10.4.   Public remediation (existing contaminated sites)

The implementory arm is the Counties. The environmental department of each County normally includes a groundwater and waste depositories department comprising 5-10 staff. National coordination is the responsibility of the Danish EPA’s Waste Depositories and Groundwater Section.

The Counties undertake the registration and prioritization of contaminated sites in the individual counties. The Danish EPA decides the order of priority at the national level, and therefore distributes the greatest part of the available funds. Three branches have been assigned to the responsibility of the Counties, however, since remediation methods are well-established for these branches. They are the tannery, wood impregnation and asphalt/tar production branches. This notwithstanding, remediation projects costing over DKK 8.75 million remain the responsibility of the Danish EPA.

Once the Danish EPA has selected a contaminated site for remediation, it is the County who draws up the remediation plans and calls for tenders for the work. The project has to be approved by the Danish EPA, but the County is responsible for seeing that it is undertaken.

This administrative process is somewhat complicated, and in fact has been criticized in a 1993 report that gave it part of the blame for the rather slow tempo of the clean-up work. The consequence of this analysis is that the full responsibility for prioritizing clean-up work has now been assigned to the Counties.

10.4.2.   Financial aspects:

The Contaminated Sites Act is the framework for a system whereby the public authorities pay for the clean-up work. The system’s limits are set by the sum assigned to this purpose in the government budget. For the period 1990-93, a total of DKK 570 million was assigned to county and state clean-up activities (both investigation and remediation). The figure for 1995 is DKK 280 million, which includes site remediation under the Depreciation Protection Act. The system does not provide individual landowners any legal right to have their properties remediated, it being entirely up to the discretion of the environmental authorities which sites should be remediated, the criterion hazard to man or the environment being decisive in this respect. On the other hand, the clean-up is a free service to site owners who are not themselves responsible for the pollution.

Costb specification per contaminated site for public remediation projects based on experience over the period 1990-93*

The sums mentioned above are the gross amounts, and cover all the expenses of the public authorities. Thus only approx. 60% is used on remediation contracts with building contractors, pollution management firms, etc. The other 40% is expended on the registration work and administration. Of the sum available for 1995, DKK 180 million was earmarked for mediation.

10.4.3.   Practice with respect to remediation projects:

The Contaminated Sites Act refers to "remediation projects" in its widest sense, i.e. remedial measures designed to avert the risk posed by pollution from contaminated sites. I will summarize below some Danish experiences with publicly financed remediation projects.

High priority is assigned firstly to cases in which the current use of the site becomes problematic, e.g. because toxic gasses permeate into the house, because vegetables from the vegetable garden are too dangerous to eat or because it is too dangerous for small children to play in the garden because of the risk that they might eat or handle the soil.

The same high priority is assigned in cases where there is a danger of explosion due to methane permeating into the house. In 1991 there was an accident in which methane from a nearby disused landfill permeated into a house causing an explosion that killed two people. This has understandably evoked considerable nervousness among other citizens with similar problems.

The second area to which high priority is given is cases where there is an immediate danger of groundwater contamination or where contamination has already occurred.

In contrast, the Contaminated Sites Act pays no regard to urban development. Thus if a Municipality or a private citizen wants to remediate a contaminated site that according to the town plans should be exploited, then they have to find the funding for the project themselves.

The remedial measures employed naturally depend on the threat posed by the pollution. With ordinary site usage problems, e.g. where the problem is the vegetable garden or children’s play, the upper metre of the soil is removed and replaced by clean soil. The remainder of the contaminated soil is left in place - unless it poses a threat to the groundwater.

When the problem is gas permeating into the house, the cheapest measure is to install gas alarms. In some cases affected houses can be sealed against the gas. However, there have also been examples where it has been necessary to abandon using a house because of gas permeating in from a landfill. The public authorities have then taken the house off the owner’s hands at full price, i.e. the market price were the site not contaminated.

When the problem is groundwater contamination, and the pollution is still restricted, it has usually been elected to remove the contaminated soil. If however, the pollution is too dispersed, it has usually been elected to abstract and treat the contaminated groundwater, a process that often has to continue for many years.

It is likely that in the long term, many of the contaminated sites currently assigned low priority will be left untouched, perhaps with some form of monitoring and measures to ensure that they cannot be dug into.

10.4.4.   Soil decontamination:

Remediation and soil decontamination do not automatically go together. On the contrary, it has been an almost striking feature of Danish projects that whereas the danger has certainly been averted, not much soil has been decontaminated. A large part of the soil that has been dug up has been deposited at landfills or other suitable places, the line of reasoning being that one then knows where the contaminated soil is and that it causes minimal damage in its new location. The reason for choosing this solution rather than soil decontamination is partly financial, and partly the lack of technologies for decontaminating the soil.

Nonetheless, some progress has been made on soil decontamination in Denmark. This applies especially to microbiological treatment of soil contaminated by oil, seven plants now being in operation that together decontaminated 240,000 tonnes of soil in 1992 at a cost of DKK 300-400 per tonne. In addition there are two plants for the thermal treatment of soil contaminated by organic solvents, etc., that together decontaminated 16,000 tonnes soil in 1992, and one plant for the extraction of heavy metals, etc., that also decontaminated 16,000 tonnes soil in 1992. The cost of thermal decontamination and extraction are in the order of DKK 1,000 per tonne.

To some extent the Danish soil decontamination plants also treat soil from Germany.

Much of the decontaminated soil is used to cover landfills, while a lesser amount is used in construction projects.

10.4.5.   Position of site owners:

In no case has it proved difficult to persuade site owners to accept that remediation be undertaken. However, should that problem arise, the public authorities can expropriate the property to the extent necessary.

From the financial point of view remediation is of great benefit to the site owner. With the Danish real estate market as it is, contaminated sites are very difficult to sell or raise a mortgage on. Remediated sites should be able to be sold or mortgaged on the usual terms. However, there is a certain psychological stigma, especially in cases where the place name has become very well known and associated with a pollution problem.

The cost of remediation can be recovered from the site owner only if he is responsible for the contamination, and is liable to pay damages (see Section 10.8).

In accordance with Danish legal practice one cannot hold responsible the purchaser of a contaminated site, even if he was aware of the problem at the time of purchase.

10.4.6.   Progress:

Since 1983, a total of DKK 750 million has been invested in public activities concerning contaminated land. So far, 2,700 contaminated sites have been registered and 150 have been remediated at a total cost of DKK 400 million.

A political dispute has hitherto prevented the sites of old gasworks from being included in the public remediation programme. This is somewhat unfortunate since experience shows that gasworks sites are among the most strongly contaminated sites, and that they pose considerable problems, both with respect to the groundwater and to site development. The government has now acceded to the viewpoint of the Municipalities, however. Considerable remediation work can therefore be expected to be undertaken in coming years.