NPL; (4) responsibility for cleaning up the contamination is on the relevant state or under another federal program such as the RCRA corrective action program; or (5) the EPA has cleaned up the site and either recovered its costs from PRPs or has decided not to pursue any further cost-recovery action. See EPA, above n 53.
58.
US EPA, CERCLIS Achieve Guidelines (October 1996) EPA <http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/reforms/docs/s_96CERC.pdf>.
59.
Ibid.
60.
See 40 CFR § 300.410 (removal site evaluation) and § 300.420 (remedial site evaluation).
61.
Marcomini et al., above n 1, 116.
62.
The HRS was promulgated on 16 July 1982 and revised on 14 December 1990. See 47 FR 31180, 16 July 1982; 40 CFR § 300, appendix A (1990).
63.
Generally speaking, four typical pathways by which a hazardous substance may affect human health or the environment will particularly be scored under the HRS, which include: (1) ground water migration (drinking water); (2) surface water migration (drinking water, human food chain, sensitive environments); (3) soil exposure (resident population, nearby population, sensitive environments); and (4) air migration (population, sensitive environments). See Paul Pritchard, Environmental Risk Management, Business and the Environment Practitioner Series (Earthscan Publications, 2000) 88.
64.
A complete HRS scoring package should be prepared at this stage. This package includes a site narrative summary, Quality Control (QC) checklist, QA signature page, HRS score sheets, HRS documentation record and references, and NPL characteristics data collection form. See EPA, above n 37.
65.
EPA, Overview of the Present Hazard Ranking System (29 October 2003) EPA <http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/overview_of_present_hrs_info_sheet.pdf>.
66.
42 USC § 9605(a)(8)(B) (1986).
67.
42 USC § 9605(a)(8)(B) (1986); 40 CFR §300.425(c)(2) (1994).
68.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), based in Atlanta, Georgia, is a federal public health agency of the US Department of Health and Human Services. For more information about this agency, visit http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/.
69.
40 CFR §300.425 (1996).
70.
For example, in fiscal years 2001 and 2002, lack of co-operation by PRPs was a factor in 36 of the 54 sites proposed for listing on the NPL. See GAO, ‘Superfund Program Current Status and Future Fiscal Challenges’ (GAO-03-850, GAO, July 2003) <http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03850.pdf>.
71.
Fogelman, above n 42.
72.
The EPA lists a site on the NPL by publishing a proposed rule in the Federal Register, 60 days for public review after the publication of the proposed rule is required under its prescription. See 40 CFR §300.425(d)(5) (1996). Person who objects to the list decision must file an action for judicial review objections within a time limit. See 42 USC § 9613(a) (1980).
73.
Small Business Liability Protection Act, Pub L No 107-118, 115 Stat 2356 (2002).
74.
This policy has been addressed by the ‘Mega Sites’, the term of which refers sites with an estimated cleanup cost of over US$50 million each.
75.
Uniroyal Chemical Company v Deltech Corporation, 160 F 3d 238 (5th Cir 1998).
76.
In 1980, President Reagan delegated, to the EPA and the US Coast Guard (USCG), the responsibility for monitoring land-based contamination, and hazardous substances discharged into the coastal zone, the Great Lakes and inland river ports respectively. In 1996, President Clinton delegated authority to the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defence, Energy and the Interior to issue unilateral administrative orders (UAOs) to bring judicial actions related to contaminated sites cleaned up. Condition of such delegation is only if contamination poses an imminent and substantial endangerment to natural resources under their trusteeship or to vessels or facilities under their control. See Fogelman, above n 42, 162.
77.
Ibid, 163.
78.
C Paul Nathanail, Paul Bardos and MyiLibrary, Reclamation of Contaminated Land (Wiley, 2004) 8.
79.
Stanger Casella, Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, Contaminated Land Report 11 (Environment Agency, 2004).
80.
Environmental Protection Act 1990 (UK) c 43.
81.
Postle, above n 18.
82.
Stanger Casella, above n 79; the Model Procedure has been recommended to read in conjunction with the local guidance. See, for example, Stanger Casella, Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, Contaminated Land Report 11 (Environment Agency, 2004); Essex Contaminated Land Consortium, ‘Land Affected by Contamination: Technical Guidance for Applicants and Developers’ (December 2007) <http://www.thurrock.gov.uk/environment/pdf/contaminated_land_tech_v2.pdf>.
83.
Casella, above n 79, 22.
84.
Ibid, 22–31.
85.
P E Hardisty and E Ozdemiroglu, Cost-benefit Analysis for Remediation of Land Contamination: A Review of the Issues, R&D Technical Report P278 (Environment Agency, 1999).
86.
Environmental Health and Housing Services, Contaminated Land Strategy for the Borough of St Edmundsbury (St Edmundsbury Borough Council, November 2005) 6.
87.
UK Environmental Agency, above n 26.
88.
SuRF-UK, A Framework for Assessing the Sustainability of Soil and Groundwater Remediation (CL:AIRE, 2010).
89.
Ibid.
90.
See National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR § 300.5 (1994). This definition has also been embodied in the Environmental Engineering Dictionary. See C C Lee, Environmental Engineering Dictionary (Government Institutes, 4th ed, 2005) 809–10.
91.
Ibid.
92.
The three main cleanup technologies that have been used at NPL sites for which construction had been completed by 2004 are: excavating and removing hazardous soil and waste (approximately 45 per cent or 188 sites); containing contaminants by capping (39 per cent or 161 sites); and pumping and treating polluted groundwater (34 per cent or 142 sites). See EPA, ‘Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report’ (EPA-542-R-07-012, September 2007) <http://www.clu-in.org/download/remed/asr/12/asr12_main_body.pdf>
93.
Ibid.
94.
Ibid. For more updated information about remedial actions, see Paola Agostini et al., ‘Indicators and Endpoints for Risk-Based Decision Processes with Decision Support Systems’ in Antonio Marcomini, Glenn W Suter II and Andrea Critto (eds), Decision Support Systems for Risk-Based Management of Contaminated Sites (Springer, 2009) 95.
95.
The average cost of a non-time-critical action between fiscal years 1992 and 1999 was US$ 662 000. By 30 September 2003, the ERA had conducted 7399 removal actions at 5253 sites. The average cost for a time-critical action between fiscal years 1992 and 1999 was US$ 480 000. Katherine N Probst and David M Konisky, Superfund’s Future: What Will It Cost? A Report to Congress (Resources for the Future, 2001).
96.
42 USC §9601(23)(1980); 40 CFR § 300.415 (1996).
97.
42 USC §9601(24) (1980).
98.
See CFR §300.425(b)(l).
99.
Marcomini et al., above n 1, 125.
100.
Ibid 131–156.
101.
42 USC §9621(e)(l) (1986); 55 FR 8839 (8 Mar 1990).
102.
42 USC §9621(b)(l) (1986).
103.
42 USC§9621(d)(3) (1986).
104.
EPA, ‘The Role of Cost in the Superfund Remedy Selection Process’ (September 1996) <http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/cost_dir/cost_dir.pdf>.
105.
Martha L Judy and Katherine N Probst, ‘Superfund at 30’ (2009) 11 Vermont Journal of Environmental Law 191.
106.
CERCLA s 121.
107.
40 CFR s 300.430(f)(1)(i)(A)–(C).
108.
GAO, ‘Superfund: Problems With the Completeness and Consistency of Site Cleanup Plans’ (GAO/RCED-92-138, 18 May 1992) <http://archive.gao.gov/d32t10/146948.pdf>.
109.
GAO, ‘Hazardous Waste: EPA’s Generation and Management Data Need Further Improvement’ (GAO/PEMD-90-3 9 February 1990) <http://gao.justia.com/environmental-protection-agency/1990/2/hazardous-waste-pemd-90-3/PEMD-90-3-full-report.pdf>. See also Judy and Probst, above n 105.
110.
Ibid.
111.
Ibid.
112.
Margherita Turvani and Stefania Tonin, ‘Brownfields Remediation and Reuse: An Opportunity for Urban Sustainable Development’ in Corrado Clini, Ignazio Musu and Maria Lodovica Gullino (eds), Sustainable Development and Environmental Management (Springer Netherlands, 2008) 397.
113.
Carolyn B Doty and Curtis C Travis, ‘The Superfund Remedial Action Decision Process: A Review of Fifty Records of Decision’ (1989) 39(12) Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 1535; See also Judy and Probst, above n 105.
114.
Ibid.
115.
Judy and Probst, above n 105.
116.
Ibid.
117.
Ibid.
118.
42 USC § 9611 (a) (1986).
119.
Ibid.
120.
GAO, ‘Superfund Litigation Has Decreased and EPA Needs Better Information on Site Cleanup and Cost Issues to Estimate Future Program Funding Requirements: Report to Congressional Requesters’ (GAO-09-656, GAO, 2009) <http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09656.pdf>.
121.
Judy and Probst, above n 105.
122.
Boyd, above n 25.
123.
For example, according to ENDS Report 269, Dutch made a major policy reversal on contaminated land in 1997. The Dutch dropped its ‘multi-functionality’ approach to the remediation of contaminated land and tailoring cleanup standards to the intended uses of sites, instead, remediation priorities will also be driven more by redevelopment needs. The similar adjustments also happened in the US and UK, as we will discussed later. See ENDS Report, ‘Dutch in Policy Retreat on Contaminated Land’ (ENDS Report 269, 1 June 1997) <http://www.endsreport.com/3984/dutch-in-policy-retreat-on-contaminated-land>.
124.
Boyd, above n 25.
125.
The ‘suitable for use’ approach, theoretically, has always been referred as a comparative notion to another commonly used approach-the so-called ‘multifunctional approach’ which was adopted by the Dutch government in 1990s. The ‘multifunctional approach’ requires land to be cleaned up to a level to insure that it is fit for any possible use. That is, soils have to be cleaned until their ‘functional properties for humans, flora and fauna have been restored.’ ENDS Report, ‘Royal Commission Puts Soil on the Map’ (ENDS Report 254, 1 March 1996) <http://www.endsreport.com/3102>.
126.
Defra Circular 01/2006.
127.
Ibid.
128.
Stuart Bell and Donald McGillivray, Environmental Law (Oxford University Press, 7th ed, 2008) 559.
129.
However, exception exists under the ‘suitable for use’ approach in dealing with historical contamination, eg, if contamination was a result of activities that are covered by an extant statutory authorization or licence, the requisite standard is to a reinstatement level, which means to remove the contamination completely
130.
Defra 01/2006.
131.
Wet Bodembescherming [Dutch Soil Protection Act] (Netherlands) 3 July 1986, Staatsblad No 374.
132.
ENDS Report, above n 123, 46; see also Bell and McGillivra, above n 128, 560.
133.
Bell and McGillivra, above n 30, 560.
134.
ENDS Report, above n 123, 46.
135.
ENDS Report, above n 125, 23–25.
136.
Bell and McGillivra, above n 128, 560.
137.
Ibid.
138.
Judy and Probst, above n 105.
139.
CERCLA 1980, Pub L No 96-510 § 104(c)(4).
140.
SARA 1986, Pub L No 99-499, 100 Stat 1613 § 121(a).
141.
42 USC § 9621(b)(1) (2006).
142.
David M Bearden, ‘Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act: A Summary of Superfund Cleanup Authorities and Related Provisions of the Act’ (21 January 2010) <http://nepinstitute.org/get/CRS_Reports/CRS_Climate_and_Environment/Other_Environmental_Issues/Summary_of_Superfund_Cleanup_Authorities.pdf>.
143.
Ibid 10.
144.
15 USC § 2601 (1976).
145.
42 USC § 300f (1974).
146.
42 USC § 7401(1970).
147.
33 USC § 125(1972).
148.
42 USC § 9621(d)(2)(A) (1980).
149.
The federal and state standards are not necessarily the same.
150.
42 USC § 300f (1974).
151.
33 USC §§ 1313-14 (1981).
152.
EPA has defined ARARs as: ‘those cleanup standards, standards of control, and other substantive requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under federal environmental or state environmental or facility sitting laws that, while not ‘applicable’ to a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstance at a CERCLA site, address problems or situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at the CERCLA site that their use is well suited to the particular site. Only those state standards that are identified in a timely manner and are more stringent than federal requirements may be relevant and appropriate.’ See National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR § 300.5 (1994).
153.
40 CFR § 300.400(g)(2) (1994).
154.
Examples for TBCs are as follows. (1)EPA Directive 9355.4-02 provides suggested cleanup values for lead in soils. See EPA, ‘Revised Interim Soil Lead Guidance for CERCLA Sites and RCRA Corrective Action Facilities’ (OSWER Directive No 9355.4-12, August 1994) <http://www.epa.gov/superfund/lead/products/oswerdir.pdf>; (2) EPA’s Guidance for Cleanup of PCBs at Superfund Sites. See EPA, ‘Guidance on Remedial Actions for Superfund Sites with PCB Contamination’ (EPA/540/G-90/007, August 1990) <http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/remedy/pdf/540g-90007-s.pdf>.
155.
Section 121(d)(4) of the CERCLA authorizes the waiver of a particular standard under following conditions:
1. (1)
  The contemplated response action would be part of a larger remedial action that would meet the standard once the larger action is completed;
2. (2)
  Compliance with the standard would result in a greater risk than the alternatives;
3. (3)
  Compliance with the standard would be technically impracticable from an engineering perspective;
4. (4)
  An equivalent standard of performance would be attained;
5. (5)
  In the case of a state standard, the state has not consistently applied that standard elsewhere within its jurisdiction; or
6. (6)
  Meeting the standard would not provide a balance between the need for protection of public health and welfare and the environment at the site under consideration, and the availability of monies in the Superfund Trust Fund to respond to more immediate risks at other sites. See 42 USC § 9621(d)(4) (1986).
156.
A CERCLA-quality cleanup is a response action that: (1) protects human health and the environment, (2) utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable, (3) is cost-effective, (4) satisfies ARARS for the site, and (5) provides opportunity for meaningful public participation. See National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 55 Fed Reg 8666-01, 8793 (9 March1990); see also Franklin County Convention Facilities Auth, 240 F 3d 534, 538-39 (6th Cir, 2001).
157.
40 CFR § 300.700(c)(3)(i) (1998). For example, Franklin County Convention Facilities Auth v American Premier Underwriters Inc, 240 F 3d 534, 538-39 (6th Cir, 2001); Bedford Affiliates v Sills, 156 F 3d 416 (2d Cir, 1998). John M Hyson, Private Cost Recovery Actions under CERCLA (Environmental Law Institute, 2003) 236.
158.
Fogelman, above n 42.
159.
In setting cleanup levels, the EPA frequently assumed that the future land use of an NPL site would be residential even when it was highly unlikely that the site would ever have such a use.
160.
This assumption, critics argued, raised projected levels of exposure to contaminants left on site, resulting in more aggressive cleanup objectives and more expensive remedies. See Gregg P Macey and Jonathan Z Cannon, Reclaiming the Land: Rethinking Superfund Institutions, Methods, and Practices (Springer, 2007) 58.
161.
EPA, ‘Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy Selection Process’ (OSWER Directive No 9355.7-04, 25 May 1995) <http://www.epa.gov/fedfac/pdf/land_use_cercla_remedy.pdf>.
162.
Ibid.
163.
EPA, Land Use in the CERCLA Remediation Selection Process, EPA 540-R-92-026 (EPA, 1995)
164.
Ibid.
165.
Macey and Cannon, above n 159, 59.
166.
EPA, ‘Reuse Assessments: A Tool to Implement The Superfund Land Use Directive’ (OSWER 9355.7-06P, 4 June 2001) <http://clu-in.org/download/toolkit/thirdednew/reuseassesstool.pdf>.
167.
For example, EPA, Land Use in the CERCLA Remediation Selection Process, EPA 540-R-92-026 (EPA, 1995); EPA, ‘A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents’ (EPA 540-R-98-031OSWER 9200.1-23P, July 1999); EPA, ‘Reuse Assessments: A Tool to Implement The Superfund Land Use Directive’ (OSWER 9355.7-06P, 4 June 2001) <http://clu-in.org/download/toolkit/thirdednew/reuseassesstool.pdf>; EPA, ‘Superfund Community Involvement Toolkit’ (EPA 540-K-05-002, April 2005) <http://www.epa.gov/superfund/community/pdfs/contents.pdf>;
EPA, ‘Considering Reasonably Anticipated Future Land Use and Reducing Barriers to Reuse at EPA-lead Superfund Remedial Sites’ (OSWER Directive 9355.7-19, 2010) <http://epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/pdf/reusedirective.pdf>.
168.
Linda Breggin and Environmental Law Institute, A guidebook for brownfield property owners (Environmental Law Institute, 1999) 36.
169.
Paul Bardos, Judith Nathanail and Brian Pope, ‘General Principles for Remedial Approach Selection’ (2002) 10(3) Land Contamination & Reclamation 137.
170.
SuRF-UK was established in 2007, is coordinated by an independent not-for-profit contaminated land organisation, Contaminated Land: Applications in Real Environments, and actively collaborates with similar initiatives elsewhere in the world. Around 50 public and private sector organisations have taken part in SuRF-UK from 2007 to 2010. Up to this book be completed, the most recent paper on discussing the implement of sustainable remediation by Surf-UK is Paul Bardos et al., ‘Applying Sustainable Development Principles to Contaminated Land Management Using the SuRF-UK Framework’ (2011) 21(2) (Spring) Remediation Journal 1.
171.
SuRF-UK, above n 88.
172.
Xinhua News Agency, Key Targets of China’s 12th Five-year Plan (5 March 2011) <http://www.china.org.cn/china/NPC_CPPCC_2011/2011-03/05/content_22059883.htm>.
173.
《中华人民共和国环境保护法》[The Environmental Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China] (People’s Republic of China) National People’s Congress, Order No 22, 26 December 1989.
174.
This concern has been separated listed as one principle by the SuRf-UK. See SuRF-UK, above n 88. In effect, both the Environmental Act 2000 Part IIA and the CERCLA contained clauses which reflect this requirement.
175.
Bardos, above n 169.
176.
Ibid.
177.
Ibid.
178.
UK Environment Agency, above n 26.
179.
Swartjes, above n 2, 1038.
180.
Generally, it appears similar to the Risk-Based Site Management in the context of soil contamination. The slight difference lies on that RBLM considers managing the land contamination issues from a broader perspective, and covers the full range of contaminated site problems for which regulators and decision makers. See Swartjes, above n 2, 1039.
181.
Piet Lens et al., Soil and Sediment Remediation: Mechanisms, Technologies and Applications (International Water Association, 2005) 313.
182.
While defining risks, many factors might be applied. For example, sources, which refer potential pollutants or hazard; target and receptors, like people, animals, plants, ecosystem processes, water resources or buildings; and pathway between the source and the receptor. Consequences of the adverse effect are often described as damage. See Swartjes, above n 2, 1039.
183.
The reason why the word land is used here instead of sites is that RBLM wants to put contaminated sites in a spatial planning context and to move away from the classical management of incidents approach for individual contaminated sites. Ibid.
184.
Ibid.
185.
Katherine N Probst and Paul R Portney, Assigning liability for Superfund cleanups: An Analysis of Policy Options, RFF report (Resources for the Future, 1992) 16.
186.
Ibid.
187.
See the website www.clu-in.org.
188.
See the website www.frtr.gov.
189.
SuRF-UK, above n 88.
190.
Marcomini et al., above n 61, 131.
191.
See, for example, Scotland & Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, Communicating Understanding of Contaminated Land Risks Guidance (SNIFFER, 2010).
192.
See C Paul et al., above n 78, 215.
193.
SuRF-UK, above n 88.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

School of Law, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, Shanghai, China
Xiaobo Zhao

Authors

Xiaobo Zhao
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaobo Zhao .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Zhao, X. (2013). Contaminated Land Remediation: Legal Issues and Recommendations for China. In: Developing an Appropriate Contaminated Land Regime in China. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31615-9_6

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31615-9_6
Published: 22 September 2012
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-31614-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-31615-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics