report of the nicole workshop leuven 2006 10 year annive… · health, redevelopment and...

REPORT OF THE NICOLE 1996-2006 Ten Year Network Anniversary Workshop: Making Management of Contaminated Land an Obsolete Business - Challenges for the Future 5 to October 2006 Leuven, Belgium www.nicole.org Compiled by Paul Bardos, NICOLE Information Manager r3 Environmental Technology Limited www.r3environmental.com

http://www.nicole.org/

http://www.r3environmental.com/

REPORT OF THE NICOLE WORKSHOP: Making Management of Contaminated Land an Obsolete Business - Challenges for the Future

NICOLE (Network for Contaminated Land in Europe) was set up in 1995 as a result of the CEFIC “SUSTECH” programme which promotes co-operation between industry and academia on the development of sustainable technologies. NICOLE is the principal forum that European business uses to develop and influence the state of the art in contaminated land management in Europe. NICOLE was created to bring together problem holders and researchers throughout Europe who are interested in all aspects of contaminated land. It is open to public and private sector organisations. NICOLE was initiated as a Concerted Action within the European Commission’s Environment and Climate RTD Programme in 1996. It has been self-funding since February 1999. NICOLE’s overall objectives are to: •

•

•

Provide a European forum for the dissemination and exchange of knowledge and ideas about contaminated land arising from industrial and commercial activities;

Identify research needs and promote collaborative research that will enable European industry to identify, assess and manage contaminated sites more efficiently and cost-effectively; and

Collaborate with other international networks inside and outside Europe and encompass the views of a wide a range of interest groups and stakeholders (for example, land developers, local/regional authorities and the insurance/financial investment community). NICOLE currently has 141 members. Membership fees are used to support and further the aims of the network, including: technical exchanges, network conferences, special interest meetings, brokerage of research and research contacts and information dissemination via a web site, newsletter and journal publications. NICOLE includes an Industry Subgroup (ISG) – with 26 members; a Service Providers Subgroup (SPG) with 41 members; 58 individual members from the academic sector/research community; and 16 members from other organisations, including research planners, non profit making organisations, other networks, funding organisations. Some members are involved in both the ISG and the SPG. For further general information, further meeting reports, network information and links to contaminated land related web sites, please visit NICOLE's web site: www.nicole.org. Membership fees are currently 3,500 EURO per year for companies (1,750 EURO for smes), and 150 EURO per year for academic institutions. For membership requests please contact:

Ms Marjan Euser Secretariat NICOLE Tel: + 31 55 5493 927

Fax: +31 55 5493 231

TNO PO Box 342 7300 AH Apeldoorn E-mail : [email protected] The Netherlands

Acknowledgements NICOLE gratefully acknowledges • the speakers and chairpersons for their contributions to the workshop and their comments on this

report • all former NICOLE chairpersons for their help in getting the picture of 10-years NICOLE

history • Cees Buijs, Civil Service for Soil and Underground, Netherlands, for stimulating so much

creativeness with the participants of the workshop during the ‘painting session’ • the members of the Organising Committee: Lida Schelwald-van der Kley, NICOLE Industry

Subgroup and Chair of Organising Committee; Laurent Bakker, Tauw, Netherlands; Willem van Hattem, Port of Rotterdam, Netherlands; Hans-Peter Koschitzky, VEGAS, Germany; Divyesh Trivedi, Nexia Solutions, UK.

• the overall assistance of Marjan Euser (General NICOLE Secretariat).

mailto:[email protected]


Executive Summary NICOLE celebrates its ten year anniversary in 2006. Started in 1996 as an EU funded concerted action, NICOLE is nowadays a self sustaining, vibrant network that supports safe and cost effective solutions for the management of industrially contaminated land. The route to making contaminated land management an obsolete business is by implementing technology and management practices that have cost-effectively dealt with existing pollution and will prevent new contamination. Much has been achieved in these 10 years since NICOLE was formed, and this workshop addressed what is still needed for future contaminated land management in terms of technology implementation, policy making, knowledge transfer and research needs. It questioned how far Europe is from the ultimate goal of making the management of contaminated land on industrial sites an obsolete business. The workshop was divided into six sessions 1. Looking back and forward at 10 years of Contaminated Land Management in Europe

This session included an interview session with several of the individuals who have developed NICOLE over the past 10 years, a review of the activities of its industry and service provider subgroups, a review of the planned activities of its new thematically orientated “Working Groups”, and a perspective from NICOLE’s “sister” regulatory network, the Common Forum for Contaminated Land. .

2. Research contributions, developments and future needs This session included scene setting by NICOLE and then papers on EU-Research on Contaminated Land and from a recent Framework 5 project (JOINT) that explored contaminated land management research needs.

3. Overcoming the barriers of using innovative techniques After scene setting this session included discussions of several case studies and the EC funded EURODEMO project that promotes remediation technology demonstration projects across Europe.

4. How do we make Contaminated Land Management an obsolete business? This session began with a series of interviews with professionals from different types of organisations asking them to consider “will I lose my job within ten years?” It continued with a discussion of soil and water management in a wider perspective, and concluded with a syndicate session to draw out ideas for how contaminated land management ought to develop in the next ten years, and how NICOLE might contribute to that process.

5. Policy Perspectives The European contaminated land management policy and regulatory framework is changing following a number of European Commission initiatives. This session included presentations from regulators about integrated approaches in the environmental sector, latest developments of the Soil Thematic Strategy, and managing Contaminated Land risks at different scales.

6. An interactive session to debate possible directions for the future of NICOLE The following comments have been drawn from the concluding session of the workshop and from comments invited from NICOLE Steering Group members, the meeting organisers and speakers in the weeks following the workshop, and also from comments kindly sent in by a number of delegates after the workshop.


Interactive Session The ten year anniversary workshop saw an unusual syndicate session where small groups of delegates were asked to collaborate to paint a picture of how NICOLE might develop over the next ten years, and provide a brief commentary. The paintings and their descriptions are available as a separate brochure from www.nicole.org. The session reinforced the view from many presentations that NICOLE is a vibrant network and has established a firm foundation of expertise, membership and participation in the management of historically contaminated land.

It also concluded that, while risk based approaches are now a widely accepted part of contaminated land management, more work remains to make sure that contaminated land management approaches are also sustainable in their own right, and perhaps that they are considered holistically within a larger framework of soil, land and water management. The reason for this is to bring about the greatest overall benefit for resources invested in environmental protection.

Many delegates also felt that it was time for NICOLE to expand its mission to encompass:

1. assisting the prevention of contamination so that the next ten years would see far fewer contaminated sites being created

2. supporting the career development of young professionals and encouraging them to contribute their ideas and originality into NICOLE

3. supporting the development of contaminated land management expertise in developing economies where increasing amounts of primary production and manufacturing were taking place, particularly in Asia

4. greater efforts in networking, to involve urban and land planning specialists and financial service providers such as insurance companies, to help promote understanding of contaminated land management in a wider context.

5. Last but not least the link between contaminated land issues and Society is the ultimate driver for contaminated land management. Perhaps some further outreach activities by NICOLE might help promote a wider understanding of how contaminated land can be effectively managed, and the problems posed if it is not managed.

Conclusions An important conclusion is that NICOLE has been a success, and continues to be a successful network. It is now of an age where many members who came to Leuven found that they had something to learn about the “history” of NICOLE, and found this useful in putting the network and its values into context. The overwhelming majority view expressed at the Leuven workshop was that while NICOLE has achieved much, much was left to do. A number of future challenges and suggestions for future directions for NICOLE were identified. The new framework Directives and thematic strategies place contaminated land management in a wider environmental management context, relating to the management of soil and water resources, spatial planning and the management of industrial processes. While from the perspectives of human health, redevelopment and land-owners contaminated land management issues exist at the level of individual sites, from the perspective of environmental management of, for instance soil and water, contaminated land effects operate at larger scales across groups of sites. These wider initiatives will play an increasing role in contaminated land management regulation and policy, and have been foreseen to some extent in the recent Framework 5 WELCOME project, relating the management of “megasites” such as large urban conurbations, harbours or industrial parks; and emerging strategic approaches to managing contamination problems in aquifers and rivers. It is interesting that, for some countries at least, the major threats to water and soil quality appear to come from diffuse sources rather than specific contaminated sites. The largest historical pollution threat may arise from mining



activities at river basin or catchment scales. There is clearly much work to be done in reconciling the management of pollution and contamination at different scales, and also in understanding what effects are serious at these scales. Ecological quality indicators will play a major role in this prioritisation. It also appears that there are a number of areas of controversy remaining with the proposed soils Directive, most notably the degree of prescription in its measures for dealing with contamination, its impact on environmental liability management, the optimal level of harmonisation in risk assessment and management on a regional basis, and the technical detail and guidance underpinning it. There are related concerns about the implementation of the ground water daughter Directive. However, one of the greatest concerns is the apparent differences in approach between legislation relating to contaminated land (soil) versus waste and to some extent water. The NICOLE Working Groups have a key role to play in providing technical scrutiny and information to the regulatory development process and also feeding back to the wider network possible regulatory and policy impacts on the management of contaminated land at the site level. Imperative for NICOLE’s future is to continue its excellent working arrangements with other stakeholder interests, for example the regulatory Common Forum, but also to reach out to emerging interests and networks interested in wider soil and water ,management issues. There was a lot of enthusiasm for the idea that NICOLE should adopt three new activities:

1) Pollution prevention, to prevent future land contamination 2) Out reach to emerging economies where land contamination is currently being created,

particularly in the Asia-Pacific region 3) Support for young engineers and scientists entering into contaminated land management work.

A number of delegates commented after the meeting that NICOLE was unique in being a network that has grown from an EC project into a self-sustaining and credible opinion former. There was clear support for it to continue in this role, both from its membership, and from other stakeholders invited to the Leuven meeting, including representatives from EC DG Research and DG Environment. So overall, the need is for NICOLE to grow and develop over the next ten years, and while unfortunately will not have made contaminated land management an obsolete business in this time, we will have dealt with a large number of problems, and moved the sector towards a more-knowledge based and sustainable practice. The full report provides summaries of the papers given, along with a discussion based on points raised during the meeting, and comments from a number of delegates after the meeting.


Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

1 INTRODUCTION 8

2 PRESENTATIONS 10 LOOKING BACK AT TEN YEARS OF NICOLE, INTERVIEWS WITH FORMER NICOLE CHAIRS, LIDA SCHELWALD-VAN DER KLEY, NICOLE, NETHERLANDS 10

Martin Bell (SG) 10 Cees Buijs (ISG) 12 Paolo Cortesi (SG) 13 Bill Hafker (ISG) 16 Mike Summersgill (SPG) 17 Rae Crawford (SG/ISG) 19 Wouter Gevaerts (SPG) 20 Steve Wallace (SG) 20

NICOLE TODAY: STEERING GROUP, INDUSTRY SUBGROUP, SERVICE PROVIDERS SUBGROUP, WORKING GROUPS 22

Steering Group, Divyesh Trivedi, Nexia Solutions, UK / present chairman NICOLE 22 Industry Subgroup: Anja Sinke, BP, UK / present ISG chair 22 Service Providers Subgroup: Bertil Grundfelt, Kemakta, Sweden / present SPG chair 23 Working Group: Environmental Risk Assessment: Bertil Grundfelt, Kemakta, Sweden 25 Working Group: Monitored Natural Attenuation: Roger Jacquet, Solvay, Belgium 26 Working Group: Waste: Ian Heasman, Taylor Woodrow, UK 26 Working Group: Groundwater Directive: Wouter Gevaerts, Arcadis Gedas, Belgium 27 Working Group: Soil Strategy: Johan De Fraye, Honeywell, Belgium 28

COMMON FORUM AND NICOLE - TEN YEARS OF CO-OPERATION ON RISK BASED LAND MANAGEMENT IN EUROPE, HARALD KASAMAS, COMMON FORUM MEMBER, ENVIRONMENT MINISTRY, AUSTRIA 29 RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS, DEVELOPMENTS AND FUTURE NEEDS, HANS-PETER KOSCHITZKY, VEGAS, GERMANY 31 EU-RESEARCH ON CONTAMINATED LAND: WHAT HAVE WE ACHIEVED, WHERE DO WE HAVE TO GO? ANDREA TILCHE, EUROPEAN COMMISSION - HEAD OF DG RESEARCH 32 FROM THE OUTCOMES OF SINGLE PROJECTS TO FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS, THE JOINT PROCESS, THOMAS ERTEL, GERMANY 35 REGULATORY, RISK AND FINANCIAL BARRIERS, LAURENT BAKKER, TAUW, NL 38 “IT TAKES TWO OR MORE TO TANGO” – INDUSTRIAL CASE STUDY LUCIA BUVÉ, UMICORE, BELGIUM AND VICTOR DRIES, OVAM, BELGIUM 38 DEFINING THE REMEDIAL APPROACH FROM AN INDUSTRIAL PERSPECTIVE: FOUR CASE STUDIES MARKUS ACKERMANN, DUPONT, SWITZERLAND 40 EURODEMO: “IF YOU ALWAYS DO WHAT YOU DID, YOU WILL ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU GOT” DAVID EDWARDS, INTERNATIONAL PROJECT DIRECTOR, CL:AIRE, UK 42 HOW DO WE MAKE CONTAMINATED LAND MANAGEMENT AN OBSOLETE BUSINESS? WILL I LOSE MY JOB WITHIN 10 YEARS? BILL HAFKER, EXXONMOBIL, USA 45

Industry: Anja Sinke, BP, UK 45 Consultant: Sytze Keuning, Bioclear, Netherlands 46 Regulator: Victor Dries, OVAM, Belgium 47 Researcher: Paul Nathanail, University of Nottingham, UK 48

SOIL AND WATER MANAGEMENT IN A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE , HUUB RIJNAARTS, WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY / TNO, NETHERLANDS 49 NEW POLICY DEVELOPMENTS TOWARDS BETTER INTEGRATED APPROACHES IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL SECTOR, PHILIPPE QUEVAUVILLER, EUROPEAN COMMISSION - DG ENVIRONMENT 51 LATEST DEVELOPMENTS OF THE SOIL THEMATIC STRATEGY, LUCA MARMO, EUROPEAN COMMISSION – DG ENVIRONMENT, BELGIUM 56 MANAGING CONTAMINATED LAND RISKS AT DIFFERENT SCALES – THE CHALLENGES AHEAD, BOB HARRIS, ENVIRONMENT AGENCY, UK 58

3 SETTING THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS 62

4 CONCLUDING REMARKS 62


ANNEX 1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 64

ANNEX 2 TEN YEARS OF PROGRESS: NICOLE PUBLICATIONS 1996-2006 AVAILABLE ON-LINE 67

WORKSHOPS 67 DOWNLOADABLE PROJECT REPORTS AND TRAINING 73 JOINT NEWSLETTERS AND COMMON STATEMENTS 78


1 Introduction NICOLE celebrates its ten year anniversary in 2006. Started in 1996 as an EU funded concerted action, NICOLE is nowadays a self sustaining, vibrant network that supports safe and cost effective solutions for the management of industrially contaminated land. The route to making contaminated land management an obsolete business is by implementing technology and management practices that have cost-effectively dealt with existing pollution and will prevent new contamination. Much has been achieved in these 10 years since NICOLE was formed, and this workshop addressed what is still needed for future contaminated land management in terms of technology implementation, policy making, knowledge transfer and research needs. It questioned how far Europe is from the ultimate goal of making the management of contaminated land on industrial sites an obsolete business. The workshop was divided into 5 sessions 1. Looking back and forward at 10 years of Contaminated Land Management in Europe

This session included an interview session with several of the individuals who have developed NICOLE over the past 10 years, a review of the activities of its industry and service provider subgroups, a review of the planned activities of its new thematically orientated “Working Groups”, and a perspective from NICOLE’s “sister” regulatory network, the Common Forum for Contaminated Land. .

2. Research contributions, developments and future needs This session included scene setting by NICOLE and then papers on EU-Research on Contaminated Land and from a recent Framework 5 project (JOINT) that explored contaminated land management research needs.

3. Overcoming the barriers of using innovative techniques After scene setting this session included discussions of several case studies and the EC funded EURODEMO project that promotes remediation technology demonstration projects across Europe.

4. How do we make Contaminated Land Management an obsolete business? This session began with a series of interviews with professionals from different types of organisations asking them to consider “will I lose my job within ten years?” It continued with a discussion of soil and water management in a wider perspective, and concluded with a syndicate session to draw out ideas for how contaminated land management ought to develop in the next ten years, and how NICOLE might contribute to that process.

5. Policy Perspectives The European contaminated land management policy and regulatory framework is changing following a number of European Commission initiatives. This session included presentations from regulators about integrated approaches in the environmental sector, latest developments of the Soil Thematic Strategy, and managing Contaminated Land risks at different scales.

6. An interactive session to debate possible directions for the future of NICOLE This report provides summaries of the papers given, along with conclusions based on points raised during the meeting, and comments from a number of delegates after the meeting. Table 1 provides a list of other recent NICOLE publications.


Date Event / Report

NICOLE News 2006 issue, www.nicole.org/publications/library.asp?listing=92006

Report of the NICOLE Workshop: Data Acquisition for a Good Conceptual Site Model 10 – 12 May 2006, Carcassonne, France . See www.nicole.org/publications/library.asp?listing=12006

Report of the NICOLE Workshop: The Impact of EU Directives on the management of contaminated land, 1-2 December 2005, Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy. See www.nicole.org/publications/library.asp?listing=1 and Land Contamination and Reclamation 14 (4) 855-887

2006

NICOLE Report: Monitored Natural Attenuation: Demonstration and Review of the Applicability of MNA at Eight field sites, http://www.nicole.org/publications/library.asp?listing=5 (summary). The full report can be ordered from the NICOLE Secretariat

2005

NICOLE Report: The Interaction between Soil and Waste Legislation in Ten European Union Countries sites, http://www.nicole.org/publications/library.asp?listing=7 (summary). The full report can be ordered from the NICOLE Secretariat

2005


Report of the NICOLE Workshop: State of the art of (Ecological) Risk Assessment, 15-16-17 June 2005, Stockholm, Sweden see http://www.nicole.org/publications/library.asp?listing=1 and Land Contamination and Reclamation 14 (3) 745-773

2005

Report of the NICOLE Workshop: Unlocking the Barriers to the Recovery of Soil and the Rehabilitation of Contaminated Land. 15-16 November 2004, Sofia, Bulgaria see www.nicole.org/publications/library.asp?listing=1 and Land Contamination and Reclamation 14 (1) 137-164

2005

NICOLE Booklet Communication on Contaminated Land, www.nicole.org/publications/library.asp?listing=2 2004

NICOLE News 2004 issue, www.nicole.org/publications/library.asp?listing=9 2004

Report of the NICOLE Workshop: Sediments and sludges: an issue for industry?, Frankfurt, Germany see www.nicole.org/publications/library.asp?listing=1 and Land Contamination and Reclamation 12 (4) 379-400

2004

Report of the NICOLE Workshop: NICOLE Projects Reporting Day, Runcorn, UK - see www.nicole.org/publications/library.asp?listing=1 and, Land Contamination and Reclamation 12 (3) 286 - 308

2004

Report of the NICOLE Workshop: Sharing experiences in the management of megasites: towards a sustainable approach in land management of industrially contaminated areas, Lille, France - see www.nicole.org/publications/library.asp?listing=1 and Land Contamination and Reclamation 12 (2)127-158

2003


Report of the NICOLE Workshop: Management of Contaminated Land towards a Sustainable Future: Opportunities, Challenges and Barriers for the Sustainable Management of Contaminated Land in Europe, Barcelona, see www.nicole.org/publications/library.asp?listing=1 and Land Contamination and Reclamation 11 (3) 366-395

2003

Report of the NICOLE Workshop: Financial Aspects of Site Restoration with an Emphasis on Central and Eastern Europe, 6 - 7 November 2002, Budapest. see www.nicole.org/publications/library.asp?listing=1, and Land Contamination and Reclamation 11 (3) 366-395

2002


Report of the NICOLE Workshop: Cost-effective Site Characterisation - Dealing with uncertainties, innovation, legislation constraints, 18-19 April 2002, Pisa. see www.nicole.org/publications/library.asp?listing=1, and Land Contamination & Reclamation 10 (3) 189-219

2002

Table 1 Selected NICOLE Publications from 2002

Annex 2 is a full listing of NICOLE publications since 1996 that are available for download from www.nicole.org.

http://www.nicole.org/publications/library.asp?listing=9



















2 Presentations Looking back at ten years of NICOLE, interviews with former NICOLE chairs, Lida Schelwald-van der Kley, NICOLE, Netherlands The interview session looked back over the first ten years of NICOLE, reflecting on how NICOLE came into being and how it developed. A number of former chairs of the steering, industry and service provider groups were asked their views and impressions of NICOLE’s work since its inception at a meeting in Hanover in 1996. All played a major role in defining and accomplishing NICOLE’s goals on Contaminated Land Management and leading NICOLE to where it is today The person that knows best how and why NICOLE started is one of its founding fathers and its first Steering Group Chairman, Martin Bell, who at that time worked for ICI. Together with his ICI colleague, Dale Laidler, Johan van Veen from TNO and other prominent researchers and industrial figures, they quickly came to the conclusion that some form of network for European industry to share know-how on contaminated land management (CLM) on a non-competitive basis could bring mutual advantages. They prepared a successful proposal for the EC Framework 4th Funding Programme (FP4) and so NICOLE was born.

----- Martin Bell (SG) Question: Martin, can you please tell us more about the reasons for starting NICOLE and the aims that were set? Contaminated land was becoming a serious issue for industry in 1996. However, many of the techniques available at that time for managing contaminated land were expensive and inadequate. There was no widely accepted strategic approach to managing contaminated land and so decisions were often improvised, and their regulatory rationale varied from country to country, and indeed place to place. While environmental risk assessment was beginning to be recognised as a good basis for decision making, ICI’s view that risk assessment was not properly understood or accepted as a process for managing contaminated land. There was no voice for industry’s view on contaminated land management issues in Europe. Regulatory networks like the Ad Hoc Group and NATO/CCMS Pilot Studies1 had formed, but there was no group representing industry for them to talk to. NICOLE was needed to work in a way that no company could do on its own. NICOLE was needed to provide that industry voice, and a key step in reaching the industry consensus for industry was recognising that for potential problem-holders contaminated land was not a competitive issue, and the benefits of leveraged cooperation, and of industry being able to talk with credibility to regulators and academics without being seen as a lobbying group, made it worthwhile trying to form a network. We were lucky! NICOLE formed at the right time to generate the “critical mass” needed to initiate a framework, and also at the right time to take advantage of the opportunities offered by FP4 to create a network to bring industry closer to researchers and regulators in contaminated land management. Question: and how was NICOLE organised at the time. As I recall there were not many service providers involved yet?

1 Described in the talk of Harald Kasamas


NICOLE began as an EC funded network which had both good points such as high level access to EC research funders, and bad points such as the need to deal with a high level of bureaucracy. TNO provided a secretariat and a Steering Group was drawn up including both industry and academic members. Over time a number of academics left the network, disappointed that it had not been the easy route to industry funding they had expected. However, those that stayed showed commitment and provided a real benefit to the organisation and I hope received benefits in return. Service providers were not included in the early stages of NICOLE. Looking back to when NICOLE began, it has to be remembered that while contaminated land was not seen as a competitive issue by industry, it was very sensitive. We wanted to encourage potential-problem holders to join a network where they would feel able to take part in discussion openly. Industry’s first goals were to influence regulatory developments, and to enter into a dialogue with researchers to help them target their work on what industry saw as “the real problems”. In 1996, it was not certain that even these limited ambitions could be achieved. It was felt that including service providers would add a level of interaction too far, and carried a risk of turning NICOLE from a network into a market place. This in turn would discourage open disclosure by industry of potential problems. This judgement was borne out at the time. The first NICOLE meeting was very large and very difficult, with many different agendas. It was a challenge to find common ground for the network to operate in a cohesive way. Of course we have seen that the challenge was met, and indeed NICOLE soon went further, entering into dialogue with regulators and working with them in a way which had not seemed a possibility when the NICOLE proposal was drafted. Question: And what were the expected benefits for industrial members? An important benefit was being able to talk to other problem holders and academics about contaminated land management, which was not easy at that time. A further benefit that quickly became apparent was working with the technical people in government sector to develop common points of view. NICOLE’s ability to hold thematic workshops and influence the direction of research as well as enable specific research projects is beyond what a single company can achieve on its own, even one that was as large as ICI. Question: Martin, Do you think that the initial reasons you mentioned for starting NICOLE are still valid for the future of NICOLE? The need for an industry voice to guide regulatory, policy and legislative developments by articulating industry specific specialist knowledge remains. NICOLE’s initial aims are in part achieved, for example there are more economic technologies available now, but there is a long way to go. I do

believe more research is directed towards these technologies. Risk Assessment is now much more accepted, but there are still some EU countries where it is only permitted as a last resort. NICOLE’s original aims are therefore still valid.

----- And so NICOLE began. After its inaugural meeting (Figure 1) it was decided to form a subgroup within NICOLE for companies actively addressing contaminated land problems within their own land holdings. The idea was that this Industry Subgroup (ISG) would provide a forum for an exchange of views and experiences with colleagues,

Figure 1 Hannover Workshop 1996


and that it could also identify the research needs from an industry point of view. The first ISG meeting took place in Rotterdam in September 1996. Cees Buijs, working at the time for the Port of Rotterdam, organised this event and became the first chairman of the ISG. Energetic and innovative, Cees was and still is a great advocate for working in public private partnership to arrive at cost-effective solutions.

----- Cees Buijs (ISG) Question: Cees, what do you recall from the first ISG meeting? The meeting was in the Delta Hotel in Vlaardingen, overlooking the activities in Rotterdam Mainport Europe. I remember the inspiration from Dale Laidler and Martin Bell and the enthusiasm of Johan van Veen. It was an efficient meeting with many representatives from industry, many of whom are still active in NICOLE nowadays. The meeting concluded that the ISG should work on: o Communication / promoting strategies, o Technology evaluation, o Stimulating research, o Knowledge transfer and o Sharing Best practice. A number of ISG members were keen to see concrete results from NICOLE, and everyone was happy with the energetic way in which the ISG took off at the Rotterdam meeting (Figure 2). The general wish was to challenge the accepted wisdom of contaminated land management in a constructive way, sharing experiences on a non-competitive basis, and relaying our conclusions to key decision-makers and researchers (our “target groups”). Our initial focus was on the remediation of contaminated sites, which later widened to a more overarching interest in the strategic management of contaminated land. Over the course of the ISG’s work we have made use of the experiences of the Dutch NOBIS end-users group, Lida and I set up shortly after the start of NOBIS in 1994. NOBIS concentrated on the use of biological in situ techniques in remediation. Both NOBIS, and its successor SKB, recognised the importance of the NICOLE network. Through NICOLE the Netherlands could contribute to the knowledge base of European industry and policy makers with regard to the management of contaminated land. With some sadness I handed over the chair of the ISG to my successor Bill Hafker. With the support of Lida he really made the ISG a successful platform for discussing the interests of the industry relating to the management of contaminated industrial sites. I think we needed this American-educated professional to challenge the ISG identified target groups in such an energetic constructive and charming manner.

Figure 2 Rotterdam Workshop Delegates

Question: We shall talk to Bill later, but perhaps firstly can you want to tell us more about the future challenges that face NICOLE.


Some of the original challenges NICOLE was set up to address remain, despite the successes so far achieved. Challenges remaining include: o the need to make measurements and responses more accurate and yet cheaper, o to make decisions, measurements and responses more transparent and reproducible from site to site, o to improve performance monitoring for remediation technologies, o to enable a switch from “intensive” to “extensive” approaches as far as possible and o to develop a more sustainable management of soil and groundwater. I feel there is still a major challenge in integrating the prevention of contamination in the management concepts of industrial sites An obvious future activity is for NICOLE to take a more prominent role in supporting the prevention of future problems. The knowledge and experience gathered by the service providers executing the work on site is still insufficiently transferred to partners earlier in the supply chain involved in the design of new contaminated land management concepts. And finally, I would like to say a special word in remembrance of the late Patricia de Bruycker, who used to work for Solvay. I made a co-presentation with her at the Hanover meeting called “Control methods - from an intensive approach towards an extensive approach”. This presentation is still relevant today. Especially I personally would like to remember Patricia for the dedicated and warm support she gave to the NICOLE initiative, the first NICOLE Steering group and the NICOLE-ISG.

----- In the autumn of 1998 there was a NICOLE network meeting in Rome hosted by Paolo Cortesi of ENI. From this meeting we knew immediately that we had found our new chairman for NICOLE, as Martin had decided to step down. Paolo had all the qualities needed to steer the NICOLE network into the new era of Risk Based Land Management.

----- Paolo Cortesi (SG) Question: Paolo, what was the reason for you (and your company ENI) to become so actively involved in NICOLE?

ENI joined NICOLE just the network began. Our participation was low profile at beginning, but after a couple of years contaminated land legislation in Italy changed. Several ENI companies, in particular Agip and Enichem, were heavily involved in the contamination land issue. Hence, ENI decided to host a NICOLE workshop which included activities to initiate new projects for the European Commission 5th Framework Programme. ENI wanted an active role in developing projects to find better contaminated land management solutions. I took on this mission as ENI representative in NICOLE (Figure 3) because I was already familiar

with the EC Framework Programmes, having worked as projects proposal evaluator and member of the advisory panel of DG XII (Research) for contaminated land issues). Through NICOLE ENI was able to establish a well focused project team (led by ENI) with a comprehensive range of stakeholders.

Figure 3 (Left to Right) Paolo Cortesi, Joop Vegter and Cees Buijs


The proposal was funded and the PURE project initiated2. PURE was a large project, in fact it had the highest budget among all the approved projects. ENI joined also another project (LIBERATION) initiated by members of NICOLE and CLARINET3.

o Strengthen the cooperation with other networks acting

on related issues, such as CLARINET (formerly CARACAS) and the COMMON FORUM, which represented the regulators, SEDNET (on sediments), CABERNET (on Brownfields), to join the effort. In particular it was decided to leave one seat in the SG to CLARINET and they did the same accepting one representative of NICOLE in their SG (Picture Paolo, Cees and Joop Vegter). Joint paper with regulators on conclusions of the Helsinki workshop on Source Management, supporting risk assessment.

Question: What were your goals for NICOLE when you became our chairman? My goals included the consolidation and development NICOLE as a network, and the development of the role of risk based decision-making in contaminated land management. NICOLE began to work more closely with networks of regulatory stakeholders, such as the Common Forum (Figure 4). NICOLE’s aim was that contaminated land management should be effective, even if it was not necessarily cheap. Part of the effort in consolidating and developing NICOLE included initiatives to increase involvement and membership from organisations in the South and East of Europe.

o Organise workshop and write position papers on risk assessment and related issues (risk communication, Source Management, MNA), to disseminate the RA concept and Risk Management, including the active participation to CONSOIL

o To involve eastern countries approaching the EU in order to put their new-born legislation on the right track and to facilitate the business of the NICOLE member companies expanding in those countries

o To organise workshops in southern EU countries to “equilibrate” the NICOLE membership and to grow the RA awareness in legislators, universities, companies of those countries to gather more forces on NICOLE scope and to homogenise the legislation over Europe. Translation of position papers and MNA booklet in several languages was also carried out.

Question: What strikes you most when you look back at your time in NICOLE?

o Active participation to DGXII workshops, projects and panels to drive the definition of the research topics in the framework programmes

o To finance research projects aiming to provide scientific support to some key principles of the NICOLE strategy (i.e. the MNA project)

Looking back to my experience in NICOLE, I have to underline the great amount of work of good quality, which it is possible to deliver through a small group of “volunteers”. The key is that they are united, the target is clearly defined and a friendly relationship is developed so each person can find a role. Equally important is the flexibility and responsibility, for

example to assume new roles within the network. I am honoured to have contributed to the development of this network. It is a remarkable example of fruitful cooperation among different stakeholders for the good of European business and people. My experience has been that the non-competitive, voluntary approach of NICOLE has made collaboration easy to achieve (Figure 5).

Figure 4 NICOLE Activities under Paolo Cortesi

----- We had many NICOLE workshop meetings under the chairmanship of Paolo Cortesi, with a mixture of interesting presentations and good opportunities for networking during breaks and of course the informal evening conference dinners, organised by Marjan Euser and the hosting party. NICOLE has always been quick to react to emerging issues, such as concerns about MTBE contamination which led to a special session at the workshop on Source Management in Helsinki, May 2000.

2 http://www.nicole.org/projects/DisplayProject.asp?Project=7 3 Contaminated Land Rehabilitation Network for Environmental Technologies (http://www.clarinet.at)

http://www.nicole.org/projects/DisplayProject.asp?Project=7

http://www.clarinet.at/


In the mean-time we had a change in ISG chairmanship, which rotates on a two-yearly basis. Bill Hafker of Exxon Mobil took over from Cees Buijs as the new ISG Chair. We got to know Bill as a very enthusiastic, pro-active and fast-paced leader. Members were challenged to bring forward new topics for projects that would be of interest to industry, and to champion them. This resulted in many new ideas for projects. Bill’s main focus was on promoting risk based land management in Europe. This was an interest NICOLE shared with its regulatory sister network CLARINET. Together with CLARINET and NICOLE members, Bill drew a visionary road map for contaminated land management (Figure 6).

Figure 5 NICOLE Discussions of Varying Intensity Over the Years


Bill Hafker (ISG) Question: Bill could you please show us this road map and explain what the picture was showing us at the time (1998) and how things have changed since? (Figure 6 below shows the “map4”, with Bill’s comments showing how things have changed listed in Figure 7).

3

5

24

6 6

1

Figure 6 A Map of the Site Management Journey

1. We had the right parties involved then and we need to keep them involved. 2. The “River Doubt” is now perhaps dammed upstream by “Experience” and is hopefully a much

smaller obstacle to cross. 3. We can perhaps get rid of the ferry between the two swamps since hopefully few people are still

trying to go through the swamps, forest, or cliffs 4. The amount of traffic on the Risk Assessment Highway will hopefully decrease as we build a

“Strategic Planning Super Highway” using prevention to maintain a direct route from “Clean Land Country” to "Fit-for-Use Land"

5. “Fit-for-use Land” should show things other than a home like parks, industrial areas, etc. 6. Perhaps the "Litigation Mountains" have eroded a bit and are more hills now The goal of this workshop is to figure out how to make “Contaminated Land Country” a smaller and less populated place over time

Figure 7 The Site Management Journey - Then and Now - Bill Hafker

4 The map is downloadable from http://www.nicole.org/publications/A4.PDF

http://www.nicole.org/publications/A4.PDF


Question: Two joint statements were prepared by NICOLE´s with the sister regulatory networks CLARINET and CARACAS) that still hold their value today5. Could you tell us more about these statements and the cooperation with CARACAS and CLARINET? ? I felt that there were two key themes to progress in NICOLE at that time: moving towards risk based land management (RBLM), and doing so in concert with regulators and service providers. This risk based approach, based on sound science, has been the cornerstone of NICOLE’s progress. Discussions and “Joint Statements” made with other networks, as well as the “Map” were all part of this dialogue. It was not an easy task to get the wording in these joint statements (or teh Map) to reflect everyone's common view, but everybody persevered, and they are now seen as major milestones in the development of the current RBLM consensus among the majority of parties in the Contaminated Land Management Community.

----- 1999 marked a transition period for NICOLE. Three years of FP4 funding had ended and NICOLE continued as a network solely supported by over 100 fee-paying members. NICOLE had been successful in developing mutual trust and collaboration between a diverse range of members. It also had an expanding portfolio of projects. In 1999 NICOLE decided to put even more emphasis on co-operation with other networks. Its scope was also expanded to encompass brownfields and the demonstration of innovative technologies. Another important landmark was the inclusion of service providers and the launch of the Service providers Subgroup (SPG) in the beginning of 2000 (Figure 8). Mike Summersgill of VHE became the first SPG chairman and Elze-Lia Visser its secretariat.

Figure 8 Particpants at the First SPG Meeting in the Netherlands, 2000

Mike Summersgill (SPG) Question: Mike, I believe you started by formulating the SPG´s ‘Raison d`être’ and the direction for the year 2000 and beyond. Could you please tell us more about this? At the start of 2000, I had joined VHE (a major UK contracting organisation) from the largest UK engineering consultancy, Atkins. VHE had joined as both a Problem Holder, having a contaminated land-bank, and as a Service Provider. I mention this because my first overseas trip was to Amsterdam to the offices of Dura Vermeer, to meet other Service Provider members of the NICOLE network, prompted by Cees Buijs amongst others. I was both a European and NICOLE ‘virgin’ – but I had been involved with UK institutional and technical networks in the 1990’s. The 15-20 people there agreed that a SPG would add benefit to the ISG and academic structure of NICOLE, and had a short debate about who should chair this new group. Legend has it that Cees thought the chair-person should not be Dutch (too many already?) and also should not be a Consultant (in case Industry members thought it was a job search role). So I was the last man standing! 5 Listed in Annex 2


In reality this tale is perhaps a little apocryphal. Wouter Gevaerts (then of Tauw Belgium) and I were put forward as joint chairmen to take the SPG forward. For the next two years, we worked closely together defining the raison d’etre or “mission statement” and direction of the SPG and building its membership. It helped greatly that Paolo Cortesi, who you heard from earlier, was also Project Manager for PURE (a NICOLE-led EC 5th Framework project from 2000-2003). I had to make several visits to Italy in 2000 for meetings where PURE needs could be tied in with forthcoming NICOLE workshop topics/aims. I left active involvement in the SPG in 2002/3 and have been away from the NICOLE family for a couple of years. But my new employer has been a recent joiner to the network and I was able to attend the SPG meeting yesterday to find a pleasant surprise that the numbers attending had doubled (there were hardly enough chairs). Membership had gone from 15 to 40, a real success, all without me doing too much!! Question: Please tell us more about the SPG and its goals. At the beginning, the SPG membership comprised several firms who had formal or informal ties to Industry members, like ENI in-house affiliates or petrochemical company ‘term consultants’. This allowed a natural consensus about the kind of problems that industrial landowners in the network had, which in turn helped define a ‘technical’ direction that the Group ought to adopt. It was obvious, from the next “shakedown” meeting in Goteborg that all in the SPG wanted to drive our technical understanding forward and put “commercial” considerations into the background. If we saw the SPG as a way into the ISG for new business, Contractor and Consultant alike, we would never achieve respect for our pronouncements from ISG members, researchers or the larger international community. All this was not without argument and discourse, and a few service-provider companies left the Network in 2001, mostly Contractors. However, a whole new sector of equipment / material suppliers was encouraged to become part of the SPG, and remains in it to this day – giving the SPG three broad perspectives. At Goteborg, we debated and decided upon a Mission Statement and set out goals for development. One of the fundamental things we decided to do immediately was to formulate a matrix of company capabilities, so that we could see our strengths as a group and also make this information clear to other NICOLE members. The skills - matrix was envisioned, but it took all the rest of my chairmanship to get it on the website – limiting consultants to four main and ten subsidiary skills was a political minefield! Question: The SPG has always been very active in organising technical workshops. Can you please elaborate on this? When the topics of the Workshops started to become technology and cost-related, rather than technical-research related, that is when the subtle shift towards harnessing the experience of Service Providers occurred. This reflected the fact that SPG members had worked across the industrial base (and in several European countries) instead of just specialist skill sectors that may reside within one or two places, in Multi-nationals’ in-house resources or in University research units. The first workshop the SPG had serious involvement in was the Paris workshop in May 2001, which was great collaborative effort from our Belgian, Dutch, Swedish and Italian members, not to forget the prompting and organising of Else-Lia Visser. It was this disparity of experience and differing regulatory requirements, across the European countries that drove the next phases of SPG. The SPG has always been about knowledge sharing and learning, which made chairing the SPG in 2000-2001 such a pleasure.

-----


The 2000 Meeting in Helsinki on Source Management was one of the first occasions were NICOLE addressed the topic of Monitored Natural Attenuation – MNA (Figure 9). This theme came up again at the Port of Rotterdam Workshop. At the time MNA was considered to be a viable option for dealing with contamination plumes. Nevertheless, serious doubts existed about the technical performance of MNA under different circumstances, and the impact of the long time frame needed in on liability issues. An MNA demonstration project was set up to help build confidence in MNA and NICOLE issued a booklet to better explain MNA. Ten of our company members took part in the MNA project and agreed to share information and data on planned and on-going MNA research projects at their sites. One of the participants was Rae Crawford of ExxonMobil. By the end of 2000 Rae had succeeded his colleague Bill Hafker, who left for the US. Rae continued and partly renewed his line of action within the ISG. Rae Crawford (SG/ISG) Question: did this MNA project, which has now been completed, enhance the overall confidence in MNA?

NICOLE’s MNA project have gone really well – but it was a miracle that the first project ever got off the ground. The project overviewed up to ten initiatives from companies that had never collaborated together before. Getting companies to collaborate and exchange information about their polluted sites was a major challenge. Finding the necessary legal agreements to proceed took almost a year. That the project succeeded is largely due to the efforts of Roger Jacquet (Solvay) and Anja Sinke (then at TNO) who drove this difficult project forward. Since the first NICOLE initiative in 1999 the perception of MNA in different countries or regions has evolved and guidelines for the application of MNA as a remedial strategy have been published in several countries. For example, initiatives are going on in Germany and in France, where MNA is being considered in the redrafting of legal texts related to contaminated soil management. We hope that the NICOLE activities on MNA have had some impact on these recent legislation developments. The NICOLE MNA demonstration project made clear that the proposed methodology is broadly accepted and considered very useful. The time has now come for promoting the implementation

of MNA as well as the concept and from what I’ve heard the NICOLE Working Group on MNA is taking on this challenge.

Figure 9 NICOLE's MNA Cartoon Booklet

Question: what has changed for the ISG? One of my main efforts as chair of the ISG was to reach out to other stakeholder groups such as service providers, researchers and regulators and persuade them that “cost effectiveness” was not a dirty word but was something mutually beneficial and beneficial to Society as a whole. I think this is now an argument that is accepted.

----- During the first years after the millennium the focus of NICOLE gradually changed to one of sustainable land management, the challenge being to ensure that management of contaminated land sits within a framework of sustainability. A NICOLE workshop in Barcelona explored the opportunities and barriers for sustainable management of Contaminated Land. Our SG chair at the time was Mrs. Karen Cerneaz of Shell Gobal Solutions, who unfortunately cannot join us at Leuven.


One of the main outcomes of this workshop was the suggestion that NICOLE needs to take a broader view in its discussions and engage with a wider audience, e.g. spatial planners. We also saw our first workshop (in Budapest) focusing on commercial and financial issues. The idea behind emphasising financial aspects was inspired by the fact that problem holders have to make financial decisions in nearly all property transactions. Terry Walden was Rae’s successor as ISG chair. Unfortunately he cannot be with us today, but he tells me that the true success of NICOLE has been in achieving for its members a wider European perspective of contaminated land management, and not just a perspective from the country in which they are based. The SPG was successful from the very beginning. It was involved in the organising of many NICOLE workshops. SPG membership has increased dramatically over the years. The ISG found it hard to “keep up”. We are of course very curious to learn about the key to this success. So I shall ask one of their chairmen. Wouter Gevaerts (SPG) Question: Wouter, could you fill us in on this and perhaps you can also tell us a little bit more about some important deliverables, such as the findings of the Waste project and our latest aim, to become more involved in EU policy making and legislation by providing technical input? “Champions” in different countries helped the SPG increase its membership, as well as its practice of holding technical meetings “on site” at projects of interest. SPG meetings have always been open minded. We know that we are competitors, but we take the view that we can still exchange knowledge without compromising business. The SPG gives service providers (along with the ISG) the opportunity to be involved in wider European working groups for example for the Groundwater Daughter Directive and the Soil Thematic Strategy. The work of NICIOLE in these working groups is described in some detail in the NICOLE News issues for 2005 and 2006 which can be downloaded from www.nicole.org.

----- Over the years NICOLE addressed many topics, ranging from metals and sediments, to managing megasites and ecological risk assessment. The Brownfield topic first emerged at the workshop Brownfield redevelopment in 2000 in IJmuiden. Successful redevelopment of brownfields requires working in partnerships; between government and private sector, with local communities, between service providers and local regulators, etc. This also requires good communication between these different stakeholders. Our former SG chair, Steve Wallace of National Grid (formerly British Gas), and a member from the very start of NICOLE has a lot of experience on brownfields issues. Steve Wallace (SG) Question: Steve, could you please tell us more about your experience and views on former and future brownfield redevelopment and what it takes to make a success out of it? Things have moved on considerably since NICOLE’s first meeting on brownfields at IJmuiden. Ten years ago contaminated land management seemed a little bit like a “black box”, today it now seems more like a science. Today our emphasis is on communication and building confidence, and where the re-use of brownfields is a key part of sustainable development, reducing pressure on Greenfield resources. We have moved from a perspective in the brownfields community where



particular remediation techniques were not trusted to one where they are now in regular use, and so NICOLE;s focus is now moving to one of technology selection and application (although more work still needs to be done through projects such as ERUODEMO). Unfortunately some barriers to more sustainable methods of contaminated land management on brownfields remain. If you had asked me 10 years ago I would have said that the main barriers where technological, now one of the most serious is administrative: the effect of waste legislation on the recycling and re-use of soils. Finally, brownfield land is only worth what people will pay for it. I can see some worrying wording in the draft Soil Directive that could potentially damage the fragile brownfield regeneration market. We have NICOLE Working Groups addressing both soil and waste issues. One of the strengths of NICOLE now is that it has the contacts and the skills to assess draft proposals and Directives in depth and provide feedback on the technical issues in good time for the Commission and others to consider our views. I would end by encouraging as many people as possible to participate in NICOLE projects. If you do not participate then it’s no use complaining after the event if you don't like what you end up with.

----- Question: Everybody: what would you change if you had a “magic wand?” Steve Wallace: have a common approach that linked the various regulatory strands from liability to waste management that affect contaminated land management Mike Summersgill: the public understand risk Marin Bell: that the public and media are better involved in contaminated land management because their perceptions underpin legialstion Cees Buijs and Paolo Cortesi: that people trust each other and work is carried out in a transparent way according to the principles of corporate social responsibility

-----

Figure 10 Intense Discussion in NICOLE


Professional enthusiasm seems to be a common characteristic of all of our chair people. Their enthusiasm seems to be contagious. Together NICOLE members share the work- in bringing industrial contaminated land management to a higher level, but the input of the volunteer (and unpaid) chair people in the network underpins this. And there is still work to be done. Finally, I would like to thank all our former chair people for their valued input and for bringing to NICOLE to the stage where it is today (Figure 10) NICOLE Today: Steering Group, Industry Subgroup, Service Providers Subgroup, Working Groups Steering Group, Divyesh Trivedi, Nexia Solutions, UK / present chairman NICOLE NICOLE is managed by a Steering Group (SG) assisted by a Secretariat. However many tasks in network, such as the programming of the workshops and the managed interfaces, are fulfilled by members of the network. The Steering Group provides overall co-ordination and is responsible for developing and implementing the policy and strategy of the network. Specifically, it agrees the programme of activities of the network and monitors its progress in achieving its milestones and deliverables. It meets around three times a year. The composition of the Steering Group is industry led to ensure that the network remains orientated towards industrial problem holder's needs. The Steering Group is composed of o The chairperson - Divyesh Trivedi (ISG) o The vice-chairperson - Wouter Gevaerts (SPG) o Chair-person of ISG - Anja Sinke o Chair-person of SPG - Bertil Grundfelt o Mark van Gijzel (ISG) o Lucia Buve (ISG) o Laurant Bakker (SPG) o An academics/researchers representative - Hans Peter Koschitzky Recently the Steering Group commissioned a NICOLE strategy report (while Steve Wallace was chair) because it was felt that NICOLE needed to fully serve the interests and needs of its members. This report canvassed the views of ISG and SPG members, and also some non members of NICOLE to get an external perspective. The report drew three main conclusions: o NICOLE must meet the challenges of changing and new EU legislation. NICOLE regularly invites

participation from European Commission staff at its meetings and has benefited greatly from their input. In addition, a number of NICOLE members are actively engaged in EC consultations, as described in the Working Group sections below.

o Members were very enthusiastic about working groups to drive forward the new emphasis. o Members still wanted a summary of new research developments to inform members and to support

new research initiatives. NICOLE remains a dynamic network with increasing levels of membership (including for the ISG and SPG) and now a portfolio of enthusiastic Working Groups. One further conclusion was evident from the strategy review: there is still a need for NICOLE. Industry Subgroup: Anja Sinke, BP, UK / present ISG chair NICOLE is today considered as the principal forum that European business uses to develop and influence the state of the art in contaminated land management in Europe. NICOLE’s goal is to enable European industry to identify, assess and manage industrially contaminated land efficiently, cost effectively and within a framework of sustainability.


NICOLE has quite an active Industry Subgroup, with some 29 members – see Table 2, from a range of sectors:(petro) chemical, nuclear, metals, manufacturing, construction, mining and gas. All face (historical) contaminated land problems, although to a different extent. The Industry Subgroup is led by the Industry Sub-group chairman (Anja Sinke, BP), assisted by the Secretariat (Lida Schelwald, Port of Rotterdam). The ISG meetings are held three times a year usually linked to NICOLE meetings. The aim of the ISG is to promote the practice of risk based land management, supporting: o A sound scientific basis for RBLM o Technology development o Best practice and evaluation tools o Communication o Sharing knowledge ISG members take part in NICOLE Working Groups and in NICOLE’s work in interfacing with other networks and initiatives. In additions ISG members have directly supported a number of NICOLE projects, including: o Risk communication (1997) o Good practise survey (1999) o MNA (overview guidelines 1999) o PURE (protection of groundwater at industrially contaminated land, 2003) o Risk communication (2004) o Evaluation of risk assessment models (2004) o MNA (demonstration project, 2005)

Neste Oil Oy Nexia solutions (chair of Nicole) Philips Electronics Nederland BV

BP (chair of ISG) Chevron Texaco inc. Cherokee

Port of Rotterdam Corus Steel BV Repsol YPF DOW Benelux BV Rhodia Chimie DuraVermeer Sasol Dynea ASA Shell Global Solutions ENI Solvay S.A. ERG Petroli SpA Syndial ExxonMobil Royal Vopak (vice chair of ISG) Gaz de France Taylor Woodrow JM AB Total MGG Montan Grundstucksgesellschaft Umicore (ISG member in SG) National grid

Table 2 ISG Membership October 2006

Service Providers Subgroup: Bertil Grundfelt, Kemakta, Sweden / present SPG chair In February 2000 the service providers in the NICOLE network formed their own subgroup, the Service Providers subGroup (SPG). This subgroup consists of members active as consultants, contractors and technology suppliers in remediation and investigation of soil and groundwater. Its members are drawn from consultancies, contractors and other technology providers who are directly involved with contaminated land remediation, Europe-wide. The aim of the Service Providers Sub-group is to bring the view of technology developers/service providers into NICOLE, in particular about technology development and financial aspects, and to illustrate significant case studies. Table 3 lists its “mission statement”.


The subgroup began under the chairmanship of Mike Summersgill (VHE Technology UK), which was handed over in 2001 to Wouter Gevaerts (GEDAS Belgium) for the next 2 years. Thierry Imbert (Tauw France) became chair in 2003, and was succeeded a year later by Johan De Fraye (then with MWH Northern Europe). The current chairman is Bertil Grundfelt of Kemakta, Sweden, and Laurent Bakker (Tauw, Netherlands) is vice chair. The secretary of the SPG is Elze-Lia Visser-Westerweele. The SPG currently has 41 members. These are predominantly consultancies, but also include contractors and technology providers. The SPG provides expertise to NICOLE Working Groups and takes an active role in organising workshops. In addition, the group holds two to three meetings per year, usually linked to NICOLE workshops. At least one site based technical meeting is held per year, to which all NICOLE members are welcome. Previous technical meetings have been: o Soil Washing Plant of DEC in Antwerp in September 2001 o Presentation of the VEGAS facility and associated research in Stuttgart in February 2002 o Discussions on phytoremediation at CNRSSP in Douai in September 2002 o Presentations of research at TNO in Apeldoorn in January 2003 o Discussions on risk assessment and remediation of chlorinated solvents at VITO, Mol in 2004 o Discussions on Membrane Interface Probes at Bochum May 2005 o Field visit to steam injection pilot plant at Gent June 2006. The advantages of SPG membership include being well informed of the newest soil related topics and the relationship with the ISG which informs members of the needs and wishes are of the industry land owners. Members also share the translation of national documents, and discussion in the group allows members to better understand national approaches in an European context. From NICOLE’s point of view the SPG is often the antenna for NICOLE for new developments, and through the collaboration of SPG members new technologies and concepts can be brought quickly to the market. The Service Providers sub-group of NICOLE is a network for open communication of knowledge and information on the practical implementation of innovative ideas and technologies, for the management of industrially contaminated land. The SPG provides the opportunity for Europe-wide collaboration and cooperation, to ensure synergy in the delivery of cost-effective, quality assured and sustainable solutions.

Its members are drawn from consultancies, contractors and other technology providers who are directly involved with contaminated land remediation, Europe-wide.

Each year this active group has three full day meetings and usually two short meetings. The short meetings are linked to the NICOLE workshops. Recently the SPG began to hold meetings consisting of a visit to a technical facility in the morning and a meeting of the SPG in the afternoon. As such it visited the Soil Washing Plant of DEC in Antwerp in September 2001 where Ivo Pallemans gave a guided tour in the plant. In February 2002 the SPG visited the VEGAS institute (Versuchseinrichtung zur Grundwasser- und Altlastensanierung, Research Facility for Subsurface Remediation, University of Stuttgart) in Stuttgart. The host, Hans Peter Koschitzky, invited a number of researchers to talk about the research on innovative source removal techniques. In September 2002 the SPG visited the French National Research Centre on Polluted Soils (CNRSSP) in Douai, hosted by Agnès Laboudigue. Presentations by CNRSSP, Polessp and ADEME focused on phytoremediation and the state of affairs on investigation and remediation in the northern part of France. The SPG's next full meeting with presentations by TNO will be on 17 January 2003 in the Netherlands.

The SPG also has an active role in the organisation of NICOLE Workshops, which are leading European opportunities for the exchange of knowledge and information on innovative ideas and technologies.

Table 3 Service Providers Subgroup Mission Statement


Working Group: Environmental Risk Assessment: Bertil Grundfelt, Kemakta, Sweden One of the originally proposed topics for a WG is Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA). The WG on ERA has just got started. It aims to follow up on the conclusions from the Stockholm Workshop in June 2005 and produce a proposed NICOLE position/action plan regarding the ERA topic for presentation to the Steering Group. This is an important activity since the Environmental Liability Directive is to be transposed into national legislation by April 2007. This Directive has a clear focus on ecological harm and clean-up liabilities associated with it. Moreover, the draft proposal for a directive on soil protection that was published in September 2006 also mentions in its preliminary clauses that methodologies on eco-toxicological risk assessment require further development and improvement. ERA is an area that is still under development compared to other areas of risk assessment. Issues that need to be resolved, in order to clarify the role of ERA, include: o What is an acceptable level of disturbance to the ecosystem? o What are the criteria that enable one to define when an assessment shows that there is no problem? o How do we use the results of an ERA? The acceptance of risk-based land management of contaminated land (RBLM) was an early priority of NICOLE. The advantages of RBLM are that it is systematic and objective, it provides a consistent basis for dealing with issues such as uncertainties and decision making and it leads to solutions appropriate to the risks posed by contamination. The assessment of these risks has previously focused primarily on risks to human health and water. Ecological risk assessment has only recently become a more regular part of contaminated land management. In countries which have, or are establishing ERA frameworks, several common principles are already apparent, such as the use of a tiered approach and “weight of evidence”. A major problem in carrying out ecological risk assessment is a paucity of technical data and an inadequate consideration of existing information by some models. Consequently, there are significant uncertainties in the execution of ERA as well as in its role. A question implied by ERA is: can we do anything with its findings? i.e. how do we manage ecological risks? The idea of “ecological risk management” would seem to be a natural consequence of the use of ERA, but has scarcely begun as a discipline. It has been argued that any requirements for ecological risk management should be proportional, taking into account the geographical and urban context of a site and the ongoing land use. The context of many contaminated sites is that they are located in industrial or urban areas, both of which are already highly disturbed from an ecological point of view. Hence, if the implication of ecological risk assessment is that there is a problem arising from a contaminated site that needs to be put right, the next question is what is the desired end-point of the “putting right” actions? Even if it could be determined what the original status of an ecosystem was, is it appropriate to expend resources to restore an ecosystem that does not exist elsewhere in the site’s local environment? At the conclusion of the Stockholm workshop a list of prioritised or ranked issues related to ERA was produced. The issues had been formulated during group discussions in the workshop. The issues were sorted under the headings: o Legislation/regulation o Data needs o Modelling/assessment methods This list of issues, which is included in the proceedings from the Stockholm workshop, will be revisited during the discussions in the working group.


After its announcement, and in particular in conjunction with the Carcassonne workshop in May 2006, the membership in the ERA WG has evolved strongly showing that there is a great interest in the topic among NICOLE members. The Working Group currently consists of 20 members, out of which 12 are service providers, 4 are industrial members and 4 are individual members (academics/ regulators). A proposed agenda for the WG has been distributed for comments. The WG aims to present a proposed position/action plan to the Steering Group in spring 2007. A first draft of proposed position paper will be open for comments until December 31. The second draft will be agreed by the WG by February 28 2007. Working Group: Monitored Natural Attenuation: Roger Jacquet, Solvay, Belgium NICOLE activities in the field of Natural Attenuation (NA) started in 1998 with a review of the existing Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) protocols published in 1999. It was followed by the MNA demonstration project run on 8 sites throughout Europe and completed in 2005. Since the first NICOLE initiative in 1999, the perception of NA in different countries or regions has evolved and protocols or guidelines for the application of Natural Attenuation as a remedial strategy have been published (England & Wales 2000, Flanders 2003) and some initiatives are going on in Germany at federal level, while in France NA is considered in the “re-writing” of the legal texts related to contaminated soil management. We hope that the NICOLE activities on NA have had some impact on the recent legislation developments on MNA. The NICOLE MNA demonstration project made clear that the proposed methodology based on the line of evidence is broadly accepted and considered very useful and that acceptance is facilitated by a structured argument, a conceptual model and a comprehensive data set. The time has come for promoting the implementation of MNA as well as the concept. Indeed, if it is accepted that MNA has a potential for the management of contaminated soil projects, then it should systematically be considered among all other management options before selecting a particular solution. The WG aims to promote the acceptance of MNA, now focusing on its implementation throughout Europe. The main activities will be to collect MNA case studies to be posted (anonymously) via a NA NICOLE web page. The NICOLE community, site owner as well as service provider, are asked to provide cases where MNA has been accepted by the authorities as stand alone or as part of a treatment train in managing option of contaminated land. A second activity is the follow up of new legislative development regarding MNA. The list of relevant links will be updated as new developments appear. Working Group: Waste: Ian Heasman, Taylor Woodrow, UK NICOLE research6 shows that European countries agree that excavated contaminated soil is waste, in line with the Waste Framework Directive (WFD). It is explicit in the WFD that once a material is waste it can only be either 'recovered' or 'disposed of'; and that both of these activities require a Waste Framework Directive permit (or an exemption). Many European Countries have their own views and practical approach to this. 6 NICOLE (2005) The Interaction Between Soil and Waste Legislation in Ten European Countries, December 2005. www.nicole.org



The 2004 Van Der Walle European Court of Justice ruling not only defined escaped hydrocarbon from a petrol station as waste, but it also defined the associated polluted soil and groundwater as waste. The far-reaching consequences of this decision could include that contaminated land needs further licensing under waste legislation, that further clean up is mandatory and that this would be driven by waste regulatory requirements. There is also potential for an undermining of the risk-based approach to contaminated land, replacing it with the hazard-based approach enshrined in waste legislation. Help is potentially on the way through the Thematic Strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling, which aims to turn Europe into a recycling society that seeks to avoid waste and uses waste as a resource. It will streamline and clarify waste legislation including a revision of the 1975 WFD, and set recycling standards. The Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Resources, with its emphasis on resource productivity and eco-efficiency, should also encourage sustainable use of contaminated soil. There is a role for NICOLE to inform these initiatives. The objectives of the Waste Directive WG are to encourage the development of the Waste Strategy and Waste Directive in a way that: o Supports risk based land remediation, the heart of the NICOLE mission o Supports the reuse, recycling and recovery of contaminated soils and related materials o Clarifies when contaminated soil and related materials are waste and when they cease to be waste o Supports proportionate risk based permitting and exemptions o Supports breaking the linkage between treated contaminated soils and their classification as waste

earlier in the chain of custody o Encourages the development of risk based fit-for-purpose protocols to achieve non-waste status o Resolves the Van Der Walle issue The Waste Working Group contributes to NICOLE by: o Supporting the overall theme of risk based contaminated land management o Providing early warning of the potential impact of the Waste Directive on soil management o Promoting workable interpretation of waste law in relation to contaminated land o Providing analysis of the key issues in the proposed modified Directive o Identifying key players in the Commission that member organisations may wish to approach. Working Group: Groundwater Directive: Wouter Gevaerts, Arcadis Gedas, Belgium The Groundwater Daughter Directive (GWDD) is an extension of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), which aims to expand the original role of the WFD by aiming to achieve good chemical status of groundwater, reverse upward trends of pollutants in groundwater and develop requirements to prevent and limit inputs of pollutants into the groundwater. The Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) aims to improve the transformation of the WFD and GWDD from legislation into reality by, amongst other things, developing technical guidance on common approaches and methodologies. Stakeholders, NGOs and the research community are involved in this joint process as well as Candidate Countries in order to facilitate the cohesion process. The NICOLE Working Group is closely associated with CIS Working Group C (groundwater), which has around 80 participants representing environment ministries and agencies of the EU, stakeholder organisations, NGOs and the scientific community. NICOLE is represented by Wouter Gevaerts and Lucia Buvé and has been closely involved in the preparation of the “prevent and limit” guidance document. Due to a delay in the approval of the GWDD, it is not yet clear what the position will be on historical contamination, therefore the guidance document is yet to be finished. The second reading did not succeed in adopted version of the Directive. Reconciliation started on September 1st 2006, and a result is expected after 90 days, at the end of November. At present Working Group has 12 members. It has the following aims: o To have an influential role in the development and implementation of the Directive o To spread the knowledge of the NICOLE network on risk assessment and groundwater

contamination


o To continue making a contribution to the CIS via Wouter and Lucia through drafting and preparation of material

o To be a semi-independent forum for comment and analysis related to the Directive o To inform NICOLE members of progress in the GWDD Figure 11 shows the draft procedures under the GWDD.

Examine activity: Establish Source - Pathway – Receptorrelationships and characterise source term – Is the source term insignificant?

Examine activity: Establish Source - Pathway – Receptorrelationships and characterise source term – Is the source term insignificant?

Is the input direct or indirect?

Is the input direct or indirect?

Can input be authorised under Art 11(3)j?

Can input be authorised under Art 11(3)j?

Allow, with conditionsAllow, with conditions

Are hazardous substances involved?

Are hazardous substances involved?

Can substance be prevented from enteringgroundwater? Assess at POC No. 1

Can substance be prevented from enteringgroundwater? Assess at POC No. 1

Would resulting input be so small as to obviate

any present or future danger of deterioration in the quality of the receiving groundwater?



Do not allowDo not allow

direct

indirect


Allo

w, w

ith c

ondi

tions

Allo

w, w

ith c

ondi

tions




N

Y

Y

Y

YY

N

N

NN

NY





Can substance be limited in groundwater so that pollution or rising trend

does not occur?Assess at POC Nos. 2, 3

Can substance be limited in groundwater so that pollution or rising trend

does not occur?Assess at POC Nos. 2, 3

Y

N

Has thecontamination alreadyentered the ground -

water?


water?

Examine activity: Establish Source - Pathway – Receptorrelationships and characterise source term – Is the source term significant?


Are hazardous substancesinvolved? (POC 0)


Define remediation targetand undertake measures*

to prevent spreading of pollutants, or that it cannot

result in a rising trend, based on risk assessmentand consideration of costs .Set compliance at receptor

(POC 2 or 3 dependenton receptor)

Y

Y

Y

N

N Substance should be pre -vented from entering

groundwater by remediatingthe soil.

Set compliance at watertable prior to entry into

groundwater (POC 0 or 1)

Substance should be pre -vented from entering




Continue only if complianceat the water table is

unachievable as justifiedthrough risk assessment

and consideration of costs.








*Risk based, BATNEEC & preferably verified

Y No action

required

No action

required

N


water?


water?









Y

Y

Y

N

N Substance should be pre -vented from entering




Substance should be pre -vented from entering














*Risk based, BATNEEC & preferably verified

Y No action

required

No action

required

N

No action

required

No action

required

N

Assessing New Activities Assessing Historical Sources

Figure 11 Draft procedures for assessing activities under the GWDD

Working Group: Soil Strategy: Johan De Fraye, Honeywell, Belgium The Working Group on Contaminated Soil (WGCS) was established when it became known that the European Commission was working on a draft framework directive dealing with impacts on soil. The WGCS is still in its infancy; an introduction to its programme formed part of the joint ISG-SPG session in Carcassonne, France in May 2006. The schedule for the implementation of the new Soil Directive is shown below. o 2002: Decision 1600/2002/EC laying down 6th Community Environment Action Programme:

protect natural resources and promote sustainable use of soil; Communication COM(2002) 179 “Towards a Thematic Strategy on Soil Protection”

o 2003: Open stakeholder consultation with Advisory Forum and five Working Groups (including contamination)

o 2004: Stakeholder consultation ends with reports containing recommendations o 2005: Internet public consultation; Impact assessment of new legislation o September 22, 2006: Draft proposal for a Soil Framework Directive and EC Communication

“Thematic Strategy for soil Protection” o 2008: Final Directive (?) The draft proposal for the Directive and the Thematic Strategy Communication were published on September 22, 2006 and submitted for review to the European Parliament and Council. It is now a public domain document on which the WGCS can work. This is summarised below, beginning with some definitions, as taken up in either the communication or the draft proposal: o “soil”: top layer of the earth’s crust formed by mineral particles, organic matter, water, air and

living organisms; interface between earth, air and water, hosts most of the biosphere; essentially a non-renewable resource;


o “contaminated site”: Site with confirmed presence, caused by man, of dangerous substances in such a level that they pose a risk to human health and the environment

o “potential soil polluting activities”: Parts 1 & 2 of Annex I in Directive 2003/105/EC (Seveso II); Annex I in Directive 96/61/EC (IPPC); Airports; Harbours; Former military sites; Petrol and filling stations; Dry cleaners; Mining installations excluded from Seveso II and including their waste installations; Landfills; Waste water treatment installations; Pipelines for dangerous substances

o Some of the main concepts relating to soil contamination are listed below: The prevention of soil contamination equates to the appropriate and proportionate measures to

limit the introduction of dangerous substances. An Inventory of Contaminated Sites could be established using the following procedure: locate

the sites where potential soil polluting activities take place or have taken place; soil investigations and risk assessment. The first assessment should be within 5 years after transposition date and renewed every 5 years.

A National Remediation Strategy should be in place within seven years of transposition, identifying specific targets, prioritisation of actions (including MNA and containment), allocation of means to achieve targets and a timetable for implementation.

If a potentially soil polluting activity is undertaken at a site, a Land Status Report, issued by an authorised body, should be provided by the current landowner/prospective buyer to the competent authority as part of the sale. The report should include information on site history, chemical analyses and trigger values for on-site investigation. The Working Group has 15 members at present. Its aims are: o To influence development of Soil Directive and its implementation o To keep NICOLE members informed of progress o To identify key players in the Commission that should be approached either by NICOLE or its

members or member organisations o To provide analysis of the key issues in the proposed directive o To organise/coordinate contacts with national regulators. Its immediate actions are to: o Understand timeframe for European Parliament and Council readings o Prepare list of remarks and issues o Prepare draft position paper for review by NICOLE members Its next meeting will be in Brussels in November Common Forum and NICOLE - ten years of co-operation on risk based land management in Europe, Harald Kasamas, Common Forum member, Environment Ministry, Austria Contaminated land emerged as an important environmental policy issue in the 1980s, as a result of a few severe incidents in several countries. The political response to this was that a policy of maximum risk control was needed. No remaining contamination meant no remaining risk and hence no remaining liability, and it also fitted a precautionary strategy. In the 1990s it was recognised that land contamination was a widespread problem and such complete risk elimination was neither technically nor economically feasible. Strategies to manage “historic” contamination began to move to a suitable for use end-point. Risks from remaining contamination must be acceptable for the use, and the situation may leave residual liability. The challenge that Society faces is how to reduce the cost of dealing with land contamination without compromising public health and water quality, or business confidence in the benefits of land regeneration and sustainable use of soil. International exchanges of ideas and know-how and cooperation play a crucial role in meeting this challenge.


International exchange and co-operation has been taking place via the NATO/CCMS Pilot Studies from the late 70’s and since the 80’s has focused on remediation technologies. The 1992 Wilma Visser Report from the TCB in the Netherlands was a landmark in exchanging information on regulatory approaches internationally, and was one of the factors that led to the initiation of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Contaminated Land in Vienna in 1993 which provides an informal network for policy and regulatory experts in contaminated land management from across the world. A more formal group formed under the German EU presidency in 1994, the Common Forum on Contaminated Land which was intended to provide regulators and policy advisors across Europe the chance to discuss and respond to policy developments from the European Commission. These groups initiated a Framework 4 network project CARACAS (1996 – 1998) and Framework 5 network project CLARINET (1998 – 2001). CARACAS focused on risk assessment and CLARINET on risk management, and both collaborated with NICOLE. There have been many EC funded contaminated land projects since 2000, and after a brief hiatus the Common Forum reformed in 2001. More recently we have seen a number of major European Commission Policy initiatives affecting contaminated land management, including initiatives on soil, water, waste and environmental liability. Advising on and responding to these initiatives now forms a major part of the work of both the Common Forum and NICOLE. Figure XX summarises the international networking on contaminated land management.

EU Common Forum of Contaminated Land

1994 2006

EU Member States incl. EC, NICOLE + RTD networks

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

1996

CARACAS

1998 2000 2002

CLARINET

Risk AssessmentNetwork

Risk ManagementNetwork

EC RTD Framework Programmes EU Soil Policy

CABERNETAQUATERRALIBERATIONEURODEMO

SNOWMAN

N I C O L E

Figure 12 Roadmap of EU Networking

A number of milestones have been achieved by these initiatives, including the following. Two key note publications were produced by CARACAS (www.caracas.at). o Ferguson, et al. (1998) “Risk Assessment for Contaminated Sites in Europe. Volume 1. Scientific

Basis”, Report of CARACAS Project: Concerted Action on Risk Assessment for Contaminated Sites in the European Union. LQM Press, Nottingham.

o Ferguson and Kasamas (1999) “Risk Assessment for Contaminated Sites in Europe. Volume 2. Policy Frameworks.” Report of CARACAS Project: Concerted Action on Risk Assessment for Contaminated Sites in the European Union. LQM Press, Nottingham. ISBN 0953 309010.

http://www.caracas.at/


CLARINET developed the Risk Based Land Management (RBLM) concept in the Sustainable Management of Contaminated Land, An Overview. Final Report of CLARINET and a wide range of supporting publications. These can be downloaded from www.clarinet.at. CARACAS, CLARINET, NICOLE and other networks collaborated on a series of joint statements (which are listed in Annex 2) and have already been mentioned as important staging posts in the development of contaminated land management in Europe. CLARINET and NICOLE also collaborated on a special issue of the journal of Land Contamination and Reclamation in 2001, which led to the recommendations towards Risk-based Land Management: o Bardos and Lewis (2001) CLARINET and NICOLE Special Edition, Sustainable Management and

Remediation of Contaminated Land. Land Contamination Reclamation 9 (1) 47-174 Looking forward, there is going to be a stronger interaction between spatial planning, water protection and environmental management. The three elements of RBLM support this interaction: fitness for use, protection of the environment and reduction of aftercare, and also define “suitable for use”. The proposal for a EU Soil Framework Directive takes on board much of what is included in RBLM, although the details of its execution are perhaps open to debate. Of particular importance is ensuring that the degree of harmonisation in contaminated land management under this Directive is both feasible and appropriate. From the Common Forum’s point of view the optimal level of harmonisation is a “soft-harmonisation”, i.e. co-operation and information exchange between all stakeholders, with a common approach to pure scientific/technological aspects, but retaining appropriate national and local approaches where they reflect actual practical conditions, and so allowing the “fine-tuning” of RBLM. A “hard harmonisation” approach is likely to be counter-productive, threatening uneven effectiveness in achieving protection under different circumstances. Research contributions, developments and future needs, Hans-Peter Koschitzky, VEGAS, Germany A large amount of Public Money has been spent researching problems of contaminated land management over the past 10 years. Some examples are listed in Table 4. Project Funding

[€ millions] Funding Organisation

Status

VEGAS (facility and equipment) 2.5 BMBF, Germany Started 1995 SAFIRA 1 Remediation technologies 6 UFZ, Germany 1998 - 2004 RUBIN (Reactive Barriers) 4 + ? BMBF, Germany 2000-2008 (?) GRACOS 1.8 EU FP5 2000 - 2003 INCORE 2.5 EU FP5 2000 - 2003 PURE 1.2 EU FP5 2000 - 2003 WELCOME 2.8 EU FP5 2001 - 2004 IMAGE TRAIN 0.6 EU FP5 2001 - 2004 SICKERWASSER ~ 20 BMBF, Germany 2000 – 2005 KORA (NA, MNA, ENA) ~24 BMBF, Germany 2002 – 2008 AQUATERRA 13 EU FP6 2004 – 2008 REFINA (Brownfields) ~20 BMBF, Germany Start 2005 SAFIRA 2 6 – 7 HGF, Germany Start 2005

Table 4 Examples of Investment in Contaminated Land Management Research



It is important to assess both how well this money has been spent, and also t assess what might be the contaminated land management research needs of the future. This session presents two assessments: 1. An assessment of EC funded research from Andrea Tilche, of the European Commission, DG 2. An assessment of current and future research carried out by the EC-funded JOINT project. EU-Research on Contaminated Land: What have we achieved, where do we have to go? Andrea Tilche, European Commission - Head of DG Research This presentation reviews EC funded contaminated land management research under the Framework 5 and Framework 6 programmes, and reviews potential research activities under the forthcoming Framework 7 programme. Under the Framework 5 programme contaminated land management research was largely supported in Key Action 1 under the Pollution Prevention theme (reference 1. 4) and the Surveillance, Early Warning and Communication Systems theme (reference 1. 5): • 1.4.1 Abatement of water pollution from contaminated land, landfills and sediments: €33.5 million

spent on 26 projects related to contaminated land management, and • 1.4.2 Combating diffuse pollution: €7.2 million spent on 5 projects related to contaminated land

management • 1.5.1 Pollution surveillance and control: €13.8 million spent on 16 projects. Moreover, in Key Action 4, The City of Tomorrow and Cultural Heritage, four projects has been funded dealing with brownfields regeneration. Contaminated land management related projects included networking activities such as CLARINET, SENSPOL, CABERNET and SEDNET, and were supported by a number of review, training and information projects, including: IMAGE-TRAIN, JOINT, SOWA and EUGRIS. Under Key Action 1, the main contaminated land management topic dealt with: risk assessment, monitoring, site characterisation, remediation, integrated management and diffuse pollution. The principle products delivered were: • Risk assessment methodologies, software and guidelines, • Decision Support Tools, • Hardware (sensors, test apparatuses, full-scale pilot areas, reactors), and • Databases. A considerable investment of financial resources was put into contaminated land research under Framework 5. The programme served to develop a broad science and engineering community and to reach very high quality of the scientific production – which is no longer second to other parts of the world. Many good results were produced, but these are scattered, even although a lot of effort was put into trying to disseminate better, to synthesise and to promote the results. Several methodologies/techniques were developed. However, these were frequently rather site-specific), with difficulties of harmonisation with other approaches and for transfer into broader applications. Funding under Framework 5 for soil and water research was in the region of €62.5 million per year. Under Framework it has been slightly less, in the region of €47 million per year. Under the Framework 6 Programme theme Global change and ecosystems, Area II was: Water cycle, including soil-related aspects. The objective of this area was to understand the mechanisms and assess the impact of global change and in particular climate change on the water cycle, water quality and availability, as well as soil functions and quality to provide the bases for management tools for water systems to mitigate the impacts. A specific activity with the research sector Ecological impact of global change, soil functioning and water quality was focussed on Water-soil systems functioning and management. Projects in this area are shown in Figure 13. Supported projects include a large integrated project on river/soil/groundwater interactions, AQUATERRA, three smaller projects (SEDBARCAH, BIOTOOL and STRESOIL) and one co-ordination action (EURODEMO) on


selection and demonstration of the most promising soil remediation technologies. Two new projects on risk assessment (one a co-ordination action ) have just started. In addition, there has been an ERA-NET initiative for the co-ordination of national research programmes on soil protection, SNOWMAN. Our conclusions about Framework 6 are that the Programme has advanced an integrated approach to soil and water management. Several river-basin projects have considered soil as a component. While research on an integrated river-basin level has provided a catchment scale overview, and been useful for this, it has led to a considerable reduction of more site-specific work. It had been assumed that the results of FP5 should be exploited before further research investment was made, hence the more holistic approach of FP6. However, it would appear that remediation is not as mature a sector as previously thought, and may not be sufficient to rely only on implementing existing techniques.

N°EU

CONTRIB. (€)

INSTR.

2 Ecological impact of global change, soil functioning and water quality505428 AQUATERRA Understanding river-sediment-soil-groundwater interactions for support of management of

waterbodies (river basin & catchment areas) 12.999.992 IP

3998 BIOTOOL Biological procedures for diagnosing the status and predicting evolution of polluted environments 1.800.000 STREP

511254 SEDBARCAH SEDiment bioBARriers for Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons in groundwater reaching surface water 1.098.691 STREP

4017 STRESOIL In situ stimulation and remediation of contaminated fractured soils 1.100.000 STREP

3985 EuroDemo European Platform for Demonstration of Efficient Soil and Groundwater Remediation 988.899 CA

36938 RISK-BASE Coordination action on risk based management of river basins 1.612.304 CA

37081 RAMWASSIntegrated decision support system for riskassessment and management of the water-sediment-soil system at river basin scale in fluvial ecosystems 1.665.040 STREP

21.264.926

WATER CYCLE AND SOIL RELATED ASPECTSAREA / TOPIC

2002 1st call 2003 2nd call 2005 4th call

Figure 13 Framework 6 Programme Funded Soil and Water Research The Framework 7 Programme (FP7) will run from 2007 to 2013 and includes a number specific programmes: • Cooperation – Collaborative research • Ideas – Frontier Research • People – Human Potential • Capacities – Research Capacity along with support for the Joint Research Centre (JRC) and Euratom. FP7 includes a number of new developments from FP6. Its duration will be seven years, instead of four. The annual budget is increased (from €5 billion on 2007 to €10 billion by 2013). It includes a basic research component of ~ €1.0 billion per year). A simplification of procedures is anticipated. For example, funding will no longer be based on cost models but on 75% of real costs for public bodies and SMEs, and 50% to private entities. Demonstration and research will receive the same level of funding support. As well as EU countries the Candidate States have been associated. FP7 also includes the idea of “Technology Platforms”: research for European Competitiveness. Figure 14 shows the overall FP7 budget, based on the EU Council political agreement of July 2006 for FP7. The figures are subject to possible modification. The total budget for the co-opeartion themes (taking into account the proviso above) is €32.365 billion, comprising: • Health, 6.05 billion • Food, agriculture and biotechnology, 1.935 billion • Information and communication technologies, 9.110 billion • Nanosciences, nanotechnologies, materials and new production technologies, 3.500 billion


• Energy , 2.300 billion • Environment (including climate change), 1.900 billion

10 billion • Transport (including aeronautics), 4.180 billion • Socio-economic sciences and the humanities, 0.6• Space, 1.430 billion

n. • Security, 1.350 billio

FP7 overall budget (Million euro)total 50221

323657460

47284217 1751 Cooperation

Ideas People Capacities NN JRC

Figure 14 Framework 7 Programme Budgets

he Soil Thematic Strategy was adopted in September 2006. Soil contamination is one of the main

s for investigation and monitoring should be improved including combinations of

o

Data an s

edures based on site-specific processes and technologies. iological)

modelling.

Tthreats to the soil highlighted by the Soil Thematic Strategy, and has a negative impact on many soil functions. Concern exists both about contamination of soil in itself and about threats from this to other compartments, mainly water and food production. Soil is a complex system interacting with other environmental compartments, boundary systems, surface and ground water, and sediments, are affected by the same impacts and should be addressed in integrated research activities. Research actions that will be supported in FP7 deal with: a) technologies for acquiring reliable soil data, both for better understanding processes influencing soil functions and for assessing the status; b) technologies for sustainable management; and c) technologies for mitigation of threats and impacts and eventually for restoration. Considering soil contamination and remediation more specifically, scientific interest in remediation and mitigation techniques is ever more shifting towards in situ sustainable techniques. However the use of these techniques is highly site specific and there have been several examples of remediation failure due to inappropriate design and/or operation. Remediation techniques themselves can have negative impacts on soil. Soil is a natural system, essential in multiple environmental processes and functions, which are threatened by contamination and its remediation. Hence the likely FP7 interests in soil contamination and remediation are likely to be as follows.

Data collecting • o Tool

geophysics systems, chemical analysis, statistical analysis, biomarkers and/or modelling. Site-specific investigation and monitoring tools (spatial-temporal variability)

o Detection of local, primary and secondary, sources

aly is and processing • o Risk analysis proco Relationships between attenuation mechanisms (physical, chemical and b

and site-specific environmental conditions to improve predictive multi-process


• Implem ao o y of current and new remediation technologies o Sustainability/persistence versus effectiveness/robustness (cost effectiveness)

otential functions and services mprovement of soil functions as

nuation

Risk based vity “Sustainable management of resources”, Eand of the tw ted FP6 projects RISK-BASE and RAMWASS

ent tion measures In-situ and source-oriented remediation technologies Improvement of sustainabilit

o Impact on soil po Quantification of natural rehabilitation processes and i

basis for further development of natural attenuation o Possible risks of secondary contamination (including under natural atte

conditions)

management research will be promoted through the actiof nvironment programme, on the basis of the output of the FP6 project AQUATERRA o recently selec

Table 5 lists some indicative topics for the first years of FP7 are reported. However it must be stressed that the research priorities, as well as the contents, will be finalised through consultations with the advisory group and programme committee.

Year Activity

2007

Soil contamination assessment and site characterization, towards sustainable remediation

ologies and tools for investigation and monitoring of contaminated soils with ular attention to less-invasive and depth-oriented tools, to spatio/temporal

heterogeneity of soils, and to bio-availability of contaminants. Tools for individuation

• Technpartic

of local, primary or secondary, towards development of more source-oriented sustainable remediation technologies.

2008 or later

Inn•

hniques (including “new frontier” promising technologies) integrating existing knowledge on biological techniques, quantifying

r in situ remediation treatments.

ovative technologies for sustainable soil remediation Remediation technologies effective both in decontaminating and preserving soil quality and functions. Innovative tec

the natural rehabilitation potential of the soil, and otheDifferent remediation technologies should be assessed according to their sustainability/persistence and effectiveness/robustness

2008 onwards

Emand• Ps. Based on the outcome of

ongoing projects on emerging environmental contaminants affecting soil and

sing on the behaviour of the soil as a natural and dynamic system.

erging threats for soil/groundwater contamination in Europe: available technologies research needs A number of projects have been funded in previous F

groundwater, actions for addressing most threatening contaminants should be developed, focus

Table 5 FP7

Contamination and Remediation Environmental Technologies Road Map

From the outcomes of single projects to future research needs, the JOINT process, Thomas Ertel, Germany The JOINT project title was “Technical Approach for Soil and Groundwater Quality Management”. It considered the following topics, and was part of a broader portfolio of EC activities illustrated in Figure 15.

Investigation •


• Risk assessment • Remediation • Integrated management of polluted water and soil

on • Diffuse polluti

Figure 15 JOINT Role in Wider EC Activities

JOINT was intended as a bridging activity from FP5 to later Framework Programmes, providinmmary and dissemination within FP5, technical input for the co-ordination of FP6 activities and

g

su input to FP7 development. I urrent R&D results, support

e updating and connection of existing technical approaches, stimulate co-operation for applied

I

ro archers were making only limited use of

ts objectives were to support the diffusion of cthresearch and support the implementation of the Water and Soil frameworks. This work was to be achieved via three interdisciplinary workshops supported by monitoring of the progress in research and application; assessment, evaluation and listing of solutions achieved; and identifying gaps and future needs. The project team is summarised in Figure 16. The three workshops were: • The Functioning and Management of the Water-Soil-System at River-Basin Scale: Diffuse

Pollution and Point Sources. Orléans, France, 26th – 28th November 2003 • Towards an Integrated Management of Soil and Water Resources: Fate and Behaviour of

Pollutants. Bonn, Germany, 7th – 9th June, 2004 • Towards a harmonised management of European soil resources: Research Agenda for Soil

Protection. Vienna, Austria, 28th – 29th October 2004 JO NT found that administrators, consultants and problem owners were highly motivated to support dissemination, however. there was little response and engagement from the scientific side. This may be because when dissemination work begins, researchers are already preparing or starting their next

ject and PhDs and post-doctorates are leaving. Resepcommunication tools such as EUGRIS. One suggestion made by the speaker was that “easy to use books” might help support communication need between policy and other decision-makers and the scientific community. Such books should include “policy-maker-friendly” summaries, including a “translation” of scientific results into a form of information directly applicable to legislative purposes. An example publication might be the forthcoming book Groundwater Science and Policy, edited by P. Quevauviller, to be published in the beginning of 2007.


It may be legitimate for the EC to exert some pressure to induce researchers to interact with other stakeholders, and to allow them some budget flexibility to do so. The speaker considered the IMAGE-TRAIN project to be a good example of the cross-fertilisation of ideas that could be achieved. These activities could be supported by a follow-up activity to the JOINT project.

OMOTE project .

Such a follow-up could also support the EC Environmental Technologies Action Programme (ETAP) address its barriers for implementation in the fields of: communication and dissemination; availability in the market / commercialisation; and meeting the customer / user needs via input to and participation in ETAP working group on soil, linking in with activities such as the EC PR 7

KEMAKTA,Sweden UW, Germany

ACA, Spain AfU Stuttgart,Germany

Risk AssessmentInvestigation Remediation IntegratedManagement

GEDAS, Belgium

OVAM, Belgium BRGM, France

Aquateam,Norway

Politechnico, Milan,Italy

VEGAS, UniversityStuttgart, GermanyCSIC, Spain

Technical soilprotection committee,

Netherlands

Internet platform - EUGRISCo-ordinator:

UBA Berlin, Germany

Training - IMAGETRAINCo-ordinator:

UBA Vienna, Austria

Integrated strategies - SOWACo-ordinator:

Uni Tübingen, Germany

European Commission, DG 11 & DG 12

Co-ordinator - UW Umweltwirtschaft GmbH

Scie

ntifi

cad

viso

rTe

amle

ader

Rap

port

eur

rela

ted

activ

ities

JOIN

T C

ontr

acto

rs

oup

Figure 16 JOINT Project Team

The suggested activity would be a focal point for strategic research on soil and groundwater

compassing: amics, pathways and impacts

. Management – soil conservation & functions, socio-economic evaluation

. Technology development – sustainability, economics, test & demo

initiative as an accompanying activity to FP7 was e further concluded that support of

JOIN

T St

eerin

g G

r

contamination at the urban scale, en1. Understanding the system – dyn234. Harmonisation and standardisation. The speaker concluded that a follow-up JOINTurgently needed, and would yield valuable results and outputs. Hprogramme management was evidently needed. JOINT publications are: 1. The Functioning and Management of the Water-Soil-System at River-Basin Scale: Diffuse

Pollution and Point Sources http://www.eugris.info/DisplayResource.asp?ResourceID=4054 2. Risk Based Management of Contamination and Protection of the Soil System in Urban

Environments http://www.eugris.info/DisplayResource.asp?ResourceID=5745 r the Management of European Soil Resources Research Agenda

http://www.eugris.info/DisplayResource.asp?ResourceID=57453. Scientific Basis fo

7 www.promote-etv.org

http://www.promote-etv.org/


The JOINT Project page on EUGRIS is at: http://www.eugris.info/DisplayProject.asp?ProjectID=4302

Re , NL

Lack of confidence in effectiveness (no guarantee)

rotocols) Low acceptance from public citizen (residual contamination, no digging)

of lack of communication and exchanging ised in Figure 178.

ary is to

and integrated with existing

Buvé, m

ted the importance of constructive dialogue between regulators and industry, oth for managing sites, and in coming to terms with complexity of contaminated land management sues, and the performance of risk management techniques. The points were made on the basis of

ventional techniques at such negative environmental

gulatory, risk and financial barriers, Laurent Bakker, Tauw

of the ideas behind this session is challenging. It is that One “early mistakes are profitable”.

Innovative contaminated land management technologies are associated with: • • Unclear understanding of the application (no clear objective portfolio) • Low acceptance from regulators and authorities (no proven technology and prescriptive p• • Bad experiences in the past • High financial risks (time, impact on real estate value). A large amount of this barrier to use is because information/experiences. There are four basic types of knowledge, summar By sharing more information, it is possible to enlarge the visible

g allows discovery of what others assets for everyone. This sharinknow, which can be turned into profit together. Also necessfind the gaps and find ways to fill these gaps, and to consider the future, what should we know? NICOLE, but also initiatives like

URODEMO, can play a big role in the search for or dissemination Eof knowledge. A key issue is improving the implementation of innovative technologies. Important in achieving this improvement is the organising of innovation, with mechanisms like funding (e.g. SKB, JR). and verification programmes like the emerging Environmental Technology Verification scheme under the PROMOTE project.

plementation needs to be structured, Imtechnologies (recombinant innovation). All this requires communication. The speaker identified two “golden rules”: early mistakes are profitable and the shortest way is not always the quickest (and cheapest). “It takes two or more to tango” – industrial caUmicore, Belgium and Victor Dries, OVAM, Belgiu This presentation highligh

Figure 17 Types of Knowledge

se study Lucia

bisthree case studies. The talk related to contamination of metals in soil and groundwater at large scales. Unlike some organic substances, metals do not degrade. Applying con

rge scales is often very expensive, time-consuming and can also havelaimpacts. A possible risk management approach for these large metal contaminated areas is that risk can be managed by reducing the bio-available fraction of metal. The first case study focussed on immobilisation of metals in situ. A number of substances are capable of immobilising metals in soil (i.e. reducing their bio-availability), including: zeolites, red mud, lime, “cyclonic ash”9, and steel shot. Field scale testing at Maatheide, Belgium, demonstrated that the use

8 Source: Johari window, see for example: http://www.businessballs.com/johariwindowmodel.htm 9 Light ash separated in cyclones from combustion gases, but coarser than fly ash

http://www.eugris.info/DisplayResource.asp?ResourceID=4054


of such materials as soil additives allowed vegetation to grow again, and prevented further migration of metals down the soil profiles. Further research was then carried out to assess the usefulness of

mobilisation in situ for managing risks from metals in private gardens used for vegetable growing.

ifferent way people use their gardens. It would also require the co-operation of each householder

any plant types accumulate metals, however, some plant species are able to accumulate igh levels of metals. This group of plants are called hyper-accumulators (see Table 610). These are,

metals in their leaf concentrations (for example around 1% for zinc or manganese, and

im Trials in municipal landscaped plots were successful in supporting the growth of flowers and shrubs in areas where previously little would grow. These areas are actually in the centre of towns and villages. However, whether the use of these amendments could be successfully used for managing risks in private gardens seems debatable for a number of reasons. From a technical point of view it may be very difficult to ensure an effective application in each garden that would mitigate risks because of thedwho would see their garden receive quite a large addition of amendment. The duration of the risk management benefit is uncertain. Consequently, at this stage the use of immobilisation in private gardens is not feasible from a regulatory perspective, as it does not offer a complete solution, and effects are uncertain over time. Equally, the solution is not feasible from the industry’s perspective as it would not remove liability as the duration and effectiveness of the risk management effect are uncertain. The second case study considered the use of phyto-remediation as a large scale management solution for metal contaminated land. A number of studies, including field scale studies, have shown that plants can be used to manage risks from metal contamination, potentially over large areas. A number of possible approaches exist. Phyto-extraction is where metals are removed from land via harvested biomass. Mhfor the most part, not developed to the stage where they might be used for practical contaminated land management. Description For some plants accumulation of metals appears to be an active process possibly related to

a tolerance mechanism for their survival on contaminated sites and these plants are referred to as ‘hyperaccumulators’ to distinguish the nature of their metal accumulation from the passive accumulation that is general for plants and typically does not lead to such high leaf concentrations of metals. Hyperaccumulators may have high levels of heavy

0.1% for cadmium, on a dry matter basis). In Europe these ‘hyperaccumulator’ plants tend to be members of the Brassica family and are generally found on ‘naturally’ contaminated soils, such as serpentine soils

Practical use

and unsuitable pH is

w

ilsu

asso

Individual species of hyperaccumulators accumulate a restricted range of metals (for example cadmium and zinc), thus a variety of plant species might be necessary for a practical remediation problem. Current difficulties are as follows: • The hyperaccumulator plant species so far identified have yet to be developed into

plants that can be readily cultivated as consistent crops. • Remediation is limited by the rooting depth of the plant and the volume of soil within

that depth that is influenced by the plant root. • The ability of plants to grow in the hostile environment of many contaminated soils

which also suffer problems of low fertility, poor structure limited.

Ho ever, for many types of metal contamination (e.g. atmospheric fall out and sewage application) heavy metal contamination is restricted to the surface horizons of ‘natural’

in situso and so may be well suited for the application of hyperaccumulator plants. Ex sit applications on shallow treatment beds may overcome some of the difficulties

ciated with rooting depth and soil type.

Table 6 Hyperaccumulators 10 Bardos, R.P., French, C., Lewis, A., Moffat, A. and Nortcliff, S (2001) Marginal Land Restoration Scoping Study: Information Review and Feasibility Study. exSite Research Project Report 1. ISBN 0953309029. LQM Press (Nottingham) http://www.lqm.co.uk/lqmpress/

http://www.lqm.co.uk/lqmpress/


The use of non-hyptechnique, for examof course mobilisesslowly biodegradabremove metals from ising concept, but the removal rates are

treatment times of decades to centuries for soil metal levels to fall to ackground. In addition the removal effect only takes place where the roots grow, and the harvested

ustry stand-

treatments use large volumes of

etter evidence and project anagement than with conventional approaches. The key is to give regulators sufficient evidence for

eraccumulator plants and chelating agents has been tested as a phyto-extraction ple Indian Mustard combined with EDTA in the United States. The use of EDTA metals which can then reach surface or groundwater, and EDTA itself is only le. Other studies have focused on the use of biomass crops, such as willow, to soil as usable biomass. This is a prom

very slow, leading to estimatedbbiomass contains extracted metals. The Flanders regulatory position appears to be, however, that this harvested biomass could be used as its metal content still compares favourably with coal. Hence, while it may not affect metal removal from soil except over a very long duration, phyto-extraction to biomass is seen as a possible route for managing areas of land in Flanders11. An alternative approach is to use biomass types that effectively exclude metals, limiting their level in biomass, and relying on phyto-containment and stabilisation for a risk management effect. In both cases major regulatory concerns are likely to be verification to show a risk management benefit, and reassurance that an effective financial and planning mechanism exists to ensure the appropriate

anagement of the sites under treatment, given the long treatment duration. From an indmpoint such long term management approaches cause difficulties as they require an open ended financial commitment, and do not remove environmental liabilities. The third case study considered metal immobilisation to protect groundwater. This case study is very much “work in progress” and final results have yet to be compiled. Water resources in the Kempen area are threatened by metals migrating from contaminated soil. The conventional groundwater management approach is to use “pump and treat”, but this would be a massive undertaking that might achieve hydraulic containment, but would have little prospect of achieving a reduction of the source term. A major cost is the “treatment” of water where metals are present in environmentally ignificant, but low, concentration ranges. Conventional chemicals

reagents and generate large amounts of hard to dewater sludges. These are a waste that requires disposal. An alternative suggestion to pump and treat is to precipitate metals in situ as sulphides, using biologically generated sulphide ions. It is possible that in tandem with the chemical immobilisation of metals in soils, using techniques described in the first case study, with in situ immobilisation as sulphides could achieve the desired risk management effect without generating the large volumes of sludges. Once again the regulatory and industry difficulties relate to verification and putting in place effective management and financing for long periods, as well as accepting ongoing liability. A common theme across all three case studies was that the research has been collaborative between industry (Umicore) and regulator (OVAM), and of course the research performer. This engagement has allowed all sides to engage in creative approaches to problem solving before legal and liability boundaries need to be considered. The collaborators are then able to consider the technical, financial, regulator, legal and liability aspects of possible solutions together, and come to a common understanding of the likely effectiveness of risk management approaches. Defining the remedial approach from an industrial perspective: four case studies Markus Ackermann, DuPont, Switzerland Sound technical approaches, well designed and implemented can be approved by regulators, even when they use rather unknown techniques. This situation requires bm

11 In the UK the harvested biomass would may be treated as a waste, and so could only be used in Waste Incineration Directive compliant facilities.


them to be able to defend their decisions within their own administrative structure. This can require a fairly long period of engagement, and it can also add reassurance if the proposer makes use of national r regional academic institutions as this increases credibility with tho e regulator. Several case studies

ndwater downstream of the PRB contained e PRB in the late 1990s followed an extensive period

SA); CFC degradation is being studies at the university of Glasgow; chlorinated butenes and butadienes

lution was $4.5 sted a staged pro-active approach, commencing with full plume delineation

were presented to support these assertions, listed below. Case Study: Permeable Reactive Barrier (PRB) A PRB was installed at a site in East Chicago to deal with arsenic contamination (1-3 mg/l) in sandy, shallow aquifer. The PRB cost $0.9 million, whereas the conventional hydraulic containment solution had an estimated cost of $5 million over 30 years. The PRB matrix was blast furnace slag, which was inserted in a treatment wall configuration. Two treatment walls of 600 m length, 0.8 m width and 11

depth were installed, separated by 3 metres. Groumarsenic only at 0.01 mg/l. The installation of thof research from 1992, which was able to provide sufficient evidence to overcome regulatory concerns about the PRB approach. The knowledge gained has since been used more widely across Du Pont, and eight PRBs have now been installed on former Du Pont sites. This has led to a Cost saving of $30 million, compared with alternative solutions, mostly pump and treat. Biotechnology research In the UK the SABRe project was initiated to carry out field based research into improving the remediation of DNAPL. This test site work was integrated with laboratory based R&D in the UK and USA to gene sequences of dehaloccoides, a key organism in DNAPL degradation, as a detection tool, which is now licensed to an external company. Collaborative research to investigate the degradation

f chlorobenzenes is being undertaken with Cornell University (Uoundertaken in microcosmmicrocosm studies at the SIREM laboratory, Canada; and nitrobenzene and aniline degradation is being studied in a collaborative research project with Georgia Tech University (USA). TCE Plume Switzerland The TCE plume is in shallow groundwater, originating from former source areas at a Du Pont plant, and extends around 400 m down gradient of the site. The presence of the plume is interfering with a road tunnel project to the east of the site. The regulatory authority’s initial expectations were that pump and treat would be necessary to manage the groundwater plume, along with the ex situ treatment

f 20,000 to 30,000 tonnes of soil from the road trench. The estimated cost of this soomillion. Du Pont suggeand a human health risk assessment to determine the level of remediation needed to ensure safe conditions for air in the tunnel. Based on these assessments the risk management approach suggested had two components: (1) enhanced natural attenuation (ENA) using bioaugmentation for groundwater source treatment and in situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) with sodium persulphate to treat soil prior to its excavation. A Swiss research institute was used to carry out microbiological testing in support of ENA. For each component, a staged approach was used to collect evidence to support the regulatory approval process: laboratory tests; pilot scale design and implementation tests; then full scale application. In addition, the ISCO required a precise description and schedule for its impact on earthworks, and supporting documents for the road authority’s tendering procedure. The remedial approach approved by the authorities. A key piece of evidence in achieving this approval was that ENA would provide a more complete restoration of groundwater, with no rebound of concentrations as can occur with pump and treat. Key concerns of the regulator were the avoidance of use of GMO"s; the need to go through an official permitting procedure for introducing foreign bacteria; an assessment of DNAPL release-into the air when applying ISCO; and a demonstration that full plume containment with pump and treat was not feasible. The regulators had a high sensitivity of the ratio of cost to social issues, i.e. that the financial burden of remediation should not be inappropriate for a small plant. It is important to bear in mind that different stakeholders have differing drivers and pressures. A corporation will want to reduce its liability and maintain its public image, as well as limiting business impacts such as limits on site operations. From a site ownership point of view it may be important to


keep the site as multi-functional as possible. Authorities need to ensure compliance with laws and regulations. Unacceptable risks to the public must be avoided and resources protected. The speaker suggested that in the past a lack of knowledge often led to the imposition of unduly rigorous solutions and controls, for example: o reliance on excavation and removal o requirements for mass balances o prevention of injection of remediation agents into groundwater o reluctance to accept risk management processes that took place within aquifers, and

e, not necessarily better risk management solutions, and tal impacts from the remediation approach itself.

f, so that there was visible activity f the problem.

ity, for example pump and treat

-use an area fter a short period of time.

not optimised. The CRG is a team of 50 scientists and engineers with its wn budget which is prioritised across the company on a consistent basis. Spending and activity

k Programme, om 2005 through 2007. It has 24 partners representing a rage of interests: administration,

co-rdinating co-operation, exchange of experience, and development of common protocols, thereby:

o CG5 Environmental Efficiency

o preference for removal rather than transformation of contaminants. This led to solutions that were overly expensivpotentially with unnecessary environmen Often the drivers for expensive solutions are from industry itsel(excavation and removal / treatment) to demonstrate awareness and ownership oHowever, over design does not necessarily lead to reduction of liabilincurs continuous expenditure with limited benefit. Some times an intensive approach is the result of a business decision, for example, to ensure that source removal is complete and fast to rea Within Du Pont, the Corporate Remediation Group (CRG) was created in 1992 to manage all of DuPont’s environmental liabilities, following the companies recognition in 1991 that it had a large remediation liability, and was not managing this well. Decisions were being made on a site specific basis and the wrong precedents were being set. Practice across the company was inconsistent and utilisation of resources was odecisions are taken on a business basis to increase value overall, whilst exercising financial discipline in its activities, and seeking solutions with the lowest possible net present value (NPV). EURODEMO: “If you always do what you did, you will always get what you got” David Edwards, International Project Director, CL:AIRE, UK

he EURODEMOT 12 project is a Co-ordination Action funded under the 6th Frameworfrtechnology developers, service providers, and research organisations from 13 EU Member States, and is co-ordinated by the Austrian Environment Agency. The aim of the project is to create a permanent central platform for demonstration of technologies for soil and groundwater management byoo Creating synergies between existing funding programmes. o Establishing common quality criteria, in particular with regard to performance evaluation. o Producing a useful overview at the programme and the project level. o Establishing a central clearing point for demonstration of European soil and groundwater

management technologies. It includes seven Co-ordination Groups: o CG1 Information Flow o CG2 End-User Needs o CG3 Programmes and Projects

CG4 Decision Processes oo CG6 Technical Reliability

12 http://www.eurodemo.info

http://www.eurodemo.info/


o CG7 Knowledge Transfer

roject. It is a Co-ordination Action. It is not a demonstration o create a platform, complete with a business plan, support from funders,

ing demonstrations and a set of demonstration priorities based on or demonstration projects have been identified by EURODEMO as: property developers, contractors, regulators, service providers, funders

ncluding proposal evaluators), technology developers, investors, and verifiers.

he

technology use that ight be addressed by demonstration, set out in Table 7. EURODEMO addresses the first two of

es It is recognised that using the term ‘technology’ is often inadequate. Many remediation approaches

ach

o projects and European sites (25 Member States)

o

2 Stage / level 3

EURODEMO is not a research pplatform, yet its purpose is tguidance for setting up and executend-user needs. The en-users flandowners, problem holders, (i End-users of remediation technologies are often faced with “black-box” solutions, a range of vendor claims, single solutions proposed for heterogeneous problems and a perception of past technology failures. Consequently there is a lack of trust that technologies will perform effectively. TEURODEMO demonstration platform is intended to address this lack of confidence. The speaker identified a demonstration strategy over three stages in addressing barriers tomthese stages. The information being delivered by EURODEMO is as follows. o Data

Project data that has been independently reviewed will be differentiated from data that has not been reviewed (separate sections in the database)

o Technologi

are ‘processes’ involving a chain of activity. o Outre

Links to ETVP, USEPA and European (Dutch and UK initially) demo websites to be set up. Scope Only EuropeanCost data Fixed, time related, quantum related.

Broad Area Task Stage / level 1 Stage / level

Setting objectives Increasing Building confidence acceptance

No market resistance

Using indicators Credible 3rd party success stories verification

Buyers’ needs are satisfied

Applying tools Checklists Operating windows

Technology becomes a tool

Support Measures

Getting organised Building consensus

Creating a functional

Becoming apoint for

focal

platform verification Demonstration culture

Project database Data harmony ase EU datab

Critical mass National projects National projects EU projects Outputs Identify user

needs Priorities EU Conditions

Certainty Linkage to ETVP Verification data EU Q/A Co-operation Workshops Workshops Joint projects ‘Comfort zones’ Recognition Expansion Continuum

Addressing bottlenecks

’ RTD ‘pipeline Link up Specifications RTD process

Table 7 EURODEMO E Demonstratio O coverage shown shaded)

nd-User n Strategy (EURODEM


The project is makin 200 ts incluo the establishment da one on fun ities on

tion of three status reports an end-user needs workshop in Katowice and Special Session at ConSoil 2005 in Bordeaux

ermining the environmental efficiency of remediation

information systems y databases

on existing and recent projects for technology demonstration development of guidelines for setting up, executing and reporting on demo projects

Concept for a Remediation Technology Promotion Program ing

ramework for

iability

final conference

plan for technology demonstration for soil and broad priority

g across remediation technologies, a cus on new solutions to problems that currently are unsolved, and a focus on better solutions than we

URODEMO is designed to add value to the practice of contaminated land management in EUROPE.

s where these do not exist. It aspires to be a funding network ssembling a group of funding agencies that can share project costs, and to support feature projects

g good progress. 5 achievemen ded: of two public tabases ( ding opportun and the other

demonstration projects -recent and ongoing, o the establishment of an ambassador network ! o preparaoo development of decision making processes and criteria, o reports on the reliability of a range of remediation technologies and o the development of a draft framework for det

technologies. 2006 activities include: o on going enhancement of the EURODEMO web site ando ongoing addition of content to the demonstration and funding opportunito initial development of a strategy for funding soil and groundwater technology demonstration o a status report oo development of a drafto development of initial protocols and guidance for best practice in decision mako further development of eco-efficiency assessments and initial development of a F

Sustainable Land Remediation and Management o drafting of various guidelines and model protocols for checking technical relo a promotion workshop at EcoMondo, Rimini, Nov 8-11, 2006 2007 activities will encompass ongoing promotional and dissemination activities, a and report, an overall project report and completed suggestions for a Remediation Technologies Promotion Programme, including a prioritisation groundwater management, and a business plan for future operation. There are threeareas currently envisaged: supporting general confidence buildinof

are currently using. These ideas will be elaborated further in a consultation document, for which EURODEMO hopes to elicit collaboration from other initiatives, in particular: EUCETSA, PROMOTE, TESTNET and NICOLE. EURODEMO hopes to benefit service providers by allowing them to showcase their technologies in demonstration projects. Some of these projects will be selected as “EURODEMO” feature projects (see Figure 18) which will provide a greater depth of information to users, and also a greater level of promotion to the project sponsors. EIt does this in a number of ways. It links to the Environmental Technologies Action Plan as an ETAP Testing Network. It has in depth coverage across Europe: its ambassador network is approaching complete coverage of EU25. It works with national demonstration initiatives, and supports the establishment of national initiativeathat help promote eco-innovation in partnership with EURODEMO. The current EURODEMO project ends at the end of 2007. However, a further phase is being planned for 2008 onwards to exploit the initiatives built in the co-ordination action: feature projects, mirror initiatives in Member States and a funding network, so contributing to European eco-innovation.


Produced 1400t smokeless fuel and 765,000m3 gas from 2175t coal (per day) for over 40 years

Contamination – organics, lime sludges, cyanide,

onal Regeneration Agency, through its National Coalfields

Figure 18 EURODEMO's First Feature Project,

ow do we make Contaminated Land Management an obsolete usiness? Will I lose my job within 10 years? Bill Hafker,

ent of obsolete business by implementing technology and

anagement practices that cost-effectively deal with existing pollutionexcavation and

s prevention.

been existence for another 10 years. In this session a series of experts representing ifferent stakeholder groups will be asked a series of four questions:

ontamination will likely still be occurring but with hopes that we will have reached a steady state situation of winding that process

2. 3.

s a reality? ganisation/sector contribute to this goal?

hat would it take to make contaminated land management an obsolete business in

see five key components: prevention of future contamination, full knowledge of

land management, and advocacy for the necessary techniques. BP

contamination. where all of the

ammonia and heavy metals

25+ remediation trials

Full scale remediation started 2006

Funded by the UK’s NatiEnglish Partnerships,Programme

Delivered by the East Midlands Development Agency

the Avenue Coking Works, UK.

HbExxonMobil, USA Our ultimate aim as contaminated land managers has to be to make managemcontaminated land an m while preventing new contamination. Management of problems is moving away from solutions based on disposal, through the recycling and re-use of land and site materials, and on towardPerhaps NICOLE should take an increasing interest in contaminated land prevention as well as management. This session explores the premise that contaminated land might be an obsolete business by the time NICOLE has d 1. What would it take to make contaminated land management an obsolete business in ten years time

(recognising that in some cases the wrapping up of existing c

down)? Can it be achieved? What is each sector’s unique and/or key role in working cooperatively together with the others to make thi

4. How can/will your or

Industry: Anja Sinke, BP, UK Wten years time? I existing problems to be solved, securing achievable agreements on site closure, the use of risk basedspends more and more of its effort on problem prevention, and I personally would sNICOLE emphasis to encompass prevention as well as management aspects for landOf course, we can only say that we have dealt with contaminated land if we know existing problems are, and are confident that we know their scope and impacts. Some authorities in some countries still take a rather prescriptive approach to rulings on contaminated land management, which means that closure agreements may be hard to reach, or are not sustainable. They may not be

upport a shift in


sustainable because they use an unnecessary level of resources, or they cause undesirable impacts elsewhere or both. Risk based land management, as elaborated by CLARINET (www.clarinet.at) is a useful conceptual tool that ought to be the benchmark for contaminated land management and regulation. Advocacy is an important challenge to try and ensure that the most sustainable and suitable approaches are used, such as in situ techniques and risk based land management in all countries. Can this be achieved? Ultimately, contaminated land management will be a discipline of the past. Ten years is, shall we say, little too optimistic, but BP is making good progress! I suggest that as more and more sites are

contaminated land management will see a shift towards monitoring and

the ake this a reality?

he achievement of this goal will take a lot of co-operation between many stakeholders. Networks are

nagement. BP is taking a ery strong prevention approach (which is described in its sustainability report13).

etween the sectors working together to achieve this goal?

r than uniform across Europe. For example, there are s

hat would it take to make contaminated land management an obsolete business

ature is a highly adaptive system and can recover land for us over time, if we let

essary. Risk assessment, in particular ecological risk assessment, is a key part of l effects of land

key role in making contaminated land management unnecessary? Nature and how to support and exploit this. Perhaps it is

me to move from a “thresholds” based approach to risk management to measurements based on the nterest groups

is enormously important, it is also important for us to look beyond the contaminated land “sector” of

aremediated the nature ofaftercare. What in your view is each sector’s unique and/or key role in working cooperatively together with others to mTvery important in building mutual trust, understanding and co-operation. Specifically how can/will your organisation and/or sector contribute to this goal? BP spends in the region of €350 million each year on contaminated land mav Anja, you have been in more than one of these sectors in your life prior to BP and so have at least moved jobs, if not worked yourself out of one. Do you see there to be any tension binI do believe that all stakeholders are still very much in their own camp; cooperation and sharing of expertise and knowledge remains as important as ever. It is also apparent that contaminated land management is often country specific ratheenormous differences in levels of expertise of consultancies, contractors and even universities acrosEurope. Levels of market “maturity” vary greatly across Europe. Consultant: Sytze Keuning, Bioclear, Netherlands Win ten years time? Nher. Of course, this is an idealistic as opposed to realistic approach and some form omanagement is nec

f intervention and

contaminated land management solutions. It is interesting that the ecologicacontamination can be a lot less than one might expect. What is really needed is the knowledge to be able to intervene in Nature in ways that are most efficient. Can it be achieved? Not in 10 years, may be not even in 20… What is each sector’s We need a better insight into plasticity oftiecological health and quality of the soil and water. Communication between different i

13 See www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/STAGING/global_assets/downloads/S/bp_sustainability_report_2.pdf page 28 (32 of 78)


http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/STAGING/global_assets/downloads/S/bp_sustainability_report_2.pdf

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/STAGING/global_assets/downloads/S/bp_sustainability_report_2.pdf


environmental issues, for example considering the impacts on soil of global climate change and biodiversity, which could have far reaching consequences. Soil holds 95% of the world’s biodiversity. It is time to start looking at soil, even contaminated soil, not so much as a problem but as an opportunity. How could your organisation contribute? Bioclear (my company) will certainly still be working on contaminated land management in ten years time, but I anticipate a much wider soil management business in ten years.

ess in 10 yrs time?

his, including soil. Soil we elieve will still be one of our core businesses although the perspective will gradually change e.g.

lity of soil which is important for soil

t the normous microbial and genetic diversity in the soil which is a potential source for useful applications.

zymes that can be used in

hat would it take to make contaminated land management an obsolete business in n years time?

an a shift towards risk based land anagement; now we are in a transition towards sustainable land management. In

example, it may be sensible to site riskier industrial processes on safer geologies. urban planning. d pathway. The

ng and to have dealt with source terms.

What do your think will be your core businBioclear work on biological solutions for soil and other areas like energy and water and indeed also for space applications. In ten years time we think and hope we still will do tbfrom soil bioremediation to the ecological and biological quafunctions like agriculture and reservoir for pure water. An example is a more sustainable agriculture in which less pesticides can be used because of the property of healthy soil ecosystems of having a natural resistance against pathogens through the presence of certain groups of bacteria or fungi . Is there anything that you have learned in the other fields of your company's activities that you feel has bearing on the question at hand, and how we can meet this challenge? Yes indeed. Soil can become a source of sustainable development when you take in accouneFor instance, imagine that contaminated industrial sites, which we now regard as problems that have to be solved by clean-up also turn out to be reservoirs of interesting bacterial enindustry for the biological and environment friendly production of chemicals like chlorinated hydrocarbons. An environmental problem then also turns in to an opportunity for sustainable development. That is a strange but not unrealistic paradox. Contaminated soil contains bacteria that have adapted to the biological breakdown of specific chemicals that are rare in nature but available for several decades in contaminated sites. In these decades bacteria have developed specific biological enzymes (biocatalysts) with which they are able to degrade for instance chlorinated hydrocarbons into harmless substances. These same enzymes on the other hand can also be used for the biological synthesis and production of these chemical compounds, as scientific research is showing recently. Through other fields of expertise like genomics and molecular biology we can start to explore this potential in contaminated sites. Regulator: Victor Dries, OVAM, Belgium WteTen years ago contaminated land management begmthe future I foresee greater linkage between contaminated land management know-planning. For

how and spatial

However, I see a need for a much wider integration of soil quality considerations withTo deal with contaminated land problems it is important to focus both on source ansource term is the nucleus of the problem, but a halo or plume continues along the pathway. While intensive actions may be necessary to address sources, natural attenuation or enhanced natural attenuation may be the most sustainable approaches to “polishing” plumes (pathways) over the next 40 to 100 years. Can it be achieved? In ten years time we should at least have a common approach to linking prevention with urban land-use and planni


What is each sector’s key role in making contaminated land management unnecessary?

ed land management. But this has to be honest ommunication. It is important for each side to know the others’ boundary conditions. It is far easier

nows what is

to policy and to politics.

om now?

ave you seen evidence of changes in the way contaminated land is being managed that gives you scent?

of a soil strategy. This as been reached on the basis of open discussion. Even if there are parts of it that I do not like, at least

use what will really work? I have the feeling that an incentive nking soil remediation to “market opportunities” such as transfer in Flanders is a real driving force to

e. I would add that contaminated land management in

hat would it take to make contaminated land management an obsolete business in n years time?

will take a lot nger than that to solve. However, the nature of the business may be rather

ly paid and making much better use of technology. Contaminated

physiology and ediation strategy be highly sought

onsultants unless a client is attending the eeting as well; more case of negligence for inadequate work by consultants; tighter approach by

rs need to listen to practioners and address their research to the real challenges that are faced

I agree with the other speakers that communication between different stakeholder groups like regulators and industry underpins effective contaminatcto find a consensus from this basis than in a negotiation where no side ever really ksimply impossible for any of the other sides. I would also suggest that those involved in decision making should try and keep the lawyers out of the room until a mutual understanding has been reached, which can then serve as the basis of an agreement. How could your organisation contribute? We need an honest discussion about what risks Society is willing to accept versus its ability to pay for managing them. I and my peers need to bring this discussion What do you expect to be doing ten years frA changed perspective from a prophet in a desert to a farmer in fertile land? Hparticular hope, or scepticism, that we make it obsoleYes, I am optimistic. A promising development is the acceptance in the EUhthere is a European soil document. From a regulatory perspective do you see the likely need for / benefit of any special incentives or penalties to help progress toward this goal? This is a very hard question, becaliget things going; I do not really believe in penalties. If we cannot link and integrate soil to other market instruments, we’ll have a tough timEurope still needs the dissemination of a vision and knowledge from networks like NICOLE. Researcher: Paul Nathanail, University of Nottingham, UK WteWe will not be an obsolete business in ten years time, the problems lodifferent in ten years. There could be a lot fewer of us working in the field than now – more highland management is a multi-disciplinary field which requires a good grasp of mgeology, environmental chemistry, chemical analysis, toxicology, microbiology, law,subjects: site investigation, site characterisation, risk estimation, risk evaluation, remselection, design, implementation and verification. Specialists in these areas will after and well paid -but the generalists that we see still operating in the area will soon go out of business or retreat to their traditional areas of competence. Can it be achieved? Yes quite easily! Here are the necessary means: better public procurement rules that focus on quality rather than just price; regulators refusing meetings with c

any disciplines:

minsurers. What is each sector’s key role in making contaminated land management unnecessary? The danger with research is that we answer the questions we can rather than the questions we should. Researche


in contaminated land management. However, universities must also retain their independence and re of “radical

lways meet up face to face – this will only grow in significance. My feeling is that we will be faced

r decommissioning and from the problems the emerging

viour of contaminants once they are in the body or in e rhizosphere. In toxicology it is in the effects of mixtures and of low levels of exposure. In the

gligence.

s applied to reuse resources and / or to store and protect the environment are therefore evermore important. However, these environmental

agement, and e emerging discipline of environmental forensics is providing a more detailed basis for

objectivity. Perhaps one of the most important functions of universities is to act as a stothinking”. Universities should explore what is beyond what are perceived as the existing boundaries. How could your organisation contribute? My group has always focused on solving problems – be that through research, training or knowledge transfer. Communications technology is allowing us to work better with partners without having toaby enormous new challenges from nucleaeconomies in Asia and elsewhere are creating as manufacturing leaves Europe and North America. In ten years time I shall be teaching in these places. What would be the key research areas needed support the ability to meet the goal? Is it incremental on something already underway or some new breakthrough area that is needed? In the environmental science field it is in the behathfield of chemistry it is in the emerging substances of concern. In law it will relate to contractual terms (when land is bought and sold) and in the field of professional duty of care and ne Soil and water management in a global perspective , Huub Rijnaarts,

ageningen University / TNO, Netherlands W Recent studies indicate that the human population of the world now places a higher demand on its resources than it has the biological capacity to supply. In general Society needs to reduce its resource demands (energy and materials). Consequently echnologieretechnologies themselves should not demand an excessive ecological footprint. Sustainable environmental and recycling technologies are low in energy and material demand, low in cost and effective in mitigating damage to functional use of the environment (natural or anthropogenic production). This means, generally, “working with (help of) natural processes”, going with rather than against the grain of Nature. Environmental technology development and innovation has been supported over the years by a wide range of projects at the EC and national level. Innovation has greatly reduced the likely economic (and environmental) impact of environmental restoration. Figure 19 shows the example of innovation impacts on projected costs of land remediation in the Netherlands, with an apparent 10 fold reduction in cumulative costs, and time needed for completion. An important factor in achieving this reduction in costs, timeframe and impacts is having a better understanding of the living subsurface, so making more optimal use of natural bio-restoration potential. Natural attenuation has become an important part of contaminated land manthunderstanding natural attenuation processes. Equally important have been developments in the identification of microbial species and their functionality using gene probing and stable isotope analyses; as well as the use of strategic approaches for managing plumes in aquifers. This strategic approach depends on a separation of the role of source and pathway management interventions. For pathway management “engineering” conditions along the path of a plume enables the attenuation of components of contamination in a structured way, for example in line with the susceptibility to degradation under differing redox conditions. It is also important to take a holistic approach to the assessment of environmental risks, by understanding what are the most important drivers of unacceptable impacts. These may be unexpected. The Framework 5 WELCOME project found that the major input of TCEs to waters in Rotterdam harbour was from permitted discharges rather than indirect discharges from contaminated land.


October 2006Nicole6

0102030405060708090

100

B€

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003TimeRequired toimplement

20002015

2030

2100

WFD

Budget NL0,5 B€/yr

+Con

vent

iona

l cle

an u

p

innovation

Singlesites

Megasites

2200

costs

+ in

-situ

+ M

NA

SustainableManagement

National

technologypolicy

Non-sustainable Sustainable

Public/local authorities

Crisis’70 – ‘80

Figure 19 Innovation impacts on projected costs of land remediation in the Netherlands

Contaminated land management has moved a long way in the Netherlands. In 1987 policy was focused on prescriptive regulations linked to specific environmental quality thresholds (a noapproach). In 2006 policy is risk-based and “system-oriented”, based on achieving stable en

rmativedpoints

nd groundwater plume management in line with the Groundwater Directive. Imminent developments

f innovation in contaminated land management. For example, in the Netherlands, mediation of smaller sites is still to a large extent based on the use of expensive “intensive”

aare the adoption of integrated site remediation and management programmes, particularly for megasites such as Rotterdam Harbour and the Kempen, and also for managing smaller sites as “clusters”. However, there is, at present, a lack of confidence in these advanced approaches to environmental restoration. Smaller organisations and local authorities are seen as a “bottleneck” to the wider adoption oretechnologies. Local authorities and (small) company site owners feel uncertain about in situ and MNA approaches, and service providers do not always contribute to taking these concerns away. A training programme has been initiated to try and break this failure in confidence, whose name translated into English is: On the job learn-and-experience programme for local authorities and site owners with respect to sustainable site remediation14. This is linked to 24 pilot projects using in situ technologies and MNA, and provides specific support on working processes (interactions between site owner, consultant, contractor, local authority and regulating authority). In Europe and worldwide a lot of work is to be done to bring forward the message of sustainable site remediation. Three strands of effort/innovation are needed: o Science: technology and system understanding

14 In Dutch Holland In situ Proeftuin, HIP


o Policy, at EU and National level: (normative and risk-based legislation both have a role).

be a good basis for collaboration.

consider the soil-groundwater-sediment-: technology and

ystem understanding, policy development and confidence building for the public and local

o Building public and local authority confidence in sustainable technology solutions in safe learning environments, related to real world case-studies and pilots

Co-ordination of national efforts at EU level might Contaminated land does not exist in isolation of wider soil-water systems. A compartmentalised approach is not efficient and is not sustainable. It is better towater system as a whole. Again three strands of effort and innovation are neededsauthorities. Several research projects have been initiated, including: o AquaTerra (www.eu-aquaterra.de) o Living with Water AquaTerra-The Netherlands o SedNet (www.SedNet.org) o Welcome (www.euwelcome.nl) o Bridge (http://www.wfd-bridge.net)

t.asp?ProjectID=4578o RiskBase (http://www.eugris.info/DisplayProjec ).

holistic approach are combining sustainable soil and water building a consistent sustainable soil-water policy, at national

tainable solutions locally, ong the public and local authorities.

e Quevauviller, European Commission - DG nvironment

This is an on-going trend within the EU (via Framework Directives and Thematic trategies). Emphasis in the short and medium term is on implementation action plans, which requires

Waste Shipment Regulation (Basel Convention)

ctive but a new Thematic Strategy on Prevention and Recycling of es for specific products.

irective (75/442/EEC as amended), includes general provisions and principles

fe final disposal and the olluter pays principle. It covers waste generation along the resource chain from “prospecting,

effects of landfilling on environment and human health. It requires that there is no landfill without

The challenges for achieving thistechnologies at a wide range of scales; levels, at the EU level, and at a global level; and gaining confidence in susma

New policy developments towards better integrated approaches in the environmental sector, PhilippE Figure 20 illustrates the wide range of policy areas concerned with soil and water systems. Enhanced integration of policies is required, ensuring complementarity and consistency among the different policy frameworks.Sa multi-stakeholder participatory approach and multidisciplinary synergies at European, national and local levels. An emerging need beginning to be addressed is that integration and communication of scientific progress should be streamlined and made effective towards end-users. The talk focussed on three broad policy areas and their inter-linkages: waste, industrial emissions and water. Community waste legislation is determined by the: o Waste Framework Directive o Hazardous Waste Directive oo Waste Incineration Directive o Landfill Directive There is no “Recycling” DireWaste. There are several recycling / design Directiv Waste Framework Don all types of waste. Its scope encompasses the prevention or reduction waste production and its hazardousness; recycling, re-use, materials recover and energy recovery; sapextraction, treatment and storage of mineral resources as well as from the working of quarries” insofar as they are not covered by other (Community or equivalent national) legislation. Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC) Its scope encompasses the prevention or reduction of negative

http://www.eu-aquaterra.de/


prior treatment, bans certain types of waste and co-disposal and sets targets for the reduction of biodegradable waste landfilling. It sets out requirements for authorisation systems, control

rocedures, monitoring, technical requirements, methane recovery and costs reporting. The main pstakeholders affected by this Directive are the Member States, industry (e.g. gypsum industry, chemical industry, manufacturing), and NGOs. The major challenges for 2006/2007 are to mobilise Member States to speed up implementation and dealing with a large number of infringement procedures concerning illegal / uncontrolled landfills, along with horizontal cases against Greece, Italy and France, possibly also Spain, which concern failure to present conditioning plans. The EC also manages a high number of petitions and questions from the European Parliament.

INDUSTRY

POLICYgroundwater

POLICYWFD

AGRI-CULTUREURBAN

SECTOR

POLICYDrinking water

CENCEN TC 292

CENCEN TC 230

DRINKINGWATER

POLICYBathing water

POLICYBirds,

Habitats

POLICYSeveso,

IPPC

POLICYSewage sludge

landfill

POLICYPesticides,

Nitrates,biocides

RESEARCHRisk studies,remediation

POLICYUWW,CPD

POLICYEnv. Impact assessment

RESEARCHSoil & surface water

interactions

RESEARCHInteractions with

wetlands

RESEARCHWater uses

CENCEN TC 308

§ 345

Figure 20 Policy areas concerned with soil and water systems

Directive 86/278/EEC on sewage sludge Its objectives are the protection of the environment, in particular soil, plants and groundwater, human and animal health, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture. The Directive seeks to encourage and regulate theprovisions are that the use of sludge prohibited where limits for hea

use of sewage sludge. Its main vy metals are exceeded, that sludge

ust be treated before used, and that monitoring is carried out with regular sludge and soil analyses.

h n emphasis on stability and prevention of water and soil pollution. Its goal is to prevent major

m The Mining Waste Directive followed major accidents at Azñalcóllar (1998) and Baia Mare (2000). Its objectives are to ensure safe management of mining waste and prevent or reduce effects from management of all mining waste facilities (i.e. waste heaps and tailings ponds) throughout their life-cycle. It regulates the planning, licensing and eventual closure and after-care of waste facilities, witaaccidents or minimise their consequences for Category A (high-risk) waste facilities. Its measures are based on Best Available Technique (BAT). The Directive contains three main elements:


o Waste management plans to: • Prevent or reduce waste production and its harmfulness • Promote backfilling and recovery of waste • Ensure short/long term safe disposal • Closure and aftercare of waste facilities, abandoned sites (inventories)

o Permi o

ment (EIA) ultation

Accidents cident prevention policy

It includ ution, by meeting standards of EU enviro Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC, including

and minimisation of leachate generation, collection and treatment of contaminated water an a st and gas emissions, and ensuring discharges to water bodies su c Legislation

rries or by means of boreholes, which involve dangerous substances, as defined in Annex I of the Directive;

chemical and

A ents related to tailings

Ac

eration Directive (WID) Large Combustion Plants Directive (LCP)

96/61/EC) include integrated permitting to ensure high level of ntion and, then if not practical, emissions control; permit

(BAT) taking into account local conditions. BAT xchange with Member States and

akeholders. The deadline for full implementation for existing installations is in October 2007. The

• Monitoring, corrective measures, rehabilitation • Reviewed every five years • Approved by the competent authority

t pr cedures • operator, location, waste management plan, responsibilities • financial guarantee, environmental impact assess• Public information and cons

o• Major ac• Emergency plans, notification mechanism.

es measures to prevent water status deterioration, air and soil pollnmental legislation, in particular the

the evaluationd le chate, prevention / reduction of dubje t are compliant with standards of EU Water

The Amendment of the Seveso II Directive (2003/105/EC) relates to the Control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances. Its scope includes certain extractive activities: o Chemical and thermal processing operations and storage related to the exploitation (exploration,

extraction and processing) and storage of minerals in mines, qua

o Operational tailings disposal facilities, including tailings ponds or dams, containing dangerous substances as defined in Annex I, in particular when used in connection with the thermal processing of minerals.

BAT Reference Document (BREF) has been produced to help prevent accid

dams and optimise “day-to-day” performance of tailings and waste-rock management: Reference document on Best Available Techniques for Management of Tailings and Waste-Rock in Mining

tivities15. EU legislation on industrial emissions is determined by the: o Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive o Solvents Directive o Waste Incinoo European Pollutant Emission Register (EPER) o European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR). Key provisions of the IPPC Directive (environmental protection; a priority for preveconditions based on Best Available Techniques Reference Documents (BREFs) are based on information ets

Directive is under review in the light of experience with IPPC implementation, a drive for better and simpler regulation and to link to thematic strategies for air, waste and soil. Review findings are expected in 2007 providing a long-term vision for industrial emissions control and a legislative proposal if appropriate, based on an impact assessment. This would be unlikely to come into effect

15 http://eippcb.jrc.es/pages/FActivities.htm

http://eippcb.jrc.es/pages/FActivities.htm


until around 2012 at earliest, and there is no change in the short term, with the 2007 deadline unaffected. There are concerns about the implementation status of the IPPC Directive. Most Member States are likely to miss the October 2007 deadline, and there is a lack of resources for implementation in a number of Member States. There are large variations in permit conditions, which is an abuse of the flexibility (for local conditions) conditions in the Directive by several Member States. BREFs have not been sufficiently taken into account. Procedures are unclear for permit reviews in most Member States, and there is poor enforcement in several. European policy on water has evolved over the years (as illustrated in Figure 21). The key goals of the Water Framework Directive are: o protecting all (surface and ground) waters through established environmental objectives (‘good

status’) to be achieved before the end of 2015 clear milestones (characterisation, monitoring, programmes of measures) and management of

controls and water quality standards, plus phasing out of

o getting the prices right - to promote wise use of

o

Drinking WaterWFD

Water

Nitrates

IPPC

owaters based on river basin management plans (first in 2009)

o combined approach of emissionparticularly hazardous substances economic instruments: economic analysis, andwater getting the citizen involved: public participation.

WFDBathing Water

Surface WaterFish WaterShellfish WaterGround waterUrban Waste WaterNitratesIPPCExchange of Information Decision Surface WatersDangerous Substances

Bathing Water

Drinking Water

Urban Waste

TODAY

2013

REPEAL

Figure 21 Evolution of EU water policies

The Water Framework Directive requires characterisation of river basins (analysis of pressures and impacts) to be carried out in 2005, followed by monitoring programmes by the end of 2006, with the

ent plans by 2009 and identification of programmes of cluding waste, landfill, IPPC Directives) and Thematic

trategies. In each Member State the programmes of measures need to be operational in 2012 to

development of first river basin managemmeasures based on existing legislation (inSachieve Directive environmental objectives by the end of 2015. Exemptions likely to be numerous, with deadline extensions: to be seen as long term and iterative goal. Article 16 of the Directive establishes a list of priority substances (implemented through Decision 2455/2001/EC) and the development of Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) and pollution control measures. The substances concerned are listed in Table 8. Article 17 provides for good groundwater chemical status.


76/464/EEC Dangerous substances “List I”

Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)

o The 18 substances regulated under “so called daughter Directives”

o “PBList II”

other substances belonging to the

us effect on the aquatic environment

Priority substances: o “presenting a significant risk to or via the

aquatic environment” (included in Annex X) Ha s ubstances) :

alent concern

t

river basin

zardous substances (or priority hazardouT” s“o PBT or other equivo All o Part of the priority substances in Annex X O her pollutants:

categories included in Annex I (List I and List II)

o “any substance liable to cause pollution” o Identified by

o Deleterioo Metals

o categories included in Annex VIIIIdentified by the Member States

Ta s

mission proposal on Priority Substan 2006, and included s for surface wat entification

xisting daughter Directives lists and provided ional area of exceedance. Regarding pollution

ontrol, Commission proposals and decisions relevant to Article 16 taken since 2000 include:

mentation of other EC legislation key to success. e.

rity of key pieces of EU legislation, implementation has been difficult across all years for the Waste Framework Directive), implementation is

re thousands of illegal landfills; one in to be illegal; and there are frequent infringement cases and complaints,

ll of which pose a high risk of damage to health, safety and credibility. More than 20% of

e for MS and stakeholders Conformity controls

rted by DG Environment, JRC-IES, European nd Eurostat, aims to efficiently manage all water-related information at an EU

en various reporting mechanisms and needs, and providing access to eeds. It collates information from Member States, and

ble 8 Water Framework Article 16 Substance

The Com ces was published July Environmental Quality Standard ers, priority hazardous substance id(update/review of Annex X). It proposed repeal edefinitions of an inventory of emissions, and transitco Annex I decisions under 91/414/EEC o Marketing & Use restrictions under 76/769/EEC o REACH o Mining Waste Directive o Mercury Strategy o POP Regulation o Thematic Strategy on Pesticides Use o Full impleMany others are still to com Despite of the matuthe sectors of legislation reviewed. 30 not sufficient in many Member States. For example, there afour waste shipments is found aenvironmental legislation infringements concern waste, in particular relating to illegal or mismanaged landfills. Good implementation of existing legislation is at least as important as new legislation. Hence an implementation Action Plan has been seen as necessary for the Water Framework Directive, summarised in Figure 23. Infringements, complaints and petitions are closely related to Implementation Action Plans, which aim at reducing the number of infringements or complaints arising in the future. The objective of these plans is to ensure correct implementation through: o Dialogue, guidance, advicoo Swift handling of legal cases o Ensuring equal treatment of Member States. A Water Information System for Europe (WISE) suppoEnvironment Agency, alevel, ensuring coherence betweinformation and data for various purposes and n


also ensures information dissemination across Member States. WISE is part of a wider environmental information framework (EIONET/INSPIRE) encompassing air, soil, water, agriculture, climate and other sectors. DG Environment and DG Research have identified a need for closer liaison and better information exchange between the “environmental” and “scientific” communities in the water sector to ensure better use of the outputs of the Framework Programme projects and are currently exploring options for how this might be achieved.

Water DirectorsSteering of implementation process

Chair: Presidency, Co-chair: Commission

Strategic Co-ordination GroupCo-ordination of work programme

Chair: Commission

Stakeholders, NGO’s, Researchers, Experts, etc.

Art. 21 Committee

Working Group A“Ecological Status”

Lead: JRC, DE and UK

Working Group B“Integrated River

Basin Management”Lead: FR and ES

Working Group D“Reporting”

Lead: Commission

Working Group E“Priority Substances”

Lead: Commission

Working Group C“Groundwater”

Lead: Commission and AT

"GIS” Expert Network

“Chemical Monitoring”

Strategic Steering Group“WFD and Agriculture”

Chair: UK and Commission

Expert Advisory Forum“Flood Protection”

Chair: Commission

“Chemical Monitoring”

Figure 22 Water Framework Directive Implementation

Latest developments of the Soil Thematic Strategy, Luca Marmo, Europ an

he reasons for a Thematic Strategy for soil protection are that soil is a non-renewable natural

posal for a Soil Framework Directive and an pact assessment.

roposal for a Soil Framework Directive COM(2006)232 is to establish a framework for the

umans and human activities; (e) source of raw materials; (f) acting as carbon pool; and (g) as an

eCommission – DG Environment, Belgium Tresource; soils are increasingly degrading or irreversibly lost across the EU so there is a need for a comprehensive approach, as advocated in the 6th Environmental Action Plan (EAP). The content of the Thematic Strategy comprises a communication, a proim Communication COM(2006)231 lays down the objective of European soil policy, which is the protection of soil functions across the EU. It addresses research needs (in particular concerning soil biodiversity) and public awareness aspects of soil protection, and indicates the next steps at EU level. Pprotection of soil and the preservation of soil functions: (a) biomass production, including in agriculture and forestry; (b) storing, filtering and transforming nutrients, substances and water; (c) biodiversity pool, such as habitats, species and genes; (d) physical and cultural environment forharchive of geological and archaeological heritage. It proposes measures to deal with a number of threats to soil, as follows.


Sealing: Member States shall take appropriate measures to limit sealing or, where sealing is to be carried out, to mitigate its effects in particular by the use of construction techniques and products which will allow as many of those functions as possible to be maintained. A series of “agricultural” threats (erosion, organic matter decline, compaction, salinisation and

de public and reviewed ten ears. Member States will be required to develop programmes of measures within eight years

es will be required to compile an inventory of ontaminated sites based on an identification of specified soil polluting activities within five years.

tions to prevent or minimise ignificant negative effects on soil functions. Prevention of contamination provisions are that Member

.

Regions), to begin the co-decision procedure on the Directive proposal.

landslides) are specified, where Member States are to be required to carry out identification of risk areas for these threats within five years, using specified procedures, and taking into account the effects on climate change and desertification. The identification is to be e maycontaining: risk reduction targets, appropriate measures for reaching those targets, a timetable for implementation and an estimate of allocation of private or public funds. These programmes are to be made public and reviewed every five years. Contamination. A “contaminated site” is defined as a site where there is a confirmed presence, caused by man, of dangerous substances of such a level that Member States consider they pose a significant risk to human health or the environment. That risk shall be evaluated taking into account current and approved future use of the land. Member StatcMeasurement of the concentration levels of dangerous substances in all “potentially contaminated sites” will be required within 25 years. Sites will be classified as contaminated on the basis of chemical testing followed by risk assessment. The speaker assumed that sites could be de-listed after remediation. Use of Soil Status Reports by the competent national authority will help in the completion of the inventory. Soil Status Report will apply to potentially polluted sites and are to be produced when selling one of these sites, by the owner or prospective buyer. They will only be able to be produced by an “authorised body”, and will include: the background history of the site, chemical analyses referenced against national concentration levels triggering an on-site risk assessment. Member States will be required to remediate contaminated sites (although no deadline is fixed). Within seven years, Member States will have needed to draw up a National Remediation Strategy, including: remediation targets; prioritisation, starting with those sites which pose a significant risk to human health; a timetable for implementation and description of funds allocated. A mechanism for “orphan sites” is also proposed. Under this, Member States will set up appropriate mechanisms to fund the remediation of the contaminated sites for which, subject to the polluter pays principle, the person responsible for the pollution cannot be identified or cannot be held liable under Community or national legislation or may not be made to bear the costs of remediation. There are a number of overarching aspects to the Directive proposal. The Directive requires Member States to take an integrated approach to identify, describe and assess the impacts of the development of sectoral policies likely to exacerbate or reduce soil degradation processes. It includes provision for a "duty of care", comprising an obligation for any land user to take precausStates must take appropriate and proportionate measures to limit the intentional or unintentional introduction of dangerous substances on or in the soil, in order to avoid accumulation that would hamper soil functions or give rise to significant risks to human health or the environment. The proposed Directive refers to Directive 2003/35/EC in order to ensure the participation of the public in the preparation, modification and review of the programmes of measures on risk areas and development of National Remediation Strategies. The Commission intends to support implementation by setting up a platform for the exchange of information between Member States and stakeholders on: risk area identification for “agricultural” threats and risk assessment methodologies for contaminated sites (which includes the possibility of further harmonisation by “comitology”, if need be) After the adoption of the Thematic Strategy by the Commission on 22nd September 2006 it was transmitted to the other EU Institutions (European Parliament, Council, EESC, Council of the


Managing Contaminated Land risks at different scales – the challenges

mediation of our legacy of nvironmental pollution began in the 1960s. The original challenge was to clean-up our polluted

erns about human health, which is now e main political issue. The development of risk-based approaches to setting site-specific

to be addressed: Generic guidance in itself is not enough if site-specific judgements are to be made;

evelopment is being considered in a more holistic way, considering

700,000 contaminated land sites in Europe. It is not clear yet if the final form of this Directive will be

um need to influence...

ll assume importance again.

hoflan ess and report on the status of (groundwater and

i e scale point sources of

ahead, Bob Harris, Environment Agency, UK

here is a changing focus for contaminated land management. ReTerivers. Contaminated land became visible on the environmental agenda in late 70’s/early 80s, particularly with the reduction in heavy manufacturing and urban expansion for housing. These put an emphasis on reusing industrial land; resulting in increased concthgroundwater quality goals and generic soil guideline values for human health began in the early 1990s. This paper reflects on where things stand now. An overarching risk-based approach to contaminated land management has been incorporated in legislation in many Member States, based on the source-pathway-receptor. The risk management process of dealing with contaminated land and (ground)water pollution assessment and remediation is now well founded, with sound generic and linked site-specific risk-based approaches and tools. A Europe-wide consensus was reached on risk reduction fit for need, as set out in the CLARINET “Risk Based Land Management” (RBLM) concept, previously described by Mr Kasamas. RBLM includes the notion of a contact zone, soil which may come into contact with receptors where environmental quality objectives should be related to land use. Outside the contact zone clean up should take place only if there is a clear environmental benefit, with the proviso that mobile pollution needs to be managed, preferably using cost effective means such as MNA. To date the contaminated land management focus largely related to problems of particular sites, which exist on the small scale, say relative to river basins. There is a slow shift to “knowledge based” risk management techniques, and an increasing interest in the use of ecological risk assessment. Large amounts of contaminated land management guidance have been produced. However, some needs remain oo Risk-based approaches require well trained: regulatory and consultancy / advisory communities,

and informed problem-holders, there is .perhaps still some way to go to achieve this o In UK at least, there is a lack of joined-up legislation - a split in legislative drivers between waste,

contaminated land and water o Brownfield land red

environment and social as well as economic aspects. Contaminated land issues have slipped down environmental, political and regulatory agendas. Contaminated land management is and will be greatly affected by a number of European developments: o The landfill Directive makes dig and dump less attractive, perhaps in the longer term impossible,

which is a driver for treatment technologies; o A soil protection (framework) Directive has been proposed to deal with an estimated

prescriptive or a true framework Directive. There is much that networks like NICOLE and the Common For

o Water Framework Directive is now a reality, which means that industrial and urban water pollution with our mining heritage (water and spoil) wi

T e Water Framework Directive uses the measure of good aquatic ecosystems as a surrogate indicator

a clean and healthy environment (rather than concentration exceedance) and regulates at the dscape scale. EU Member States have to ass

surface) water bodies and manage through River Basin Plans to deliver good status. This Directive w ll bring diffuse source pollution sharply into focus. At the landscap


pollution do not appear so significant - diffuse sources dominate. The major problems are agricultural

.

the ontaminated land management sector are the in situ passive techniques, such as monitored natural

sms.

up huge legacies of pollution. Europe has much to teach them, in using risk-ased approaches as well as innovative technologies.

diffuse pollution, particularly from nitrate, phosphate and pesticides; acid drainage from historical mining activity; and megasites – in this context large scale urban pollution; and a (very) few specific point sources. The current situation in England & Wales is illustrated in Figures 24 and 25. The Water Framework Directive sets out requirements for integrated catchment management. Improvements to aquatic (eco)systems can only be realised by managing land use and / or remediating historical pollution. To date river basin catchments have been characterised. “Pressures” on these catchments need to be managed to reduce “impacts” on ecosystems considered in a whole river basin context within a “Programme of Measures” and a statutory River Basin Management Plan. The initial deadline to achieve good status by 2015, but achieving this goal is likely to be a cyclical process. River basin management needs a more holistic approach to understand better how river basins work, and the key geochemical fluxes and pollutant linkages which influence aquatic ecosystems. This should underpin a risk-based land management approach to all activities within a spatial land-use planning framework. This holistic approach requires closer working within and between scientific disciplines and more integrated programmes. It will also require underpinning with sound science Remedial strategies must be developed in accordance with the risks - i.e. on a site or catchment specific basis. Stakeholders need to work in partnership in developing appropriate remediation options; this becomes more necessary as the scale increases. Risk management must be both sustainable and durable, and also cost-effective with minimal disruption. Knowledge-based solutions are will play a key role. Important risk management techniques that might be adopted from cattenuation (MNA) and Permeable reactive barriers (PRBs). Considering contaminated land impacts from urban areas on rivers, strategies need to be centered on the river corridor, and how that might be impacted by different sources, and ameliorated by different management strategies. The river corridor is also a risk management opportunity. The zone of interaction between river and groundwater, the hyporheic zone is highly active biologically and geochemically. Within the contaminated land sector, networking, information exchange and collaborative working have been hugely beneficial in delivering consensus approaches across Europe. A challenge remains in knowledge transfer - between the research community and industry; and between sectors (e.g. waste and contaminated land). The European research community in catchment science needs similar linking mechani The Water Framework Directive (and also the proposed Soil Directive) is a new driver for remediation at the catchment scale, while human health remains a driver at local or site level. There is a need for better interaction between contaminated land and (inter alia) waste communities, both in terms of risk management and knowledge based approaches. At the global scale countries like China, South Korea and India are buildingb


Figure 23 River Basin Threats in England and Wales


Compliance of surface waters with good ecological quality

Pass 44%Fail 56%

Agricultural diffuse sources dominate

Compliance of surface waters with good ecological quality (excluding phosphate)

Pass 81%Fail 19%

Removing agricultural impacts highlights the old industrial and mining areas - the influence of residual land and water contamination

Figure 24 In England and Wales Agricultural Sources Dominate Impacts on Rivers


3 Setting the agenda for the next ten years The ten year anniversary workshop saw an unusual syndicate session where small groups of delegates were asked to collaborate to paint a picture of how NICOLE might develop over the next ten years, and provide a brief commentary. The paintings and their descriptions are available as a separate brochure from www.nicole.org. The session reinforced the view from many presentations that NICOLE is a vibrant network and has established a firm foundation of expertise, membership and participation in the management of historically contaminated land.

It also concluded that, while risk based approaches are now a widely accepted part of contaminated land management, more work remains to make sure that contaminated land management approaches are also sustainable in their own right, and perhaps that they are considered holistically within a larger framework of soil, land and water management. The reason for this is to bring about the greatest overall benefit for resources invested in environmental protection.

Many delegates also felt that it was time for NICOLE to expand its mission to encompass:

6. assisting the prevention of contamination so that the next ten years would see far fewer contaminated sites being created

7. supporting the career development of young professionals and encouraging them to contribute their ideas and originality into NICOLE

8. supporting the development of contaminated land management expertise in developing economies where increasing amounts of primary production and manufacturing were taking place, particularly in Asia

9. greater efforts in networking, to involve urban and land planning specialists and financial service providers such as insurance companies, to help promote understanding of contaminated land management in a wider context.

10. Last but not least the link between contaminated land issues and Society is the ultimate driver for contaminated land management. Perhaps some further outreach activities by NICOLE might help promote a wider understanding of how contaminated land can be effectively managed, and the problems posed if it is not managed.

4 Concluding Remarks These conclusions have been drawn from the concluding session of the workshop and from comments kindly sent in by a number of delegates and NICOLE members after the workshop. An important conclusion is that NICOLE has been a success, and continues to be a successful network. It is now of an age where many members who came to Leuven found that they had something to learn about the “history” of NICOLE, and found this useful in putting the network and its values into context. The overwhelming majority view expressed at the Leuven workshop was that while NICOLE has achieved much, much was left to do. A number of future challenges and suggestions for future directions for NICOLE were identified. The new framework Directives and thematic strategies place contaminated land management in a wider environmental management context, relating to the management of soil and water resources, spatial planning and the management of industrial processes. While from the perspectives of human health, redevelopment and land-owners contaminated land management issues exist at the level of individual sites, from the perspective of environmental management of, for instance soil and water, contaminated land effects operate at larger scales across groups of sites. These wider initiatives will play an increasing role in contaminated land management regulation and policy, and have been



foreseen to some extent in the recent Framework 5 WELCOME project, relating the management of “megasites” such as large urban conurbations, harbours or industrial parks; and emerging strategic approaches to managing contamination problems in aquifers and rivers. It is interesting that, for some countries at least, the major threats to water and soil quality appear to come from diffuse sources rather than specific contaminated sites. The largest historical pollution threat may arise from mining activities at river basin or catchment scales. There is clearly much work to be done in reconciling the management of pollution and contamination at different scales, and also in understanding what effects are serious at these scales. Ecological quality indicators will play a major role in this prioritisation. It also appears that there are a number of areas of controversy remaining with the proposed soils Directive, most notably the degree of prescription in its measures for dealing with contamination, its impact on environmental liability management, the optimal level of harmonisation in risk assessment and management on a regional basis, and the technical detail and guidance underpinning it. There are related concerns about the implementation of the ground water daughter Directive. However, one of the greatest concerns is the apparent differences in approach between legislation relating to contaminated land (soil) versus waste and to some extent water. The NICOLE Working Groups have a key role to play in providing technical scrutiny and information to the regulatory development process and also feeding back to the wider network possible regulatory and policy impacts on the management of contaminated land at the site level. Imperative for NICOLE’s future is to continue its excellent working arrangements with other stakeholder interests, for example the regulatory Common Forum, but also to reach out to emerging interests and networks interested in wider soil and water ,management issues. There was a lot of enthusiasm for the idea that NICOLE should adopt three new activities:

1) Pollution prevention, to prevent future land contamination 2) Out reach to emerging economies where land contamination is currently being created, ,

particularly in the Asia-Pacific region 3) Support for young engineers and scientists entering into contaminated land management work.

A number of delegates commented after the meeting that NICOLE was unique in being a network that has grown from an EC project into a self-sustaining and credible opinion former. There was clear support for it to continue in this role, both from its membership, and from other stakeholders invited to the Leuven meeting, including representatives from EC DG Research and DG Environment. So overall, the need is for NICOLE to grow and develop over the next ten years, and while unfortunately will not have made contaminated land management an obsolete business in this time, we will have dealt with a large number of problems, and moved the sector towards a more-knowledge based and sustainable practice.


Annex 1 List of Participants Markus Ackermann DuPont Switzerland László Ádám VITUKI Kht Hungary Paola Agostini Venice Research Consortium (CVR) Italy Yvonne Andersson-Sköld Swedish Geotechnical Institute Sweden Laurent Bakker Tauw BV NL Meri Barbafieri National Research Council of Italy- Italy Paul Bardos R3 Environmental Technology Ltd. UK Martin Bell Martin J. Bell & Associates Ltd. UK

Reinier Besemer Dura Vermeer Business Development BV NL

Eric Biriotti ExxonMobil France Jeremy Birnstingl Regenesis Ltd. UK Jordi Boronat I Rodriguez MediTerra Consultors Ambientals, S.L. Spain Cees Buijs Civil Service for Soil and Underground NL Ruud Busink Corus Steel BV NL Lucia Buvé UMICORE Belgium Walter Buydens ERM Belgium

Calina Cornea University of Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Romania

Paolo Cortesi Polimeri Europa SpA Italy Rae Crawford ExxonMobil UK Ido Croese Arcadis NL Geert De Buysscher URS Belgium Belgium Johan De Fraye Honeywell Belgium Sandrine Demeure TOTAL Petrochemicals Belgium

Siegfried D'Haene DEC Deme Environmental Contractors NV Belgium

Ludo Diels VITO - Flemish Institute for Technological Resarch Belgium

Victor Dries OVAM Belgium Cathy Eccles European Commission Belgium David Edwards CL:AIRE UK Christer Egelstig JM AB Sweden

Karin Eliaeson IVL - Swedish Environmental Research Institute Sweden

Thomas Ertel Sachverständigenbüro Dr. Thomas Ertel Germany Marjan Euser NICOLE Secretariat NL

Viktoria Feigl Budapest University of Technology and Economics Hungary

Jane Forshaw CL:AIRE UK Hannah Fraser ESI Ltd. UK David Gaule Ecofox SA Belgium Wouter Gevaerts Arcadis Gedas NV België Jacques Gillette MWH USA Olivier Gosset Gaz de France France Eugene Griffiths CTM Centre Tecnologic Spain Bertil Grundfelt KemaktaKonsult AB Sweden Bill Hafker ExxonMobil USA Bob Harris Environment Agency UK Benoît Hazebrouck INERIS France


Ian Heasman Taylor Woodrow UK Timo Heimovaara Groundwater Technology BV NL Thomas Held Arcadis Consult GmbH Germany Maurice Henssen Bioclear BV NL

Wim Hoitzing DHV Environment and Infrastructure BV NL

Natalia Hoogeveen DHV NL Andrew Hursthouse University of Paisley UK Roger Jacquet Solvay S.A. Belgium Peter Janssens Tauw NV Belgium Pavla Kačabová The Ministry of the Environment Czech Republic Harald Kasamas Ministry of Environment Austria Sytze Keuning Bioclear BV NL Ben Klinck British Geological Survey UK Galina Koptsik Moscow State University Russia Sergey Koptsik Moscow State University Russia Hans-Peter Koschitzky Vegas, University Stuttgart Germany Steve Leroi SITA Remediation Belgium Anneli Liljemark Sweco Viak Sweden Kris Maerten Regenesis Ltd. Belgium Roger Maréchal Ecofox SA Belgium Luca Marmo EC - DG Environment Belgium Vicenç Martí Centre Tecnológic de Manresa Spain Jérôme Metz TAUW Environnement France Rosana Moraes Golder France France Reinhard Müller University of Halle Germany Paul Nathanail University of Nottingham UK Pernille Nielsen MediTerra Consultors Ambientals, S.L. Spain Frédéric Perie TOTAL Petrochemicals France France Pietro Perseo SITA Remediation Belgium Tanja Pless-Mulloli University of Newcastle UK

Eckehardt Podwojewski MGG - Montan-Grundstücksgesellschaft mbH Germany

Philippe Quevauviller European Commmission Belgium

Huub Rijnaarts TNO Built Environment and Geosciences NL

Eva Romero-Girón Gracia Repsol YPF Spain

Peter Roose DEC NV Belgium Rudi Ruggeri ENSR Italia s.r.l. Italy

Lida Schelwald-van der Kley Port of Rotterdam / NICOLE ISG NL

Henk Seffelaar Rasenberg Milieutechniek BV NL Jean-Louis Sévêque Sévêque Environnement France Anja Sinke BP International UK Hans Slenders Arcadis NL Jaana Sorvari Finnish Environment Institute Finland Mike Spence Shell UK

Mugur Stefanescu Institute of Biology of the Romanian Academy Romania

Johan Strandberg Swedish Environmental Research Sweden


Institute Ltd. Mike Summersgill RSK ENSR Ltd. UK Eliana Tassi CNR Italy

Jeroen Ter Meer TNO Built Environment and Geosciences NL

Antoon Thijs Shell International Chemicals BV NL Andrea Tilche European Commission Belgium Divyesh Trivedi Nexia Solutions UK

Hans van Duijne TNO Built Environment and Geosciences NL

Eddy Van Dyck OVAM Belgium Marc van Gijzel Royal Vopak NL Willem A. van Hattem Port of Rotterdam NL Patrick van Hees Örebro University Sweden Derk van Ree GeoDelft NL Paul van Riet Dow Benelux BV NL Johan van Veen TNO NL

Emese Vaszita Budapest University of Technology and Economics Hungary

Joop Vegter Common Forum NL Gert Vermeiren URS Corp. Belgium Heidi Verstraete Texaco Belgium Belgium Elze-Lia Visser-Westerweele NICOLE SPG Secretariat NL Steve Wallace National Grid UK John Waters ERM UK Bert Wellens MWH Belgium Rob Wolbrink Royal Haskoning NL Michael Wright MWH UK Ltd. UK Isabelle Zdanevitch INERIS France


Annex 2 Ten Years of Progress: NICOLE Publications 1996-2006 Available On-Line

Use the link in the left hand column to download the document Workshops

Full Report of the NICOLE Workshop: Data Acquisition for a Good Conceptual Site Model, 10 – 12 May 2006, Carcassonne, France Slides and Posters for the NICOLE WORKSHOP: Data Acquisition for a Good Conceptual Site Model, 10 - 12 May 2006, Carcassonne, France Executive Summary of the NICOLE Workshop: Data Acquisition for a Good Conceptual Site Model, 10 – 12 May 2006, Carcassonne, France

Data acquisition was first highlighted as a key step towards deriving a conceptual model by the 2002 NICOLE meeting in Pisa, which focused on cost-effective site characterization methods. Invited papers at this workshop in Carcassonne, southern France, presented examples from real contaminated land case studies to emphasise the importance of good quality data acquisition for the development of robust and appropriate conceptual site models, combining information on geology, biology and the chemistry of the subsoil. The emphasis was on innovative and cost effective data collection methods in support of the site management decision making processes rather than “wanting to know what is in the soil”. The workshop included an excursion to the area of a former gold mine that has been undergoing an extensive remediation programme which is nearing completion. A range of presentations were given on-site illustrating some of the remediation methods tested and employed.

Full Report of the NICOLE Workshop: The Impact of EU Directives on the Management of Contaminated Land. 1 and 2 December 2005. Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy Slide Set NICOLE Workshop: The Impact of EU Directives on the Management of Contaminated Land. 1 and 2 December 2005. Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy Executive Summary Report of the NICOLE Workshop: The Impact of EU Directives on the Management of Contaminated Land. 1 and 2 December 2005. Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy.

The acceptance of risk-based land management of contaminated land (RBLM) was an early priority of NICOLE. The advantages of RBLM are that it is systematic and objective, it provides a consistent basis for dealing with issues such as uncertainties and decision making and it leads to solutions that are appropriate to the risks posed by contamination. NICOLE believes that now is the time to revisit the status of risk assessment with respect to the credibility and transparency of the results and to the degree of harmonisation throughout Europe. This report reviews a workshop convened to discuss these and other issues in the development of risk assessments. A key area that is still under development compared to other areas of risk assessment is the assessment of ecological risks. Owing to the uncertainties associated with the application of ecological risk assessments, this workshop has a special emphasis on the state of the art in this area. The workshop covered the following topics: • identifying gaps in ecotoxicological risk assessment • application of risk assessment • how far can we get with modelling? • implementation – examples from different countries • European dimension. This report provides summaries of the papers given, along with conclusions based on points raised during the meeting, and comments from a number of delegates after the meeting.

Full Report of the NICOLE The acceptance of risk-based land management of contaminated

http://www.nicole.org/news/downloads/NICOLE%20CARCASSONNE%20WORKSHOP%20V7.PDF





http://www.nicole.org/PUBLICATIONS/Carcassonne/Index%20Slides%20for%20the%20NICOLE%20WORKSHOP.htm






http://www.nicole.org/news/downloads/NICOLE%20CARCASSONNE%20WORKSHOP%20EXEC%20SUMM.PDF






http://www.nicole.org/news/downloads/NICOLE%20CAGLIARI%20WORKSHOP%202.PDF






http://www.nicole.org/news/downloads/INDEX%20SLIDES%20FOR%20THE%20NICOLE%20WORKSHOP.PDF






http://www.nicole.org/news/downloads/NICOLE%20CAGLIARI%20WORKSHOP%202%20EXEC%20SUMM.PDF








Workshop: State of the art of (Ecological) Risk Assessment, 15-16-17 June 2005, Stockholm, Sweden Pictures from the NICOLE Workshop: State of the art of (Ecological) Risk Assessment, 15-16-17 June 2005, Stockholm, Sweden Executive Summary of the NICOLE Workshop: State of the art of (Ecological) Risk Assessment, 15-16-17 June 2005, Stockholm, Sweden

land (RBLM) was an early priority of NICOLE. The advantages of RBLM are that it is systematic and objective, it provides a consistent basis for dealing with issues such as uncertainties and decision making and it leads to solutions that are appropriate to the risks posed by contamination. NICOLE believes that now is the time to revisit the status of risk assessment with respect to the credibility and transparency of the results and to the degree of harmonisation throughout Europe. This report reviews a workshop convened to discuss these and other issues in the development of risk assessments. A key area that is still under development compared to other areas of risk assessment is the assessment of ecological risks. Owing to the uncertainties associated with the application of ecological risk assessments, this workshop has a special emphasis on the state of the art in this area. The workshop covered the following topics: • identifying gaps in ecotoxicological risk assessment • application of risk assessment • how far can we get with modelling? • implementation – examples from different countries • European dimension. This report provides summaries of the papers given, along with conclusions based on points raised during the meeting, and comments from a number of delegates after the meeting.

REPORT OF THE NICOLE WORKSHOP Unlocking the Barriers to the Recovery of Soil and the Rehabilitation of Contaminated Land, 15-16 November 2004, Sofia, Bulgaria: FULL REPORT Slide set NICOLE Workshop: Unlocking the Barriers to the Recovery of Soil and the Rehabilitation of Contaminated Land, 15-16 November 2004, Sofia, Bulgaria Executive Summary Report of the NICOLE Workshop: Unlocking the Barriers to the Recovery of Soil and the Rehabilitation of Contaminated Land, 15-16 November 2004, Sofia, Bulgaria

The November 2004 NICOLE workshop in Sofia focused on the recovery of secondary materials during contaminated land rehabilitation. Within Europe, soil recovery processes have developed rapidly over the last decade with developments in many areas including risk assessment for decision making, clean up technologies and legislative frameworks. Nevertheless, most remedial projects still hit complex obstacles at one or more of the feasibility, planning or implementation stages. Discussions focused on the ‘pentagon’ of barriers for the sustainable recovery/re-use of land (technical, legislative, financial, contractual and perceptual).

Report of the NICOLE Workshop: Sediments and sludges: an issue for industry? 13-14 May 2004, Frankfurt, Germany. Full Report

The May 2004 NICOLE workshop at Frankfurt focused on the management of contaminated sediments and industrial sludges. EU soil and water legislation is now moving towards a more integrated approach of contaminated land, water and sediments, a ‘system approach’. Sediments are therefore growing in importance to industry. Likewise, many industrial companies

http://www.nicole.org/publications/http:/www.nicole.org/gallery/StockholmSlideShow/index.htm





http://www.nicole.org/news/downloads/NICOLE%20STOCKHOLM%20WORKSHOP%202.PDF





http://www.nicole.org/publications/NICOLE%20Sofia%20WORKSHOP%202(1).pdf







http://www.nicole.org/news/downloads/1DOWNLOAD%20INDEX.HTM







http://www.nicole.org/publications/NICOLE%20Sofia%20WORKSHOP%202%20exec%20summary.pdf








http://www.nicole.org/news/downloads/NICOLE%20FRANKFURT%20WORKSHOP%20V2%20WEB.PDF






Slides and papers from the NICOLE workshop: Sediments and sludges: an issue for industry? 13-14 May 2004, Frankfurt, Germany Executive Summary Report of the NICOLE Workshop: Sediments and sludges: an issue for industry? 13-14 May 2004, Frankfurt, Germany.

have to deal with impoundments at their sites, containing contaminated sludges. This workshop dealt with the many challenges to be overcome in managing contaminated sediments and sludges. It focused on recent policy and legislative developments in sediment/sludge management and effective approaches and technologies for mitigation and clean-up. Presentations will also addressed liability aspects (what is facing industry?) and technical issues regarding environmental forensics, sediment and sludge characterisation and promising treatment methods. Discussions focused on sustainable solutions for sediment and sludge management for different stakeholder groups. Click here to view the index page.

Report of the NICOLE Workshop: NICOLE Projects Reporting Day; 13th February 2004; Runcorn, UK; Full Report February 2004; Runcorn, UK FULL REPORT Executive Summary Report of the NICOLE Workshop: NICOLE Projects Reporting Day; 13th February 2004; Runcorn, UK

Management of contaminated land is an important issue throughout Europe, and one that involves many stakeholders: governments, regulatory bodies, the community, industry and the wide range of researchers and service providers who support the process. NICOLE supports two workshops a year and produces a meeting report for each. In 2004 NICOLE also held a project meeting for both NICOLE projects and EC-funded projects with a strong NICOLE connection, or connection with NICOLE members. This report provides summaries of the papers given at this meeting, along with a brief discussion based on points raised during the meeting, and comments from a number of delegates after the meeting.

NICOLE meeting report: Management of Contaminated Land towards a sustainable future: Opportunities, Challenges and Barriers for the sustainable Management of contaminated land in Europe, March 2003 Barcelona Executive Summary Report of the NICOLE Workshop: Management of Contaminated Land Towards a Sustainable Future: Opportunities, Challenges and Barriers for the Sustainable Management of Contaminated Land in Europe. 12-14 March 2003, Barcelona, Spain Slides From the 'Sustainable Land Management' opportunities, challenges and barriers for sustainable management of contaminated land in Europe, Barcelona March 12-14 2003

Management of contaminated land is an important issue throughout Europe, and one that involves many stakeholders: governments, regulatory bodies, the community, industry and the wide range of researchers and service providers who support the process. Over the last decade good progress has been made in developing and enhancing contaminated land management tools for site investigation, risk assessment, modelling and remedial techniques. The challenge for the future is to ensure that management of contaminated land, like that for any of the other complex issues which our societies face, sits within a framework of sustainability. NICOLE, the Network for Industrially Contaminated Land in Europe, held an interactive workshop in Barcelona in Spring 2003, to explore the opportunities, challenges and barriers posed by sustainable land management.

http://www.nicole.org/publications/1download%20index.pdf





http://www.nicole.org/news/downloads/NICOLE%20FRANKFURT%20WORKSHOP%20EXEC%20SUMMARY.PDF





http://www.nicole.org/news/downloads/NICOLE%20RUNCORN%20WORKSHOP%20V3.PDF






http://www.nicole.org/news/downloads/NICOLE%20RUNCORN%20WORKSHOP%20EXEC%20SUMM.PDF





http://www.nicole.org/nicole2/news/ann246a.PDF








http://www.nicole.org/nicole2/news/ann246b.PDF










http://www.nicole.org/nicole2/news/ann245.PDF








Report of the NICOLE Workshop: NICOLE Workshop: 'Sharing experiences in the management of megasites: towards a sustainable approach in land management of industrially contaminated areas', 29-31 October 2003, Lille, France Executive Summary Report of the NICOLE Workshop: NICOLE Workshop: 'Sharing experiences in the management of megasites: towards a sustainable approach in land management of industrially contaminated areas', 29-31 October 2003, Lille, France

The NICOLE workshop at Lille focused on two main themes: the management of “megasites” and “sustainable land management”. In broad terms the initial description for megasites has been that they are large conurbations of sites where contamination has arisen independently. However, often over time, as contamination has spread, these environmental problems caused by these sites have become inter-linked. The management of such conurbations may therefore be facilitated by taking an overarching approach, rather than trying to deal with each site on an individual basis. Even where contamination problems remain relatively discrete there may be economic, social or environmental advantages in an overall approach. Sustainable land management is a phrase that has been coined by NICOLE to describe a risk-based approach to land management that also takes into account the principles of sustainable development, a balanced environmental, economic and social approach. These are only initial descriptions. Neither term, megasite nor sustainable land management has yet been explicitly defined, for example in a regulatory or spatial planning context. At this point in time, these are terms that describe a philosophical approach to land management. The purpose of the Lille workshop was twofold: to explore whether a consensus existed to define these terms more closely, and to see how these philosophies might be translated as more operational approaches. The workshop included discussion groups and expert presentations. The presentations began with a review of the EC Welcome project, which opened the “megasites” debate in Europe. This was followed by a review of the legal, economic issues, policy, social and management issues surrounding megasites. The development of sustainable land management thinking in this workshop was linked to the megasites debate

Full Report: Financial Aspects of Site Restoration with an Emphasis on Central and Eastern Europe, 6-7 November, Budapest, Hungary Executive Summary: Financial Aspects of Site Restoration with an Emphasis on Central and Eastern Europe, 6-7 November, Budapest, Hungary

Technical issues are usually a dominant element in dealing with contaminated sites and NICOLE workshops have to date focussed on this aspect of the problem. In practice, problem-holders also have financial or commercial decisions to make. NICOLE, as a Network, is always looking to expand the range of topics related to contaminated land as well as to enlarge its geographic reach across Europe. Consequently, NICOLE held a workshop focussing on the financial aspects of site restoration, with an emphasis on Central and Eastern Europe (CEE).

Report of the April 2002 NICOLE Workshop: Cost-effective Site Characterisation, Pisa, Italy Executive Summary Report of the April 2002 NICOLE Workshop: Cost-effective Site Characterisation, Pisa, Italy

The 2002 NICOLE meeting in Pisa focused on site characterisation and in particular it looked at how site characterisation might be made more efficient and value for money enhanced. Site characterisation costs are inevitable. However NICOLE would like to find an optimum that balances the depth of knowledge of pollution necessary to manage risks against cost. Insufficient site characterisation will ultimately lead to higher overall site management costs as risk management cannot be effectively planned and carried out. Excessive site characterisation adds unnecessary costs for what

http://www.nicole.org/news/downloads/NICOLE%20LILLE%20WORKSHOP%20V4.PDF









http://www.nicole.org/news/downloads/NICOLE%20LILLE%20WORKSHOP%20EXEC%20SUMMARY.PDF




























is effectively redundant information from the perspective of contaminated site risk management. The meeting included several papers comparing costs and regulatory perspectives in different Member States and also the USA. Detailed technical presentations were made on a number of emerging site characterisation techniques and statistical tools, including: biosensors for toxicity assessment, chemical sensors for a wide range of organic and inorganic substances, geophysical techniques and also “direct push” technologies as an alternative to conventional drilling and excavation and the integration of sensors with these direct push tools. Characterisation techniques for soil air, water, groundwater and solid phase were discussed. A number of papers presented views on data interpretation, for example using geostatistics or using fuzzy logic. Keynote presentations were made on site characterisation strategies, in particular the value of adopting dynamic work plans in site investigation.

Report of the NICOLE Workshop 14-15 November 2001: Information and communication technologies for sustainable land management / monitored natural attenuation, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

ICT can help contaminated land decision making to be more effective. For example, Geographical Information Systems (GIS) can be used to store data and to help visualise data. Combined with geostatistical analyses, they can be used to interpret and extrapolate data, and to make suggestions, for example for most effective further sampling. GIS can be combined with decision support, for example to help decide where remediation work might have the most impact... At the joint NICOLE/CLARINET training event two and a half years ago in Copenhagen , MNA was considered to be a viable option for dealing with contamination plumes. Nevertheless, doubts existed then about the technical performance of MNA under different circumstances and the long time frame needed. Since then a lot of further development has taken place…

Report of the May 2001 NICOLE Workshop: Cost-effective clean-up technology; quality assurance and acceptance, Paris, France

NICOLE sees cost effectiveness and risk management as closely inter-related, in that risk management not only ensures that receptors are adequately protected, but also helps avoid the over-design of remedial solutions. The industry and regulator presentations and the case studies in this workshop all demonstrated the importance in Europe of risk management as a basis for contaminated land decision making. However, countries do differ in how risk management is applied at a regulatory and policy level. Contaminated land professionals need not just to be aware of the need for better communication of technical matters to all stakeholders in a project, but to take action to ensure this communication takes place. In particular technical people need to be sensitive to the legitimate interests of lay-people who have their own knowledge and perspective to bring to discussions. here is increasing interest in developing quality assurance systems as a means of enhancing service quality. However, delegates were sceptical that QA systems alone would provide















answer to total quality issues. Clients also need to bear in mind the need for an adequate level of investment in site information for good site management. The contaminated land industry as a whole is somewhat polarised between service providers who are looking for reasonable levels of investment in information, and problem holders who are looking for opportunities for cost reduction. The current technical debate is now related to the following issues: cost effectiveness, understanding "sustainability", stakeholder inclusion and quality management. This debate has emerged, and is emerging, independently in different countries throughout Europe. NICOLE sees an important role for itself in fostering this debate, and providing opportunities for its issues to be discussed by a wide range of stakeholders from the different countries of Europe.

Report of the NICOLE Workshop on Source Management, Helsinki, May 2000

This report sets out an overview of what constitutes "source management" based on papers submitted to a workshop held by NICOLE, the Network for Industrially Contaminated Land, held in Finland in May 2000. The principal conclusions of this workshop are that: Risk based decision making is the best available paradigm for dealing with the problems posed by land contamination. Its advantages are that it is systematic and objective, and it provides a consistent and defensible basis for considering uncertainties, discussing options and making decisions. However, a number of challenges face practitioners and users of risk assessment and risk management, in particular: public acceptability; dealing with uncertainty; validation and the development of practical robust and agreed tools. In addition to risk management, sustainable development should be explicitly considered in all remediation decision making for source management. Early and effective communication with all legitimate stakeholders is recommended to ensure the earliest and widest acceptability of any decisions reached.

Report of the NICOLE Workshop: Brownfields how to turn a potential threat into an asset, November 2000, Ijmuiden, the Netherlands

NICOLE initiated a meeting about brownfields remediation and redevelopment as part of its ongoing conference series, as a result of members’ intense interest in the brownfields debate. The two other principal European contaminated land networks took part in the workshop: ANCORE and CLARINET. NICOLE and CLARINET have a long standing working relationship

Meeting Note: VEGAS / NICOLE Workshop: The role of networks, R&D and technology transfer towards an eco-efficient/cost effective management of contaminated land. 30 September 1999

The role of networks, R&D and technology transfer towards an eco-efficient/cost effective management of contaminated land. 30 September 1999

Proceedings of the NICOLE The meeting objectives were to review the problem of industrial



















Meeting: Industrial Land Contaminated by Heavy Metals Bilbao 20-21 May 1999

land contamination by heavy metals, to progress and research findings to date, and to identify further research needs and develop new projects proposals to address them.

Meeting Minute: Soils Science Cluster, Nancy, France. 17 November 1998

The three main topics identified for structuring exchange activities have been discussed, They are defined on the basis of a fundamental research area of soils science and a present field of application within on-going research projects

The NICOLE/NOBIS conference on in situ bioremediation. Review of the meeting at the Golden Tulip … Executive Summary: The NICOLE/NOBIS conference on in situ bioremediation. Review of the meeting at the Golden Tulip …

Two European contaminated land networks NICOLE and NOBIS held a joint conference on recent advances in the state of the art of bioremediation. NICOLE is a concerted action of the EC Environment and Climate Research Programme. NOBIS is a national programme of the Netherlands. Four technical

Report of the Topic Development Workshop, Brussels, 11/12 September 1997

Eleven proposals attracted the support of participants in the workshop and during the meeting consortia of organisations which were willing to contribute began to form. In the light of the discussions that took place, the proposers agreed to modify and/or develop their ideas and begin…

Working Group 3, Workshop: Control Methods (Remediation and Containment, 17-18 April 1997

Based on the results, the first year of NICOLE has been considered successful, all milestones and deliverables have been met, a large number of topics have emerged, identification of research needs…

NICOLE Working Group Report: WG 1, Workshop on Site Assessment and Characterisation

The top-5 research items were selected and small groups were formed to take further action on each of those items. Industry members and scientific experts are now working together to produce joint research proposals…

Working Group 2 Workshop: Contaminant Behaviour and Risk Assessment , Nancy, France, 6-8th of November 1996

The main aim of the workshop was to identify areas where future research and development was required in order that risk assessment-based approaches to contaminated land management might be founded on sound scientific approaches

Overview Of The Inaugural NICOLE Meeting, Hanover, May 22nd, 1996

NICOLE is a Europe wide initiative by industry and the European Commission to provide a forum for problem holders and researchers to come together to find workable solutions to the problems of contaminated land

Downloadable Project Reports and Training

NICOLE Project: In 2000 NICOLE set up a data sharing programme for

http://www.nicole.org/publications/NICOLEscoreme.PDF



http://www.nicole.org/publications/NICOLEnobrp.PDF




http://www.nicole.org/publications/NICOLEnob.PDF





http://www.nicole.org/publications/NICOLEsolvrep.PDF



http://www.nicole.org/publications/NICOLEwg3rep.PDF













http://www.nicole.org/publications/NICOLEhannrep.PDF



http://www.nicole.org/news/downloads/MNA%20DEMONSTRATION%20-%20IN%20ENGLISH.PDF


Monitored Natural Attenuation / demonstration & review of the applicability of MNA at 8 field sites - Overview Dutch summary French summary German summary Italian summary

industrial sites to investigate the possibilities for MNA. Over four years eight industrial partners made investigations as part of this demonstration project. Summary site reports were reviewed by twelve independent reviewers. In general MNA was viewed as applicable and effective at many sites. The proposed methodology with the three common lines of evidence was considered very useful. Differences of opinion from reviewers of different nationalities were marked. The results and final report of this project was presented at the NICOLE meeting in Sardinia in December 2005. Authors: Hans Slenders (TNO), Roger Jacquet (Solvay), Anja Sinke (BP) Publication Details: Slenders, H., Jacquet, R., Sinke, A. (2005) NICOLE Project: Monitored Natural Attenuation / demonstration & review of the applicability of MNA at 8 field sites - Overview (Italian Summary) NICOLE Secretariat, TNO, Appeldoorn, Netherlands. www.nicole.org A hard copy of the full report, with all project data and summary reports, can be bought from the NICOLE Secretariat for Euro 50 (excl. VAT). Please contact the NICOLE secretariat [email protected]) if you wish to receive the full report Year: 2005 Size: 424. KB

The Interaction between Soil and Waste Legislation in Ten European Union Countries

Description: An outcome of the NICOLE workshop in Sofia in November 2004, was that the role of waste legislation on a national and European Union (EU) level in contaminated land management is a key issue affecting NICOLE members. It also became clear from recent European Court of Justice (ECJ) rulings that the definition of waste on an EU level and its interpretation at a national level may differ from country to country. Following the Sofia workshop NICOLE decided that it would be worthwhile to prepare an overview of a series of countries on how they have dealt with the relationship between waste and (contaminated) soil. Its aim can be summarised as follows: • Review of the existing legal situation in a number of countries pertaining to soil and waste • Extent of the (legal) link between contaminated soil and waste • Organisation of reuse of contaminated soil • Conditions under which contaminated soil could be left in place This report reviews the findings of this project. Authors: NICOLE: Johan de Fraye and Elze-Lia Visser Publication Details: de Fraye, J. and Visser, E-L.(2006) NICOLE Report: The Interaction between Soil and Waste

http://www.nicole.org/publications/MNA%20Dutch.pdf

http://www.nicole.org/publications/MNA%20French.pdf

http://www.nicole.org/publications/MNA%20Demonstration%20-%20in%20German.pdf

http://www.nicole.org/publications/MNA%20Italian.pdf

http://www.nicole.org/publications/Nicole%20study,%20Fraye-Visser%20prot.pdf





Legislation in Ten European Union Countries. Summary available on www.nicole.org. Full report available from Secretariat NICOLE, TNO, PO Box 342, 7300 AH Apeldoorn, The Netherlands Year: 2005 Size: 804. KB

Background Document NICOLE Study 'The Interaction between Soil and Waste Legislation in 10 European Union Countries' Available from NICOLE Secretaria, TNO, Appeldoorn, the Netherlands. Download from www.nicole.org

Description: An outcome of the NICOLE workshop in Sofia in November 2004, was that the role of waste legislation on a national and European Union (EU) level in contaminated land management is a key issue affecting NICOLE members. It also became clear from recent European Court of Justice (ECJ) rulings that the definition of waste on an EU level and its interpretation at a national level may differ from country to country. Following the Sofia workshop NICOLE decided that it would be worthwhile to prepare an overview of a series of countries on how they have dealt with the relationship between waste and (contaminated) soil. Its aim can be summarised as follows: • Review of the existing legal situation in a number of countries pertaining to soil and waste • Extent of the (legal) link between contaminated soil and waste • Organisation of reuse of contaminated soil • Conditions under which contaminated soil could be left in place This report reviews the findings of this project. This document provides background information supporting the summary report Authors: Johan de Fraye and Elze-Lia Visser Publication Details: de Fraye, J. and Visser, E-L (2005) Year: 2005 Size:

NICOLE Communication on Contaminated Land Booklet

Description: 'Contaminated land risk assessment and remediation can either be driven by the need to protect the public and the environment or by brownfield redevelopment. Whilst brownfield redevelopment brings tangible benefits that can be seen by all, different stakeholder groups will perceive different ratios of 'costs' (in their broadest sense) to benefits. Where remediation is to protect public health and the environment, it might be assumed that all stakeholders would welcome remediation. However, experience has shown that responses can range from outright opposition to any action to extreme concern. The communication of risks associated with contaminated land to those who are not directly involved in the project is unique in the sense that soil and groundwater contamination tends to be invisible and may therefore be

http://www.nicole.org/publications/Background%20document%20NICOLE%20Waste-Soil%20study.pdf










http://www.nicole.org/news/downloads/NICOLE%20COMMUNICATION%20ON%20CONTAMINATED%20LAND.PDF

http://www.nicole.org/news/downloads/NICOLE%20COMMUNICATION%20ON%20CONTAMINATED%20LAND.PDF


perceived as a 'hidden danger' caused by others, with exposure being largely involuntary. It is also often disruptive and with no perceived direct benefits to many of those involved. It is therefore a challenge for companies to communicated contaminated land issues to their stakeholders and to effectively communicate the possible options of the necessary actions or measures to be taken. Experience shows that effective communication can lead to a better quality of solution for all parties concerned and to its wider acceptance. NICOLE, the Network for Industrially Contaminated Land in Europe, recognizes the need for practical guidance on risk communication in the context of sustainable land management. As a follow-up to an earlier NICOLE project on risk communication1 this NICOLE booklet provides further practical guidance and examples. Many industrial and service providing companies were willing to share their best practices and communication experiences. Their case studies are described in this booklet along with the key communication lessons distilled from them. I trust that this booklet will be both enjoyable to read and the key messages valuable when considering the format of your own communications with stakeholders on contaminated land issues'. Authors: Lida Schelwald-vd Kley Publication Details: NICOLE (2004) Communication on contaminated land. NICOLE Secretariat, TNO, PO Box 342, 7300 AH Apeldoorn, the Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] Year: 2004 Size:

Overview of the EC Framework 5 project PURE (Protection of Groundwater Resources at Industrially Contaminated Sites)

Description: The PURE project (protection of groundwater resources at contaminated sites) aimed to: (a) provide innovative, cost effective, widely applicable solutions to prevent pollution of groundwater from industrial sites (b) bring together problem owners, service providers, end users and research and development performers and (c) develop methods and / or techniques for contaminated land management with the goal of achieving cost savings for site characterization (20 %) and site remediation (20-40%). Two presentations focused on innovative in situ techniques developed by PURE – steam enhanced soil venting and co-solvent flushing, and the PURE “ABC” decision support tool.

http://www.nicole.org/publications/Pure%20brochure%20(def).pdf






Authors: Anje Sinke et al. Publication Details: Project overview produced for NICOLE Year: 2004 Size:

Final Report of NICOLE Project to Evaluate Human Health Risk Assessment Models - Executive Summary

Description: In March 2002, NICOLE published a discussion paper on the role of risk assessment in sustainable land management. One of the questions posed in this document is in regard to Risk Assessment models and the differences between them. In early 2002, the Industrial Sub-Group (ISG) of NICOLE contracted with Arcadis Geraghty & Miller International Inc (“Arcadis GMI”), to undertake a study to examine the human health risk assessment models being used in Europe. The aim of the study was to critically appraise the human health risk assessment models / systems commonly used in the different countries of Europe. The specific objectives of the study were: • To increase the awareness and understanding of model variability for Risk Assessors applying the models; • To provide confidence to Risk Managers relying on model output to facilitate environmental decision making. Authors: Katy Baker, Matt Gardner, Helen Hayward, Cecilia MacLeod ET AL: ARCADIS Geraghty and Miller International Publication Details: Executive Summary Available for download. A copy of the report executive summary is available for download. Copies of the full report are available from the NICOLE Secretariat: - on CD (free for NICOLE members / for others Euro 100 excl. VAT) - paper version for Euro 150 per copy You can send your order for the report now to mailto:[email protected] Please indicate whether you want to receive the CD-version (Euro 100) or the paper-version (Euro 150). Please also indicate your invoice-address and the VAT number of your organisation. Don't forget to mention your postal address. After receipt of your order, NICOLE will send you an invoice. And as soon as payment has been received, then NICOLE will send you the report. Year: 2004 Size: 1.3 MB

http://www.nicole.org/news/downloads/NICOLE%20RA%20MODELS%20PROJECT%20EXECUTIVE%20SUM.PDF






Description: Provides information in a question and answer format for non-sepcialists about the role of risk assessment in sustainable land management. Sections are: 1. Background: Need for sustainable land management 2. Concept of Risk Based Land Management 3. Q&A on Risk Based Land Management, which contains eleven questions and answers, including an overview of how to obtain further information. Authors: NICOLE Publication Details: NICOLE Paper Year: 2001 Size: 1700 KB

Discussion Paper on the Need for Sustainable Land Management. Role of a Risk assessment Based Approach In Dutch In French In Hungarian In Italian In Spanish

1999 Training Course on Natural Attenuation

EDIT DELETE Description: The workshop was designed to provide technical information on the latest research and knowledge on NA, supported by case studies of European sites where this technology has been successfully utilised. Authors: NICOLE Publication Details: NICOLE Training 1999 Year: 1999 Size: 21 KB

Monitored Natural Attenuation - Review of Exisiting Guidelines and Protocols

Description: The report reviews MNA protocols from Europe and North America. It suggests a European guideline to evaluate monitored natural attenuation as a remediation strategy. Authors: Sinke A and le Hecho I Publication Details: Sinke A and le Hecho I (1999) Monitored Natural Attenuation - Review of Exisiting Guidelines and Protocols, TNO-NICOLE Report R99-313, Order Number: 28684. TNO-MEP. Appeldoorn, the Netherlands Year: 1999 Size: 3.15 MB

Joint Newsletters and Common Statements

CLARINET and NICOLE Special Edition of Land Contamination and Reclamation: The

Description: CLARINET and NICOLE have contributed to this special issue of Land Contamination and Reclamation as part of their support for the effective implementation of the EC Framework 5 RTD Programme,

http://www.nicole.org/publications/Nicole%20Q&A.PDF









http://www.nicole.org/training/naturalatten/copenhagenoverviewfinaldraft.PDF

http://www.nicole.org/training/naturalatten/copenhagenoverviewfinaldraft.PDF

http://www.nicole.org/nicoleteam/Addpublication.asp?ID=20&Action=Edit&Listing=1

http://www.nicole.org/nicoleteam/DeletePublication.asp?ID=20&Title=1999%20Training%20Course%20on%20Natural%20Attenuation&Listing=1

http://www.nicole.org/news/downloads/RAPPORT%2099-313%20COMPLEET+KAFT.PDF









Sustainable Management and Remediation of Contaminated Land Management and Remediation of Contaminated Land

and to provide an overview of their work to a wide audience of practitioners in the field. This special issue highlights the recent and current activities of CLARINET and NICOLE and the progress that is being made towards the establishment of better risk-based land management protocols and practices in the EU. It provides an overview of current research programmes including the current call for EU research under Framework 5, and identifies commonly perceived research needs among stakeholders in European countries. Authors: NICOLE Publication Details: Bardos, R.P. and Lewis, A.J. (2001) CLARINET and NICOLE Special Edition, The Sustainable Management and Remediation of Contaminated Land. Land Contamination and Reclamation 9 (1) 47-174 Year: 2001 Size: 11 KB (874 KB in Total)

NICOLE, CLARINET, ETCA and SENSPOL Joint Statement, Management of contaminated land for the protection of water resources

Description: A long history of environmental pollution is archived in soils and sediments. Water transfer through too many contaminated sites across Europe results in unacceptable levels of contaminants leaching into the groundwater. Former industrial areas, contaminated agricultural soils, contaminated sediments and landfills are already causing a diversity of serious problems for land-use, groundwater (a major source of drinking water) and terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Land-use changes and climatic changes may turn more of the sinks of pollution that are present in soils and sediments into new sources. Authors: NICOLE CLARINET, ETCA and SENSPOL Publication Details: The September 2000 Joint Statement of NICOLE, CLARINET, ETCA and SENSPOL Year: 2000 Size: 59 KB

NICOLE Route Map: The Site Management Journey

Description: This pictogram was inspired by the CLARINET Steering Group discussion of the need to be able to map the decision making route that people face when confronting contaminated land issues. It is intended to show the various routes, challenges and obstacles that authorities, owners and the public jointly face when confronting a potentially contaminated piece of land, and how they might move together to having the sense of reaching a secure fit-for-use conclusion for its remediation and its present or future use.

http://www.nicole.org/publications/joint%20statement%202000.PDF









Authors: NICOLE, CLARINET Publication Details: NICOLE 2000 Year: 1998 Size: 582 KB

CLARINET / NICOLE Joint Statement: Better Decision Making Now, The use of Risk Assessment and Risk Management

Description :In this Joint Statement CLARINET and NICOLE present the common view that risk based approaches are vital to allow governments and industry to deal with contaminated land. The current state-of-the-art provides an effective set of tools for better decision making now… Authors: NICOLE , CLARINET Publication Details: CLARINET / NICOLE Joint Publication, October 1998 Year: 1998 Size: 54 KB

CARACAS / NICOLE Joint Statement: Towards a Better Future: Establishing Fitness for Use and Sustainable

Description: Past and present human activities which introduce contaminants to the soil and groundwater have resulted in some 750,000 sites across Europe with suspected contamination. Some of these sites may endanger water resources, ecosystems, and/or human health. Better methods are needed for assessing the likely impacts on humans and the environment… Authors: NICOLE, CARACAS Publication Details: CARACAS / NICOLE Joint Publication, October 1997 Year: 1997 Size: 38 KB

NICOLE Research Opinion NICOLE Research Opinion - Summary

Description: The use of a risk-based site management approach to contaminated land issues is an approach which industry and most regulators see as the only realistic way to allocate priorities and finite resources in this area. The development… Authors: NICOLE Publication Details: NICOLE August 1997 Year: 1997 Size: 83 KB

NICOLE Newsletters Newsletters since 1996 can be viewed at http://www.nicole.org/publications/library.asp?listing=9

Note: links to additional papers involving NICOLE members are available from the NICOLE web site publications area.

http://www.nicole.org/publications/NICOLEjoint2.PDF





http://www.nicole.org/publications/NICOLEjntnlallrevd.PDF




http://www.nicole.org/publications/NICOLE%20opinion%20on%20contaminated%20land%20research.PDF

http://www.nicole.org/publications/NICOLEresopn.PDF

http://www.nicole.org/publications/NICOLEresopn.PDF
