Our country's understanding of soil and groundwater has been improving, but there are still widespread misconceptions about some key concepts and theories, some of which have had or are currently having a significant impact on the formulation of policies and laws.

What are the misconceptions?

Misconception 1: Polluted places refer to polluted soil.

Polluted places are places where soil and groundwater are contaminated due to certain behaviors and activities, and the relocation of pollutants can also pollute the soil and groundwater outside the place. Therefore, the correction of most polluted areas includes groundwater correction.

Misconception 2: Polluted places are brown fields.

If the site is abandoned and its development and utilization are affected by pollution, then this type of polluted site is also known as brownfield. Brown land is only a part of a polluted area, and its concept is a commodity with a specific meaning in foreign laws and regulations. There are historical reasons for equating the use of polluted areas with brownfield in our country. But now we should differentiate the two concepts with a developmental perspective.

Misconception three: Polluted places refer to industrial polluted places, and shutting down and moving will "trigger" polluted places.

Industrial pollution is one of the causes of polluting places. The mining industry, commercial, military bases, recycling industry, and waste management have also formed many pollution sites. As a type with a large number of polluting places, gas stations are strictly not considered industrial. Polluted places are caused by the presence of harmful substances, and the act of shutting down and moving itself cannot "erupt" or "form" polluted places.

Misconception 4: Superfunds rely on the government's investment of a large amount of funds to support them, as their pollution responsibilities are difficult to determine.

The official name of the Superfund Law is the Inductive Environmental Response, Compensation and Responsibility Law, which is named after its establishment of a revised fund. The main content is: if there is pollution, there must be cleaning and correction actions, if there is pollution hazards, compensation must be made, and if there is pollution, the responsible party for pollution must be found.

The super fund does not target all polluting places nationwide, nor does it handle brownfield, only reaching a category of places with severe pollution and high harm. More polluting sites are handled by other federal projects and localities. No super fund venue has initiated revisions due to development, and 87% of super fund venues have found responsible parties, with an average of 71 responsible parties per venue.

From this, it can be seen that holding polluters accountable is not as difficult as imagined. The fund itself is used for emergency response, inability to find responsible parties, or inability to bear the responsibility of the responsible parties. The pollution responsible party has paid approximately 70% of the super fund site correction. Therefore, relying on the term "fund" to assume that as long as China establishes a government funded fund and uses financial methods such as taxation, fees, and grants to address environmental issues in polluted areas, it can be solved once and for all. This understanding is wrong.

Mistake 5: Correcting contaminated areas only serving development and moving locations.

Correcting pollution sites is beneficial for ensuring land development and utilization, but not just for serving development. The recent media reports on groundwater pollution in Dongshili Village, Yuzhou, Henan, soil pollution at the Dapu Chemical Plant in Hengdong, Hunan, and groundwater pollution in Lanzhou, Gansu are all unrelated to development and relocation. However, the current documents in our country regarding the handling of polluted environment only mention the places to be developed and moved without exception, indicating the impact of this misconception on relevant policies.

Misconception 6: Polluted place queries can be replaced by environmental impact assessments.

Due to the "binding" between the environmental management of polluted places and land development, some places have introduced the environmental impact assessment of construction projects when formulating environmental management policies for polluted places, and there are also references to including site inquiries in environmental impact assessments. Due to the differences in the evaluation objects and time periods, the use of environmental impact assessment techniques cannot be used for site search and evaluation. Of course, it should be noted that this was related to the fact that at that time, the handling of polluted places in China was not legal.

Misconception 7: Place search and evaluation are not important.

China generally has the concept of "heavy correction, light inquiry". Although specific inquiries may cost some, they can accurately understand the pollution situation and develop scientific correction plans based on this, greatly reducing the total cost of correction. To put it vividly, a correction without inquiry is like a doctor who has not heard or inquired about it, how can they prescribe the right medicine.

Misconception 8: After moving, the place is considered as a historical legacy.

At that time, there was a tendency to classify the sites of industrial and mining enterprises that had stopped production and moved as historical legacy pollution sites, proposing that their revision funds be uniformly funded by the government.

There are two distinct characteristics of prehistoric legacy problems: first, they occur during specific prehistoric periods or are formed by specific prehistoric events, and their occurrence has special prehistoric reasons; The second is that the responsible party for creating problems will not be held accountable during that particular period and context, but when it is time to hold accountable, it has now been lost or cannot be found.

Many industrial and mining enterprises in our country have different production and operation sites, with different pre production histories and moving times. It is crucial to define the responsibility of governance and revision from a legal perspective, and accurately define what is left over from pre history.

Misconception 9: Groundwater pollution also requires hazard assessment.

For a period of time, hazard assessment of drinking groundwater behavior has been very popular in China. According to the newly released Technical Guidelines for Hazard Assessment of Polluted Places, groundwater used as daily water should directly adopt water environment standards or daily water standards without the need for separate hazard accounting.

The proposal and application of hazard assessment for polluted places in foreign countries are constantly adjusted and formed on the basis of practice, with strong stage, development, and regional characteristics. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, which are closer to China's civilization, geographical location, and socio-economic development stage, have not implemented hazard assessments in the handling of pollution sites. Therefore, both abandonment and overuse are not advisable.

The article originates from natural ecological water purification systems http://www.scneng.com.hk