Report on Soil Protection and Remediation of Contaminated Sites in Iceland
A preliminary study
Meyles, C.A.
Schmidt, Bianca
Environment and Food Agency of Iceland (UST)
August 2005
1. Introduction
As in every other place where people live and work, Iceland has locations all around the country which are under the influence of substances and various emissions that could change the original state of the landscape. Iceland is typically known as one of the cleanest countries from an environmental point of view, though time will show that problems caused by progressing industrialization and civilization as we can see in many countries, are most likely to occur in Iceland. However, this process of pollution might take place more slowly than in other regions because of the low population density in Iceland with only a small number of inhabitants and the small percentage of land used for living and working.
Population2004 / Population Density / Population Growth 1950-2004 / Population Growth
2004-2044 (estimated)
[Individuals] / [per km2] / [%] / [%]
Iceland
/ 293 577 / 2.9 / 108,2 / 20,3Table 1: Some selected Population Statistics of Iceland[1]
Nevertheless it will be necessary to protect the unique landscape of Iceland, and more important the health of people and animals inhabiting Iceland’s terra firma.
Since the late 80’s the Icelandic government has been aware of this topic. In 1990 the Ministry for the Environment was established, which is the youngest ministry in the Icelandic Administration. Since that time many efforts have been made to develop strategies and policies to protect the nature and wildlife. In this development a law is still missing, however, one that protects not only the obvious matters of environmental protection, but also objects which are not so easily recognizable. That is because they are out of sight and accumulate problems in a silent way:
soil and groundwater contamination.
Total Areas / Agricultural Areas / Urban Areas/ Infra-structure / Nationally Protected Areas 2003 / Water Use Intensity / Population served by WWTP / Amount of Hazardous Waste 2003[km2] / [km2] / [%] / [%] / [km2] / [%] / [%] / [%] / [t]
Iceland
/ 103 000 / 22 820 / 22.2 / 1.4 / 9 985 / 9.7 / < 1 / 6 / 8000EU 15 Av. / 42 / 9 / 7.1 / 18 / 75
Table 2: Some selected environmental Statistics of Iceland in relation to average Values of the EU-15 Member States (WWTP= waste water treatment plant)[2]
During the project research it turned out, that already many steps were made relating to soil protection. These efforts are mainly dealing with soil erosion and desertification. Soil contamination caused by pollutants and hazardous substances is typically not included. It is easy to compile data about soil degradation, e.g. on the homepage of the Soil Conservation Service of Iceland (Landgræðsla ríkisins, www.land.is), since this is one of the environmental problems with high priority. A 12 year-programme on soil protection has been implemented with the intension to avoid erosion and desertification. In addition a Soil Conservation Policy and a Soil Conservation Law (Log um landgræðslu from 1965, revised after the decision for the soil conservation policy in 1999)[3] have been established.
On the other hand it is difficult to collect reliable information concerning contaminated sites in Iceland. There are no statistics available up to this day or detailed facts regarding the number and size of contaminated areas and the pollutants which can be found on those. In the ‘90s there was a first approach for the development of legislation on contaminated soil and remediation, though the regulation draft established by the Environmental Agency (UST) was not accepted by the Ministry of the Environment and thus was not implemented in the Icelandic legislation. A second difficulty was caused by the relocation of the Environment and Food Agency in 2002, which resulted in the loss of some documents concerning former research on soil pollution.
Most of the information and legal texts are only available in Icelandic language, so that the author of this report was compelled to rely on statements given by experts from the Environment and Food Agency (Umhverfisstofnun), the regional environmental authorities (Heilbrigðiseftirlit) as well as on reports and figures provided by foreign organisations.
All these circumstances made literature study for this project complicated and resulted for a large part in pioneering work. Hence, no responsibility can be taken for the completeness and the correctness of the information included in this report.
2. Project Objectives
The main objective of this project is to support in the preparation of a “White Paper” on a possible new law for the protection of soil, aiming at the remediation of contaminated sites. This means sites that are contaminated with “classical” pollutants like oil, fats, gasoline, fuels, fertilizers and organic chemicals such as pesticides and herbicides as well as heavy metals. The origins of these contaminants are various sectors of the industry settled down in Iceland, but also landfills, military facilities and the lots of cars cruising around in the country.
In detail the project objectives were the creation of a preliminary study
· To look at the present situation of the Icelandic legislation regarding soil protection and to compare the various legislations of some (Northern) countries with the legal situation in Iceland to find room for improvement, especially for improved liability regulations
· To carry out a survey of possibly contaminated sites in Iceland to assess the approximate number of sites polluted and the containing contaminants
· To make some proposals for remediation techniques, which are suitable for Icelandic conditions (e.g. special constitution of the ground because of volcanic activity, cool climate etc.).
Soil and groundwater pollution caused by slaughterhouse waste and contaminated sediments in harbours were excluded from the project objectives, because the project should be concentrated on the one topic, “classical” pollutants, like mentioned above to be effective in this short period of four month of the project duration. But these kinds of pollutants are hazardous as well and pose a risk to humans and animals, hence, it is very important to consider them elsewhere in the further work on the new legislation. However, some of the sites where dead animals were dumped as a result of livestock diseases in Iceland are mentioned in the survey of contaminated sites (see Appendix).
3. Legal Matters
3.1 Legal situation in Iceland
The legislation regarding environmental protection in Iceland is still quite new. It was in the early 90ies that the Ministry for the Environment was founded and the need for an environmental legislation was recognized. Over the last decade laws in the field of nature conservation, planning, pollution prevention and environmental and food safety had been enacted and amended in the recent years. Various international obligations assumed by Iceland in the environmental field have also had a considerable impact on Icelandic legislation. In this regard one could mention various international agreements, both global and regional, but the biggest changes have occurred as a result of Iceland’s participation in the European Economic Area.
Iceland is member of
§ The EEA (European Economic Area)
§ The EFTA (European Free Trade Association)
§ The UN (United Nations)
§ The Council of Europe
§ The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development)
§ The WTO (World Trade Organisation)
§ The Arctic Council
§ The Nordic Council
…just to name a few.
By the membership in the EEA, Iceland is committed to introduce European legislation in the fields of pollution prevention , chemicals, waste treatment etc., though not in the field of nature conservation.
About 40 percent of the Acts concerning environmental issues have been introduced as a result of the Agreement in the European Economic Area. Legislation relating to the economy (according to the OECD membership) has also taken the ideas of Sustainable Development into account, but Iceland has not implemented a National Agenda 21 yet.[4]
3.1.1 Acts and regulations in Iceland regarding Soil Protection and Contamination
Regarding soil and groundwater protection the environmental legislation of Iceland offers the following Acts:
§ The Public Health and Pollution Control Act 7/1998
§ The Nature Conservation Act (1999)
§ The Environmental Impact Assessment Act 106/2000
§ The Geodetic Surveys and Mapping Act 95/1997
§ The Planning and Building Act 73/1997
§ Act on Financial Support to Municipalities for Sewage Control 53/1995
§ The Act on Special Fee on Hazardous Waste 561/1996
The most important Act on the protection of soil is the Public Health and Pollution Control Act 7/1998, also called the “Permit-Act”. However, the law doesn’t contain a separate chapter on soil, but prohibits the emission of environmentally hazardous substances into the ambience in general. Especially § 26 is significant, because it contains rules for reprimands as an instrument for the implementation of the Act in case a company doesn’t comply to the regulations. There are also two main resulting regulations, which are used for the supervision of companies:
§ Regulation Nr. 785/1999
§ Regulation Nr. 786/1999
These regulations resulting from the Act 7/1998 are dealing with the categorization of companies in different groups, classified by their potentially risk for the environment. According to their risk-category the companies have to fulfil various protection measures (mainly against water and air pollution) and have to undergo compliance visits neither from the UST or the HES in order to maintain their environmental permit and keep their business going on.
Excursus:
Environmental Permits
Since 1994/ 2000 every company that wants to run its business in Iceland and might cause damage to the environment is obliged to apply for a environmental permit according to the “Permit Act” 7/1998 and must fulfil certain criteria to maintain this permission. The two appropriate authorities to check the compliance to the criteria are the Umhverfisstofnun UST and the regional environmental authorities Heilbrigðiseftirlit HES.
Umhverfisstofnun UST / Heilbrigðiseftirlit HESResponsibility criteria:
Size of the company and capability to produce pollution
/ · Issue permits for bigger companies / · Issue permits for smaller companies· Make compliance visits to the bigger companies / · Make compliance visits to the smaller companies
Responsibility criteria:
Standardization of permit requirements / · Try to standardise the permits for the whole country; also the permits from the HES (provides the permit standards) / · Try to keep the same level for the permits in every region, but also to consider the special conditions of the region (environmental, social…)
· The companies are separated into 3 groups regarding the frequency of compliance visits and the need to take measurements, according to regulation no. 786/99 / · The companies are subdivided in 5 groups, regarding the necessity of compliance visits and taking of measurements, according to regulation no. 786/99
Table 3: Differences in the Responsibilities between the UST and the HES
The frequency of the compliance visits and taking of measurements depend on the permit the company holds. The type of the company and the character and amount of pollutants the firm emits into the atmosphere determines the group and the permit assigned as well as the protection measures it has to fulfil to maintain the permit.
The standardization of the environmental permits is still an ongoing process. The controls are not on the same level in every region and the limit values for a certain pollutant may also vary (e.g. older companies may emit more than new ones, new companies have to consider the BAT), but the responsible authorities are working on it.
Soil contamination is partly considered in the permits. At least it is not allowed to pollute the ground. However, there are no specific controls or regulations for the issue “soil protection”.[5]
In Iceland contaminated soil excavated from a site is regarded as waste. According to that fact the
§ Act on Waste Management 55/2003
is also applicable.
i An example for a “remediation” measure of a contaminated site according to the waste legislation is the former shooting range Leirdalur, east of Reykjavík. The appropriate authorities decided to remove the top layer of the site, which was regarded as contaminated. The soil was packed into bags and since that time these bags are dumped at a landfill site. There has been no treatment of the contaminated material, because of the simple reason that there is no treatment facility in Iceland. Hence, it is wrong to claim that this was a remediation action. It was simply a measure to get rid of the present problem, so that new houses could be built on that site.[6]
These Acts mentioned above are all aiming at an efficient protection of the unique Icelandic nature and environment under the stipulation of sustainability. The National Strategy for Sustainable Development (released in 1997) provides also a soil conservation plan. It is not known to the author if the plan is already implemented and if it considers soil contamination.
3.1.2 EU Directives regarding Soil Protection and Contamination
The implementation of EU-directives in the environmental sector is another obligation according to the EEA-membership of Iceland. They are the major driver for environmental policy improvements in Iceland. However, their implementation in Icelandic legislation has just started and environmental expenditure remains low.[7]
Regarding the topic “soil contamination” one can name the following directives:
§ EU Landfill Directive 99/31/EC
§ Integrated Pollution Control and Prevention Control Directive 96/61/EC (the intension is to turn away from the protection of the individual medium towards an integrated protection concept to prevent the whole environment from detrimental effects caused by industrial activities)
§ Directive 2004/35/EC on Evironmental Liability (published on the 21 of April 2004)
§ EU Directive 75/439/EEC on Waste Oils
§ Sewage Sludge Directive 86/278/EEC
3.2 Situation in various Northern countries in comparison to Iceland
Germany / The Netherlands / Finland / Sweden / Denmark / Canada / IcelandEstimation of the number of contaminated sites? / yes / yes / yes / yes / yes / yes / In work (see Annex 2)
Separate Act on soil protection and remediation? / yes / yes / no / no / yes / No, not at nationwide level / no
Definition of soil? / yes / yes / N/a / No (several definitions) / no / ? / no
Definition of contaminated soil? / yes / Yes / N/a / No / yes / ? / no
Definition of contaminated sites? / yes / N/a / N/a / yes / yes / ? / no
Other regulations regarding soil protection and remediation? / yes / yes / yes / yes / yes / yes / Icelandic environmental legislation; EU-directives resulting from the EEA-/ EFTA-contracts
Strategies/ Policies / yes / yes / yes / yes / yes / yes / Not really
Application of soil use or hazard classes? / yes / yes / no / yes / yes / yes / Yes (in the draft regulation from 2002), but not statutory
Specific funding for orphan sites? / yes / N/a / yes / yes / no / ? / no
Specific funding for gas stations and other industrial areas? / Yes (brownfields in Eastern Germany) / Yes (gas stations) / Yes (gas stations) / Yes (gas stations) / ? / no
Appliance of the polluter-pays principle? / yes / yes / yes / yes / yes / yes / Yes, but not statutory
Legal limit values? / yes / yes / No. But application of limit values in practise. / ? / ? / yes / No. Application of limit values for ground water. Proposals in the draft-regulation published by the UST in 2002.
Detailed liability rules? / yes / yes / yes / yes / yes / yes / no
Risk assessment? / Yes: / Yes: function and risk oriented / yes / yes / yes / yes / Yes, but no regular method. Proposals in the draft-regulation from 2002.
Progress in remediation? / Very far, nearly competed / Problem should be “under control” by 2025 / Very late beginning, urgent cases first / In work, different stadiums of remediation / Good progress (more than a third of all sites ?) / Still in the very beginning
Table 4: Situation in various Northern Countries in comparison to Iceland