Ordinance
on the Remediation of Polluted Sites
(Contaminated Sites Ordinance, CSO)


Open article in different language:  DE  |  FR  |  IT
Art. 9 Protection of groundwater

1 Sub­ject to para­graph 1bis, a pol­luted site is deemed to be in need of mon­it­or­ing to pro­tect the ground­wa­ter, if:

a.
any of the con­cen­tra­tion val­ues spe­cified in An­nex 1 is ex­ceeded in the elu­ate of the ma­ter­i­al at the site;
b.
for ground­wa­ter wa­ter pro­tec­tion areas Au, the con­cen­tra­tion of sub­stances ori­gin­at­ing from the site im­me­di­ately down­stream of the site ex­ceeds 10 % of one of the con­cen­tra­tion val­ues spe­cified in An­nex 1;
c.
for ground­wa­ter out­side wa­ter pro­tec­tion areas Au, the con­cen­tra­tion of sub­stances ori­gin­at­ing from the site im­me­di­ately down­stream of the site ex­ceeds 40 % of one of the con­cen­tra­tion val­ues spe­cified in An­nex 1.3

1bis If after sev­er­al years of mon­it­or­ing a site, it is es­tab­lished that, con­sid­er­ing the evol­u­tion of pol­lut­ant con­cen­tra­tions and the char­ac­ter­ist­ics of the site, it is highly prob­able that the site will not need re­medi­ation un­der para­graph 2, the site is deemed no longer to be in need of mon­it­or­ing.4

2 A pol­luted site is deemed to be in need of re­medi­ation to pro­tect the ground­wa­ter, if:

a.5
po­ten­tial wa­ter pol­lut­ants ori­gin­at­ing from the site are de­tec­ted in ground­wa­ter catch­ments of pub­lic in­terest in con­cen­tra­tions that ex­ceed the de­tec­tion threshold;
b.6
for ground­wa­ter in wa­ter pro­tec­tion areas Au7: the con­cen­tra­tion of sub­stances ori­gin­at­ing from the site im­me­di­ately down­stream of the site ex­ceeds one-half the con­cen­tra­tion value spe­cified in An­nex 1;
c.8
for ground­wa­ter out­side wa­ter pro­tec­tion area Au s: the con­cen­tra­tion of sub­stances ori­gin­at­ing from the site im­me­di­ately down­stream of the site ex­ceeds double the con­cen­tra­tion value spe­cified in An­nex 1; or
d.
it is in need of mon­it­or­ing in ac­cord­ance with para­graph 1 let­ter a, and, ow­ing to in­suf­fi­cient re­ten­tion ca­pa­city, or de­grad­a­tion of sub­stances ori­gin­at­ing from the site, there is a real danger of ground­wa­ter pol­lu­tion.

3 Amended by No I of the O of 9 May 2012, in force since 1 Aug. 2012 (AS 2012 2905).

4 In­ser­ted by No I of the O of 9 May 2012, in force since 1 Aug. 2012 (AS 2012 2905).

5 Amended by No I of the O of 22 March 2017, in force since 1 May 2017 (AS 2017 2589).

6 Amended by An­nex 5 No 5 of the O on the Pro­tec­tion of Wa­ters of 28 Oct. 1998, in force since 1 Jan. 1999 (AS 19982863).

7 In ac­cord­ance with Art­icle 29 para. 1 let. A of the O on the Pro­tec­tion of Wa­ters of 28 Oct. 1998 (SR 814.201).

8 Amended by An­nex 5 No 5 of the O on the Pro­tec­tion of Wa­ters of 28 Oct. 1998, in force since 1 Jan. 1999 (AS 19982863).

BGE

136 II 370 (1C_374/2007) from 7. Juni 2010
Regeste: Anfechtbarer Zwischenentscheid im Sinne von Art. 93 Abs. 1 lit. a BGG; Pflicht zur Beurteilung innert angemessener Frist nach Art. 29 Abs. 1 BV; Durchführung der altlastenrechtlichen Untersuchungen durch den Kanton gestützt auf Art. 32c Abs. 3 USG. Die Verpflichtung zur Durchführung einer altlastenrechtlichen Detailuntersuchung ist für die Beschwerdeführerin mit einem nicht wieder gutzumachenden Nachteil verbunden, da die Vorfinanzierung der Untersuchungskosten den Konkurs der Pflichtigen zur Folge haben könnte. Ein Eintreten ist zudem geboten, weil im kantonalen Verfahren die Pflicht zur Beurteilung innert angemessener Frist verletzt wurde (E. 1). Da der Kanton Inhaber eines grossen Teils des eventuell sanierungsbedürftigen belasteten Standorts ist und ihm der Vollzug des Umweltrechts obliegt, hat er selber die noch notwendigen Untersuchungen zu veranlassen. Anwendungsfall von Art. 32c Abs. 3 USG, der die behördliche Ersatzvornahme regelt (E. 2).

Diese Seite ist durch reCAPTCHA geschützt und die Google Datenschutzrichtlinie und Nutzungsbedingungen gelten.

Feedback
Laden