Advertisement

Contaminated Land Remediation: Legal Issues and Recommendations for China

Chapter
  • 75 Downloads

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 in relation 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.

Keywords

Best practicable environmental option Cost-benefit analysis Hazard ranking system Remediation Suitable for use Treatment technology 

References

  1. Adams, J. A., & Reddy, K. R. (2015). Sustainable Remediation Of Contaminated Sites (Geotechnical Engineering Collection): Momentum Press.Google Scholar
  2. Agency, X. N. (2011). Key Targets of China's 12th Five-year Plan. http://www.china.org.cn/china/NPC_CPPCC_2011/2011-03/05/content_22059883.htm. Accessed February 1 2019.
  3. Agostini, P., II, G. W. S., Gottardo, S., & Giubilato, E. (2009). Indicators and Endpoints for Risk-Based Decision Processes with Decision Support Systems. In A. Marcomini, G. W. Suter II, & A. Critto (Eds.), Decision Support Systems for Risk-Based Management of Contaminated Sites (pp. 95): Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Atkins, W., Fenn, T., Grosso, A., & Steeds, J. (1999). Cost-benefit Analysis for Remediation of Land Contamination. UK Environment Agency.Google Scholar
  5. Bardos, P., Nathanail, J., & Pope, B. (2002). General Principles for Remedial Approach Selection. Land Contamination & Reclamation, 10(3), 137.Google Scholar
  6. Bearden, D. M. (2010). Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act: A Summary of Superfund Cleanup Authorities and Related Provisions of the Act. CRS Report for Congress.Google Scholar
  7. Bell, S., & McGillivray, D. (2008). Environmental Law (7th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Boyd, J. (1999). Environmental Remediation Law and Economies in Transition. RFF 99-21,Google Scholar
  9. Breggin, L., & Institute, E. L. (1999). A guidebook for brownfield property owners. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute.Google Scholar
  10. Brundtland, G. H., & Development, W. C. o. E. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Carey, M. A., Finnamore, J. R., & Morrey, M. J. (2000). Guidance on the Assessment and Monitoring of Natural Attenuation of Contaminants in Groundwater (R & D publication No 95): UK Environment Agency.Google Scholar
  12. Carey, M. A., Marsland, P. A., & Smith, J. W. N. (2006). Methodology for the Derivation of Remedial Targets: UK Environment Agency.Google Scholar
  13. Casella, S. (2004). Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (Contaminated Land Report 11). Bristol: Environment Agency.Google Scholar
  14. Consortium, E. C. L. (December 2007). Land Affected by Contamination: Technical Guidance for Applicants and Developers.Google Scholar
  15. Council, S. E. B. (2018). ContWest Suffolk Contaminated Land Strategy. https://www.westsuffolk.gov.uk/environment/upload/WSC-Contaminated-Land-Strategy-2019.pdf. Accessed April 3 2019.
  16. Defra (2002). The Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment Model (CLEA): Technical Basis and Algorithms (R & D Publication No CLR 10): Defra.Google Scholar
  17. Defra (September 2006). Defra Circular 01/2006 Environmental Protection Act 1990: part 2A contaminated land. London: Defra.Google Scholar
  18. Development, U. N. C. o. E. (1993). The Earth Summit: the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) (International Environmental Law and Policy Series). New York: Graham & Trotman.Google Scholar
  19. Dixon, L. S. (1992). Superfund And Transaction Costs : The Experiences of Insurers and Very Large Industrial Firms. Santa Monica, Calif.Google Scholar
  20. Doty, C. B., & Travis, C. C. (1989). The Superfund Remedial Action Decision Process: A Review of Fifty Records of Decision. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 39(12), 1535-1543.Google Scholar
  21. EPA (1990). Guidance on Remedial Actions for Superfund Sites with PCB Contamination.Google Scholar
  22. EPA (1992). Hazard Ranking System Guidance Manual. Washington, DC: US EPA.Google Scholar
  23. EPA (1994). Revised Interim Soil Lead Guidance for CERCLA Sites and RCRA Corrective Action Facilities.Google Scholar
  24. EPA (1995a). Amendment to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1995-03-29/pdf/95-7596.pdf. Accessed March 20 2019.
  25. EPA (1995b). Land Use in the CERCLA Remediation Selection Process (EPA 540-R-92-026): EPA.Google Scholar
  26. EPA (1999). A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents.Google Scholar
  27. EPA (2001). Reuse Assessments: A Tool To Implement The Superfund Land Use Directive.Google Scholar
  28. EPA (2003). Overview of the Present Hazard Ranking System. https://semspub.epa.gov/work/HQ/174041.pdf. Accessed April 4 2019.
  29. EPA (2010). Considering Reasonably Anticipated Future Land Use and Reducing Barriers to Reuse at EPA-lead Superfund Remedial Sites.Google Scholar
  30. EPA (2011). National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan Overview. https://www.epa.gov/emergency-response/national-oil-and-hazardous-substances-pollution-contingency-plan-ncp-overview. Accessed March 05 2019.
  31. EPA (2015). Establishment of a New System of Records Notice for the Superfund Enterprise Management System. [Notice]. Federal Register, 80(74), 21237-22139.Google Scholar
  32. EPA (October 1996a). CERCLIS Achieve Guidelines. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/reforms/docs/s_96CERC.pdf. Accessed March 28 2019.
  33. EPA (September 1996b). The Role of Cost in the Superfund Remedy Selection Process.Google Scholar
  34. EPA (September 2007). Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report. (12th ed., pp. 66).Google Scholar
  35. Fogelman, V. (2005). Environmental Liabilities and Insurance in England and the United States. London: Witherby.Google Scholar
  36. GAO (1990). Hazardous Waste: EPA's Generation and Management Data Need Further Improvement.Google Scholar
  37. GAO (1992). Superfund: Problems With the Completeness and Consistency of Site Cleanup Plans.Google Scholar
  38. GAO (2003). Superfund Program Current Status and Future Fiscal Challenges. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  39. GAO (2005). Hazardous Waste Sites: Improved Effectiveness of Controls at Sites could Better Protect the Public: Report to Congressional Requesters. (pp. 60 p.). Washington, D.C.: GAO.Google Scholar
  40. GAO (2009). 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. (pp. 122). Washington, D.C.: Government Accountability Office.Google Scholar
  41. Griffin, R. D. (2009). Principles of Mazardous Materials Management. Boca Raton :: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  42. Hardisty, P. E., & Ozdemiroglu, E. (1999). Costs and Benefits Associated with Remediation of Rontaminated Groundwater: A Review of the Issues. London: Environment Agency of UK.Google Scholar
  43. Her Majesty’s Government, S. E., Welsh Assembly Government & Northern Ireland Office (2005). One future - different paths: the UK's shared framework for sustainable development. London: Defra.Google Scholar
  44. Hyson, J. M. (2003). Private Cost Recovery Actions under CERCLA. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Law Institute.Google Scholar
  45. Isted, J., & Kavanagh, P. (1995). The Contaminated Land Provisions of the Environment Act 1995: the Toughest Challenge yet for Environmental Insurers. International Insurance Law Review, 3(11), 389-394.Google Scholar
  46. Judy, M. L., & Probst, K. N. (2009). Superfund at 30. Vermont Journal of Environmental Law, 11, 191.Google Scholar
  47. Lee, C. C. (2005). Environmental Engineering Dictionary (4th ed.). Lanham, Md: Government Institutes.Google Scholar
  48. Lens, P., Grotenhuis, T., Malina, G., & Tabak, H. (2005). Soil and sediment remediation: mechanisms, technologies and applications. London: International Water Association.Google Scholar
  49. Macey, G. P., & Cannon, J. Z. (2007). Reclaiming the Land: Rethinking Superfund Institutions, Methods, and Practices. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  50. Marcomini, A., Suter II, G. W., & Critto, A. (2009). Decision Support Systems for Risk-Based Management of Contaminated Sites: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. Marsland, P. A., & Carey, M. A. (1999). Methodology for the Derivation of Remedial Targets for Soil and Groundwater to Protect Water Resources (R&D Publication, Vol. 20): UK Environment Agency.Google Scholar
  52. Nathanail, C. P., Bardos, P., & MyiLibrary (2004). Reclamation of Contaminated Land. Chichester ; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  53. Postle, M., Fenn, T., Grosso, A., & Steeds, J. (1999). Cost-benefit Analysis for Remediation of Land Contamination: Environment Agency.Google Scholar
  54. Pritchard, P. (2000). Environmental risk management (Business and the environment practitioner series). London: Earthscan Publications.Google Scholar
  55. Probst, K. N., & Konisky, D. M. (2001). Superfund’s Future: What Will It Cost? A Report to Congress. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  56. Probst, K. N., & Portney, P. R. (1992). Assigning liability for Superfund cleanups: An Analysis of Policy Options (RFF report). Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  57. Report, E. (1996). Royal Commission Puts Soil on the Map. (pp. 23-25).Google Scholar
  58. Report, E. (1997). Dutch in Policy Retreat on Contaminated Land. (pp. 38-39).Google Scholar
  59. Research, S. N. I. F. f. E. (2010). Communicating Understanding of Contaminated Land Risks Guidance. Edinburgh: SNIFFER.Google Scholar
  60. Rogers, P. P., FJalal, K., & Boyd, J. A. (2008). An introduction to Sustainable Development: Glen Educational Foundation Inc.Google Scholar
  61. SuRF-UK (2010). A Framework for Assessing the Sustainability of Soil and Groundwater Remediation: CL:AIRE.Google Scholar
  62. Swartjes, F. A. (Ed.). (2011). Dealing with Contaminated Sites: from Theory towards Practical Application: Springer.Google Scholar
  63. Turvani, M., & Tonin, S. (2008). Brownfields Remediation and Reuse: An Opportunity for Urban Sustainable Development. In C. Clini, I. Musu, & M. L. Gullino (Eds.), Sustainable Development and Environmental Management (pp. 397-411): Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Law and JusticeUniversity of Southern QueenslandToowoombaAustralia

Personalised recommendations