National Site Contamination Law

Chapter

Abstract

This chapter describes the range of national approaches to regulating site contamination. It categorises these into countries with extensive, specific laws on the issue, those with limited, specific laws, and those with no specific laws. This is followed by the identification of key regulatory trends, as well as issues that have emerged and factors that have influenced the development of site contamination law over time. The chapter contains detailed case studies of the regulatory approaches to site contamination in four jurisdictions (Germany, the United States, Massachusetts and British Columbia), highlighting particularly innovative features of each.

References

  1. Abrams RH (1997) Superfund and the evolution of brownfields. William & Mary Environ Law Policy Rev 21:265–292Google Scholar
  2. Anderson RC (2002) Incentive-based policies for environmental management in developing countries. Issue brief no. 02–07. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Armstrong CS, Verma N (2005) The social construction of brownfields. Paper presented to the Association of European Schools of Planning Conference, Vienna, 13–17 July 2005Google Scholar
  4. Benjamin SL, Belluck DA (2001) A practical guide to understanding, managing and reviewing environmental risk assessment reports. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  5. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (1997) Guidance document on the management of contaminated sites in CanadaGoogle Scholar
  6. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (2006) Recommended principles on contaminated sites liabilityGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlon C (ed) (2007) Derivation methods of soil screening values in Europe: a review and evaluation of national procedures towards harmonization. European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  8. Cino R (2006) Soil pollution in the Netherlands. Paper presented to the Swedish Clean Soil Network, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 30 October 2006Google Scholar
  9. Citizen Information Service (2012) Massachusetts facts. Available at http://www.sec.state.ma.us/cis/cismaf/maprof.htm
  10. CMS Cameron McKenna (1995) Study of civil liability systems for remedying environmental damage - final report. LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Concerted Action on Brownfield and Economic Regeneration Network (CABERNET) (2003) State of the art—country profile: Germany. Available at www.cabernet.org.uk
  12. Contaminated Land Rehabilitation Network for Environmental Technologies in Europe (CLARINET) (2000) Management of contaminated sites and land in DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  13. Department of Communities and Local Government, Government of the United Kingdom (2011) Planning policy statement 3: housingGoogle Scholar
  14. Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, Government of New South Wales/Environment Protection Authority (1998) Planning guidelines: SEPP 55—remediation of landGoogle Scholar
  15. Engineer S (2005) United Kingdom. Paper presented to the 7th meeting of the International Committee on Contaminated Land, Paris, 29–30 September 2005Google Scholar
  16. Environmental Law Institute (2001) Analysis of 50 state superfund programsGoogle Scholar
  17. Environmental Law Institute (2005) Estimating the cost of institutional controlsGoogle Scholar
  18. European Environment Agency (2007) CSI 015: progress in management of contaminated sitesGoogle Scholar
  19. Faure MG, Johnston JS (2007) The law and economics of environmental federalism: Europe and the United States compared. Paper prepared for the European Association of Law and Economics Annual ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  20. Federal Environment Agency (Austria) (2002) 6th report on the state of the environment in AustriaGoogle Scholar
  21. Federal Environment Agency (Austria) (2004) 7th state of the environment report—contaminated sitesGoogle Scholar
  22. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Protection and Nuclear Safety (Germany) (1999) Promulgation of methods and standards for derivation of test thresholds and measures thresholdsGoogle Scholar
  23. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Protection and Nuclear Safety (Germany) (2002) Soil protection reportGoogle Scholar
  24. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Protection and Nuclear Safety (Germany) (2009) Current state and future prospects of remedial soil protectionGoogle Scholar
  25. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Protection and Nuclear Safety (Germany) (2010) Bodenschutz und altlasten—situation. Available at http://www.bmu.de/bodenschutz/doc/2494.php (in German)
  26. Federal Statistical Office (Germany) (2011) Bodennutzungshaupterhebung—Brachflächen in Deutschland nach Bundesländern (in German)Google Scholar
  27. Federal Statistical Office (Germany) (2012) Sustainable development in Germany—indicator report 2012Google Scholar
  28. Federation of Statutory Accident Insurance Institutions for the Industrial Sector (Germany) (1997) Occupational safety and health protection rules for work in contaminated areas. Technical Committee for Civil EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  29. Ferguson CC (1999) Assessing risks from contaminated sites: policy and practice in 16 European countries. Land Contam Reclamation 7(2):33–54Google Scholar
  30. Fletcher TH (2003) From Love Canal to environmental justice: the politics of hazardous waste on the Canada-U.S. border. Broadview Press¸ PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  31. Fowler R (2006) Development of site contamination law and policy in developing countries in the Pacific Rim and Asia: lessons from the experience of developed countries. Paper presented to the Boston College Law School Symposium on Smart Brownfields Redevelopment in the 21st Century, Newton, Massachusetts, 16 November 2006Google Scholar
  32. Fowler R (2007) Site contamination law and policy in Europe, North America and Australia—rends and challenges. Paper presented to the 8th meeting of the International Committee on Contaminated Land, Stockholm, 10–11 September 2007Google Scholar
  33. Frauenstein J (2007) German country report—tour de table. Presentation to the NATO/CCMS Pilot Study Meeting on Prevention and Remediation in Selected Industrial Sectors, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 17–22 June 2007Google Scholar
  34. Gong Y (2010) International experience in policy and regulatory frameworks for brownfield site management. Discussion paper on sustainable development—East Asia and Pacific region. World BankGoogle Scholar
  35. Government of British Columbia (2012a) BC brownfield renewal funding program. Available at http://www.brownfieldrenewal.gov.bc.ca/financial.html
  36. Government of British Columbia (2012b) BC facts. Available at http://www.gov.bc.ca/bcfacts/
  37. Government of British Columbia (2012c) Brownfield basics. Available at http://www.brownfieldrenewal.gov.bc.ca/basics.html#opportunities
  38. Griffiths CEM, Board NP (1992) Approaches to the assessment and remediation of polluted land in Europe and America. Water Environ J 6(2):720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Grubb K, McNaughton WK (2011) Changes to the British Columbia contaminated sites process. Environmental Law News—Real Estate EditionGoogle Scholar
  40. Herdman RC (1978) Love Canal: public health time bomb. Special Report to the Governor and Legislature of New York State. Office of Public HealthGoogle Scholar
  41. International Economic Development Council (2005) Executive summary: international brownfields redevelopmentGoogle Scholar
  42. Kizner M (2009) New ‘Site Remediation Reform Act’ to revolutionize environmental remediation process in New Jersey. 10 August 2009. Available at http://www.flastergreenberg.com/home/news/in-the-news.aspx?d=759
  43. Kohls M (2006) German soil protection law. J Eur Environ Plann Law 3:250–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. LaFalce J (1980) Congressional record. 126 Cong Rec 26765. 23 September 1980Google Scholar
  45. Layard A (2006) The Europeanisation of contaminated land. In: Betlem G, Brans E (eds) Environmental liability in the EU: the 2004 directive compared with US and Member State law. Cameron, London, pp 129–147Google Scholar
  46. Luo Q, Catney P, Lerner D (2009) Risk-based management of contaminated land in the UK: lessons for China? J Environ Manag 90(2):1123–1134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lyster R, Lipman Z, Franklin N (2007) Environmental and planning law in New South Wales. Federation Press, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  48. Marker A, Nieters A, Ullrich D (2007) Contaminated site management and brownfield redevelopment in Latin America. Paper presented to the 2nd International Conference on Managing Urban Land, Stuttgart, Germany, 25–27 April 2007Google Scholar
  49. Massachusetts Board of Registration of Hazardous Waste Site Cleanup Professionals (2007) Guide to licensed site professionals and the LSP BoardGoogle Scholar
  50. Massachusetts Board of Registration of Hazardous Waste Site Cleanup Professionals (2012). Available at http://www.mass.gov/lsp/
  51. MassDEP (1999) Interim final policy—guidance on implementing activity and use limitationsGoogle Scholar
  52. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (2006a) Brownfields success storiesGoogle Scholar
  53. MassDEP (2006b) Fact sheet: brownfields and waste site cleanup programsGoogle Scholar
  54. MassDEP (2008a) Fact sheet: The Massachusetts waste site cleanup program—the basicsGoogle Scholar
  55. MassDEP (2008b) The Massachusetts brownfields program: a decade of progress in economic developmentGoogle Scholar
  56. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (2012a) Cleanup of sites and spills: statistics on cleaning up oil and hazardous waste sites in Massachusetts. Available at http://www.mass.gov/dep/cleanup/priorities/progeval.htm
  57. MassDEP (2012b) NPL-Superfund sites in Massachusetts. Available at http://www.mass.gov/dep/cleanup/sites/superfnd.htm
  58. MassDEP (2012c) Summary of the Brownfields Act: Chapter 206 of the Acts of 1998. Available at http://www.mass.gov/dep/cleanup/bfhdout2.htm
  59. Meijer M (2005) New developments in the policy on contaminated soil in the Netherlands. Paper presented to the 7th meeting of the International Committee on Contaminated Land, Paris, 29–30 September 2005Google Scholar
  60. Mellenbergh R (2006) The comparative survey—five questions on soil protection: the Netherlands. J Eur Environ Plann Law 3:285–286Google Scholar
  61. Ministry for the Environment, Government of New Zealand (2006) Working towards a comprehensive policy framework for managing contaminated land in New Zealand—a discussion paperGoogle Scholar
  62. Ministry for the Environment, Government of New Zealand (2012) Contaminated land. Available at http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/hazardous/contaminated/
  63. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, Government of British Columbia (2012) BC brownfield renewal strategy. Available at http://www.al.gov.bc.ca/clad/ccs/brownfields/renewal_strategy.html
  64. Ministry of Community Services, Government of British Columbia (2008) Revitalization tax exemptions: a primer on the provisions in the Community CharterGoogle Scholar
  65. Ministry of Environment, Government of British Columbia (1998) Protocol 2—site-specific numerical soil standardsGoogle Scholar
  66. Ministry of Environment, Government of British Columbia (2005) Factsheet # 14—demystifying risk assessmentGoogle Scholar
  67. Ministry of Environment, Government of British Columbia (2006) Factsheet # 20: the site registryGoogle Scholar
  68. Ministry of Environment, Government of British Columbia (2007) Protocol 8—security for contaminated sitesGoogle Scholar
  69. Ministry of Environment, Government of British Columbia (2008) Protocol 13—screening level risk assessmentGoogle Scholar
  70. Ministry of Environment, Government of British Columbia (2009a) Factsheet # 1—an introduction to contaminated sites in British ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  71. Ministry of Environment, Government of British Columbia (2009b) Factsheet # 3—highlights of legislation and regulationsGoogle Scholar
  72. Ministry of Environment, Government of British Columbia (2009c) Factsheet # 13—environmental quality standardsGoogle Scholar
  73. Ministry of Environment, Government of British Columbia (2009d) Ministry procedures for the roster of approved professionalsGoogle Scholar
  74. Ministry of Environment, Government of British Columbia (2010a) Factsheet # 19: the site profile systemGoogle Scholar
  75. Ministry of Environment, Government of British Columbia (2010b) Factsheet # 30: the roster of approved professionalsGoogle Scholar
  76. Ministry of Environment, Government of British Columbia (2010c) Factsheet # 46: contaminated sites legal instrumentsGoogle Scholar
  77. Ministry of Environment, Government of British Columbia (2010d) Protocol 6—eligibility of applications for review by approved professionalsGoogle Scholar
  78. Ministry of Environment, Government of British Columbia (2011) 2009/10-2010/11 Land remediation section reportGoogle Scholar
  79. Ministry of Environment, Government of British Columbia (2012) Independent remediation. Available at http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/remediation/independent/index.htm
  80. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Government of British Columbia (2011) Brownfield funding helps revitalize communities. Press release, 30 March 2011Google Scholar
  81. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Government of British Columbia (2012) Crown land restoration branch. Available at http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/clad/ccs/summary.html#database
  82. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Government of British Columbia (2008) Management of provincial contaminated sites policyGoogle Scholar
  83. Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan (2012) Conservation of soil environment. Available at www.env.go.jp/en/water/wq/wemj/soil.html
  84. Ministry of the Environment, Government of Sweden (2001) The Swedish Environmental Code: a resumé of the text of the code and related ordinancesGoogle Scholar
  85. Morissette L, Hourcle LR (1989) State environmental laws redefine ‘substantial and meaningful involvement’. Air Force Law Rev 31:137Google Scholar
  86. National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (United States) (2004) Environmental justice and federal facilities: recommendations for improving stakeholder relations between federal facilities and environmental justice communitiesGoogle Scholar
  87. Netherlands Soil Partnership (2012) NSP in China. Available at http://www.nsp-soil.com/pagina.asp?id=304
  88. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Government of the United Kingdom (2004) Planning policy statement 23: planning and pollution controlGoogle Scholar
  89. Ozawa H (2007) International comparative legal guide to environment law: Japan. Global Legal Group, LondonGoogle Scholar
  90. Pajukallio AM (2005) Contaminated land management in Finland. Paper presented to the 7th meeting of the International Committee on Contaminated Land, Paris, 29–30 September 2005Google Scholar
  91. Percival RV, Miller AS, Schroeder CH, Leape JE (1992) Environmental regulation: law, science and policy, 1st edn. Little, Brown & Co, BostonGoogle Scholar
  92. Purifoy DM (2012) EPCRA at 25: a case study in environmental right to know laws. Presentation to the National Training Conference on the Toxics Release Inventory and Environmental Conditions in Communities, Washington, DC, 11–13 April 2012Google Scholar
  93. Robinson G (2006) Clean and pleasant land: the changing world of land remediation. Waste Management World, 125Google Scholar
  94. Rose-Ackerman S (1994) Environmental policy and federal structure: a comparison of the United States and Germany. Vanderbilt Law Rev 47:1587–1622Google Scholar
  95. Schutyser R, Deketelaere K (eds) (2000) Belgium. In international encyclopaedia of environmental law, Supplement No 25. Kluwer Law International, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  96. Scorecard (2012) The universe of potential contaminated sites in the US. Available at http://scorecard.goodguide.com/env-releases/def/land_other_sites.html
  97. Sheehan P, Firth S (2008) Client’s guide to contaminated land risk assessment. In Environmental Industries Commission. Land Remediation Yearbook 2008:71Google Scholar
  98. Sigman H, Stafford S (2010) Management of hazardous waste and contaminated land. Working paper no. 2010/08, Department of Economics, Rutgers UniversityGoogle Scholar
  99. Sowinski JM (2008) Environmental liability transfer in British Columbia—final report. Ministry of Environment, Government of British ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  100. Spieth WF, Ramb M (2010) International comparative legal guide to environment law: Germany. Global Legal Group, LondonGoogle Scholar
  101. Stockman D (1980) Congressional record. 126 Cong Rec 26765. 23 September 1980Google Scholar
  102. Stolfa MR (2003) Massachusetts’ activity and use limitations. In: Edwards AL (ed) Implementing institutional controls at brownfields and other contaminated sites. American Bar Association, Chicago, pp 179–185Google Scholar
  103. Superfund Senior Regional Management Acquisition Council (2011) Contracts 2010 strategy reportGoogle Scholar
  104. Thornton G, Vanheusden B, Nathanail CP (2005) Are incentives for brownfield regeneration sustainable? A comparative survey. J Eur Environ Plann Law 5(2)Google Scholar
  105. USEPA (1986) RCRA facility assessment guidanceGoogle Scholar
  106. USEPA (1987) Superfund program: covenants not to sue. Federal Register, vol 52, No. 143Google Scholar
  107. USEPA (1988) Guidance for conducting remedial investigations and feasibility studies under CERCLA – interim finalGoogle Scholar
  108. USEPA (1989a) Interim final—RCRA facility investigation (RFI) guidanceGoogle Scholar
  109. USEPA (1989b) Risk assessment guidance for Superfund, vol II: environmental evaluation manual—interim finalGoogle Scholar
  110. USEPA (1990a) EPA oversight of remedial designs and remedial actions performed by potentially responsible parties—interim finalGoogle Scholar
  111. USEPA (1990b) Guidance on CERCLA section 106(a) unilateral administrative orders for remedial designs and remedial actionsGoogle Scholar
  112. USEPA (1991a) Guidance for performing preliminary assessments under CERCLAGoogle Scholar
  113. USEPA (1991b) Guidance on oversight of potentially responsible party remedial investigations and feasibility studies—final (vol 1)Google Scholar
  114. USEPA (1992a) Guidance for performing site inspections under CERCLA—interim finalGoogle Scholar
  115. USEPA (1992b) Operation manual for SuperfundGoogle Scholar
  116. USEPA (1995) Remedial design/remedial action handbookGoogle Scholar
  117. USEPA (1996a) Policy on the issuance of comfort/status lettersGoogle Scholar
  118. USEPA (1996b) RCRA public participation manualGoogle Scholar
  119. USEPA (1997a) Clarification of the role of applicable, or relevant and appropriate requirements in establishing preliminary remediation goals under CERCLAGoogle Scholar
  120. USEPA (1997b) Revised policy for federal facilitiesGoogle Scholar
  121. USEPA (1999) A guide to preparing Superfund proposed plans, records of decision, and other remedy selection decision documentsGoogle Scholar
  122. USEPA (2000a) Interim guidance on implementing the Superfund administrative reform on PRP oversightGoogle Scholar
  123. USEPA (2000b) Questions and answers about the state role in remedy selection at non-fund-financed enforcement sitesGoogle Scholar
  124. USEPA (2000c) Use of non-time critical removal authority in Superfund response actionsGoogle Scholar
  125. USEPA (2001a) Memorandum—comfort/status letters for RCRA brownfield propertiesGoogle Scholar
  126. USEPA (2001b) RCRA brownfields prevention initiative: lessons learned from pilotsGoogle Scholar
  127. USEPA (2002) Memorandum—enforcement first for remedial action at Superfund sitesGoogle Scholar
  128. USEPA (2003a) Final guidance on completion of corrective action activities at RCRA facilities. Federal Register, vol 68, No. 37Google Scholar
  129. USEPA (2003b) RCRA brownfields prevention initiative: targeted site efforts 2003Google Scholar
  130. USEPA (2004) OSWER guidance for the regional public liaisonsGoogle Scholar
  131. USEPA (2005a) Federal facilities remedial preliminary assessment summary guideGoogle Scholar
  132. USEPA (2005b) Institutional controls: a citizen’s guide to understanding institutional controls at Superfund, brownfields, federal facilities, underground storage tank, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act cleanupsGoogle Scholar
  133. USEPA (2005c) Superfund community involvement handbookGoogle Scholar
  134. USEPA (2006) Final rule—RCRA burden reduction initiative. Federal Register, vol 71, No. 64Google Scholar
  135. USEPA (2007) Cooperative agreements and Superfund state contracts for Superfund response actions—final rule. Federal Register, vol 72, No. 84Google Scholar
  136. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2009a) EPA discusses site remediation and brownfields with Chinese officials. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ogc/china/cooperation.htm
  137. USEPA (2009b) Risk assessment guidance for Superfund, vol I: human health evaluation manual—interim final. Parts A-FGoogle Scholar
  138. USEPA (2010a) Institutional controls: a guide to planning, implementing, maintaining and enforcing institutional controls at contaminated sites—interim finalGoogle Scholar
  139. USEPA (2010b) National enforcement strategy for RCRA corrective actionGoogle Scholar
  140. USEPA (2010c) Superfund national accomplishments summary fiscal year 2010. Available at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/accomp/numbers10.htm
  141. USEPA (2011a) A guide to federal tax incentives for brownfields redevelopmentGoogle Scholar
  142. USEPA (2011b) Close-out procedures for National Priorities List sitesGoogle Scholar
  143. USEPA (2011c) Federal facilities—basic information. Available at http://www.epa.gov/fedfac/about_ffrro.htm
  144. USEPA (2011d) Memorandum—program priorities for federal facility five-year reviewGoogle Scholar
  145. USEPA (2011e) Proposal guidelines for brownfields assessment grantsGoogle Scholar
  146. USEPA (2011f) RCRA orientation manualGoogle Scholar
  147. USEPA (2011g) Superfund contract management—background. Available at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/contracts/2bkgrnd.htm
  148. USEPA (2012a) Brownfields and land revitalization. Available at http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/basic_info.htm#plan
  149. USEPA (2012b) Brownfields program accomplishments. June 2012. Available at http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/overview/bf-monthly-report.html
  150. USEPA (2012c) Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office—basic information. Available at http://www.epa.gov/fedfac/about_ffrro.htm
  151. USEPA (2012d) National Priorities List (NPL). Available at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/index.htm
  152. USEPA (2012e) National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan overview. Available at http://www.epa.gov/osweroe1/content/lawsregs/ncpover.htm
  153. USEPA (2012f) NPL site totals by status and milestone. Available at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/query/queryhtm/npltotal.htm
  154. USEPA (2012h) Superfund financial responsibility. Available at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/financialresponsibility/
  155. USEPA (2012i) Types of contaminated sites. Available at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/cleanup/revitalization/site-types.html
  156. USEPA/Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office (2012) National priorities list sites by State/U.S. territory. Available at http://www.epa.gov/fedfac/ff/nplstates2.htm
  157. USEPA Office of Inspector General (2011) Annual Superfund report to congress for fiscal year 2010Google Scholar
  158. Vestbro DU (ed) (2007) Managing the built environment and remediation of brownfields. Baltic University Urban ForumGoogle Scholar
  159. Vanheusden B (2006) The comparative survey—five questions on soil protection: Belgium. J Eur Environ Plann Law 3:276–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. Vrijheid M (2000) Health effects of residence near hazardous waste landfill sites: a review of epidemiologic literature. Environ Heal Perspect Suppl 108(S1):101–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. Xie J, Li F (2010) Overview of the current situation on brownfield remediation and redevelopment in China. Discussion paper on sustainable development—East Asia and Pacific region. World BankGoogle Scholar
  162. Young JP (1990) Expanding state initiation and enforcement under Superfund. Univ Chicago Law Rev 57:985–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cases

  1. Charben Haulage Pty Ltd v Environmental and Earth Sciences Pty Ltd (2004) FCA 403 (Australia)Google Scholar
  2. Münster Higher Administrative Court, Decision 20A 1774/99, 16 November 2000 (Germany)Google Scholar
  3. Steel Co. v Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (United States Supreme Court)Google Scholar
  4. Thuringia Higher Administrative Court, Decision 4 KO 52/97, 11 July 2001 (Germany)Google Scholar

Other Legal Materials

  1. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009, Pub.L. 111–5 (United States)Google Scholar
  2. An Act Relative to Environmental Cleanup and Promoting the Redevelopment of Contaminated Property (Brownfields Act) 1998, Ch. 206 (Massachusetts)Google Scholar
  3. Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany 1949 (Germany)Google Scholar
  4. Clean Air Act 1970, 42 U.S.C. §7401 (United States)Google Scholar
  5. Clean Water Act (formerly the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 1972, 33 U.S.C. §1251 (United States)Google Scholar
  6. Code of Federal Regulations, 40 C.F.R. 239–299 (United States)Google Scholar
  7. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 1980, 42 U.S.C. 9601 (United States)Google Scholar
  8. Contaminated Sites Regulation 1996, B.C. Reg. 375/96 (British Columbia)Google Scholar
  9. Decree on Assessment of Soil Contamination and Need for Remediation 2007, No. 214/2007 (Finland)Google Scholar
  10. Directive on Environmental Liability with Regard to the Prevention and Remedying of Environmental Damage (2004/35/EC) O.J. L. 143/56-75 (European Union)Google Scholar
  11. Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act 1986, Pub. L. 99–499 (United States)Google Scholar
  12. Emissions Control Act 2002 (Germany)Google Scholar
  13. Environmental Code 1999, D.S. 2000: 61 (Sweden)Google Scholar
  14. Environmental Damage Prevention and Remediation Act 2007 (Germany)Google Scholar
  15. Environmental Management Act 2003 [SBC 2003] c. 53 (British Columbia)Google Scholar
  16. Environmental Protection Act 1990 c. 43 (United Kingdom)Google Scholar
  17. Environmental Protection Act 2000, No. 86/2000 (Finland)Google Scholar
  18. Hazardous Waste Regulations, 40 C.F.R. 260–279 (United States)Google Scholar
  19. Land Title Act 1996 [RSBC 1996] c. 250 (British Columbia)Google Scholar
  20. Massachusetts Oil and Hazardous Material Release Prevention and Response Act 1992, Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 21EGoogle Scholar
  21. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 40 C.F.R. 300 (United States)Google Scholar
  22. Oil Pollution Act 1990, 33 U.S.C. 40 (United States)Google Scholar
  23. Regulations of the Board of Registration of Hazardous Waste Site Cleanup Professionals, Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 21A, Sect. 19A (Massachusetts)Google Scholar
  24. Resource Management Act 1991, Public Act 1991 No. 69 (New Zealand)Google Scholar
  25. Site Remediation Reform Act 2009, P.L. 2009, c. 60 (New Jersey)Google Scholar
  26. Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act 2002, Pub. L. No. 107–118 (United States)Google Scholar
  27. Soil Protection Act 1998 (Germany)Google Scholar
  28. Soil Protection and Contaminated Sites Ordinance 1999 (Germany)Google Scholar
  29. Soil Protection Encumbrances Registration Ordinance 1999 (Germany)Google Scholar
  30. Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act 1986, Pub. L. 99–499 (1986) (United States)Google Scholar
  31. Toxic Substances Control Act 1976, 15 U.S.C. § 2601 (United States)Google Scholar
  32. Water Management Act 2009 (Germany)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TanundaAustralia

Personalised recommendations