Project no.

(GOCE) 003985

Acronym: EuroDemo

Project title: European Platform for Demonstration of Efficient Soil and Groundwater
Remediation

Instrument: Coordination Action

Thematic Priority: Sub-priority 1.1.6.3: Global change and ecosystems,

II.2.2.b: Soil-groundwater protection and rehabilitation

D 2.4 Prioritisation plan for technology demonstration in the field of contaminated

soil and groundwater management

Final – November 2007

Due date of deliverable: 30th November 2007
Actual submission date: 30th November 2007

Start date of project: 01.01.2005 Duration: 3 years

Organisation name of lead contractor for this deliverable CL:AIRE

Project funded by the European Commission within the Sixth Framework Programme
(2002-2006)
Dissemination Level

PU Public PU

PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services)

Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission

RE
Services)
Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission
CO
Services)
Contents
Preamble .............................................................................................................................3
Executive Summary and recommendations.........................................................................4
Findings –.........................................................................................................................4
Proposal – ........................................................................................................................4
Figure 1- A simple funding tool for soil and groundwater technology demonstration
projects.............................................................................................................................6
Introduction ..........................................................................................................................7
The Challenge..................................................................................................................7
The Institutional level ....................................................................................................7
Figure 2: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) framework - ISO 14040 (1997).......................7
Table 1: Tiered approach for assessing wider environmental effects of land
remediation technologies and projects .............................................................................8
Defining Options, Goal and Scope ...................................................................................8
Qualification of Environmental Impacts (Tier 1)................................................................9
Figure 3: Definition of processes (example) - Key elements of a Permeable Reactive
Barrier (left) and a conventional pump & treat-system (right) considered for a LCA
(BAYER, P., FINKEL, M. 2006)........................................................................................9
Table 2: List of Environmental Impact Categories for qualifying environmental
impacts of remediation projects and technologies (Tier 1 Assessment).........................10
Simplified, quantitative Assessment of Environmental Impacts (Tier 2) .........................10
Table 3: Grouping of remediation technologies and processes of major relevance to
be considered for Inventory Analysis (according to SCHRENK, 2006) ..........................11
Table 4: List of Environmental Impact Categories for qualifying environmental
impacts of remediation projects and technologies (Tier 1 Assessment).........................11
Life Cycle Assessment (Tier 3) ......................................................................................11
The Market level .........................................................................................................13
Background........................................................................................................................14
1) The EU Sustainable Development Strategy...............................................................14
2) The Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection..................................................................15
Figure 2 – Proposed approach for future management of soil contamination in Europe 15
3) The Environmental Technologies Action Plan (ETAP) ...............................................16
4) EuroDemo Deliverable 2-3 ‘Status report on End User Needs’..................................16
Preamble
The EURODEMO Description of Work defines several tangible, and potentially durable,
outcomes of the project that need to be in place at the end of 2007, coinciding with the
conclusion of the EURODEMO co-ordination action.
The outcome that is pertinent to this deliverable (2.4) is –
• Key Activity – ‘The production of the best overview concerning technology
demonstration in the field of soil and groundwater management at the
programme and the project level and to increase confidence in technology
application.’
The deliverable focuses on this Key Activity by integrating soil-related priorities into a
defined programme that highlights commonality and divergence between the ETAP
priorities and those of the EURODEMO end-user group. It includes a proposal for
synchronising priorities as the basis of a demonstration funding tool at the European level.
The purpose of this plan is three-fold;
1. Specifically:
Assisting funding programmes at the European, Member State, Regional and local levels
in allocating their technology demonstration resources effectively in terms of –
o Playing an active role in delivering the objectives of the Environmental
Technologies Action Plan, soil-related issues
2. Generally:
Reinforcing the realisation of the European Sustainable Development Strategy by –
o Contributing to a strong linkage between EU strategic aims and operational
delivery at the technology demonstration level.
3. Additionally:
Satisfying the needs of EuroDemo end-users that have driven the EuroDemo project since
its inception.
It should be noted that a joint enterprise exists between the European Commission’s DG
Environment and DG Research that is developing an Environmental
Technology/Performance Verification Scheme. This scheme has no plans (November
2007) to include sustainability evaluation within its verification procedures. Indeed, in the
case of contaminated soil and groundwater technologies, sustainability issues are
regarded as too complex to be addressed. EuroDemo’s work in this field, however,
includes these issues

3
Executive Summary and recommendations
Findings –
The European Sustainable Development Strategy priorities don’t conflict at all with
EuroDemo’s End User priorities. Likewise, EuroDemo’s End User Priorities don’t diverge
from the European Sustainable Development Strategy priorities. They actually supplement
them. Therefore –
• No synchronisation is necessary between the European Sustainable
Development Strategy and EuroDemo End-user needs, only aggregation
The Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection requires that prioritisation of types of
contamination, required solutions, timeframes, targets and allocation of demonstration
project resources are Member State issues. Each national technology demonstration
organisation will have its own prioritisation plan. EuroDemo’s priorities are European, not
national. As a result –

• Only those priorities that impact at the European level are proposed by
EuroDemo. These are general EuroDemo end-user priorities, developed at the
Vilnius workshop i.e.

Building general confidence in the use of ‘better’ technologies and processes.

Promoting the demonstration of potential solutions to unsolved problems

Promoting the demonstration of ‘better’ technologies and processes than are
currently in use by the market. ‘Better’ must include, as a European feature,
eco-efficient.
The Environmental Technologies Action Plan (ETAP) priorities (original and new)
don’t conflict at all with EuroDemo’s End User priorities. Likewise, EuroDemo’s End User
Priorities don’t diverge from ETAP priorities. They actually supplement them. Therefore -
• No synchronisation is necessary between the ETAP and EuroDemo End-user
needs, only aggregation
Proposal –
Technology Demonstration projects that are reported in the public domain are invariably
reliant on public sector economic support. Whether this support is administered at the
European or Member State level, a significant proportion of the overall funding originates
from European budgets (See EuroDemo Deliverable 2.2 - Strategy for funding soil and
groundwater remediation technology demonstration projects). In parallel, it is clear
that the priorities detailed in the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection encompass
national and regional issues and it is left to the Member States to realise their own
strategies to satisfy their domestic needs.
It is clear; therefore, that the European Commission has the opportunity to influence only
those issues that can be regarded as non-territorial and that, where it has such influence, it
can be profound. Eco-efficiency is one such issue and it is proposed by EuroDemo that –

• When the European Commission is providing economic support to Technology

Demonstration projects, either directly or indirectly, applicants will be required
to provide a forecast of the eco-efficiency1 of their technology if/when applied as
a commercial remediation process. The forecast will include all activities

1
E.g. as a minimum, net non-renewable energy consumption, other non-renewable resource consumption, waste generation, emissions to air (CO,
NOx, HC, Particulates), carbon footprint, water consumption, road traffic generated, all benchmarked against appropriate reference technologies.

4
 necessary to mobilise, commission, operate, service, maintain, manage,
decommission, demobilise and monitor the process.
A simple funding tool to integrate technology demonstration priorities at the European and
Member State level is illustrated in Figure 1. It includes a link to EuroDemo+ to satisfy the
need to build general confidence in the use of ‘better’ technologies.

5
 EU/Member State project proposals

EU/Member State adjudication criteria

Proposed
projects

EuroDemo+
Building New Better
confidence, solution? solution?
knowledge
transfer
NO YES YES NO

Better
solution? New solution?
If not, reject Eco-efficiency Eco-efficiency If not, reject
appraisal appraisal

Efficient
Reject Inefficient
Inefficient Reject

Project results Projects

Project support

Figure 1- A simple funding tool for soil and groundwater technology demonstration projects.

6
Introduction
This deliverable focuses on the priorities that need to be considered in the selection of
contaminated soil and groundwater management technologies for inclusion in EuroDemo+
demonstration projects (the regime that will follow the EuroDemo project to realise
EuroDemo’s proposals).

The Challenge
“To integrate soil-related priorities into a defined programme that highlights commonality
and divergence between the ETAP priorities and those of the EuroDemo end-user group.
This will include a proposal for synchronising priorities as the basis of a demonstration
funding tool at the European level.”
It is clear that prioritisation must take place at two levels, Institutional and Market –

The Institutional level

Strategic issues
The question here is ‘what do we wish to achieve overall?’
EuroDemo’s conclusion is that we wish to make demonstration opportunities available for
(in no particular order) –
• Building general confidence in the use of ‘better’ technologies and processes.
• Promoting the demonstration of potential solutions to unsolved problems
• Promoting the demonstration of ‘better’ technologies and processes than are
currently in use by the market. ‘Better’ must include, as a European feature,
eco-efficient.
Eco-efficiency appraisal has been considered by EuroDemo and the methodology
proposed by the project is as follows –
General
Regarding the Assessment of Environmental Efficiency EuroDemo recommends the use of the
generic life cycle analysis framework as shown by figure 1 within a tiered approach. Furthermore
each tier shall take account of the ideas and principles of LCA (summary see section 3.3;
introduction see section 4.51).

Figure 2: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) framework - ISO 14040 (1997)

1
http://www.eurodemo.info/index.php?id=168&type=0&jumpurl=uploads%2Fmedia%2FD5-
4.pdf&juSecure=1&locationData=168%3Att_content%3A1255&juHash=4e3ddcc94b

7
A full Life Cycle Analysis for remediation projects or technologies is a time-consuming effort as it
usually requires detailed information and high amounts of data. Therefore the method shows
limitation for practical application in practice as a routine process. Using a tiered or stepwise
approach allows for variation in the amount of data and work required and the overall effort can
stay proportional to the size (or estimated costs) of a project.
Starting at a first step of a qualitative characterisation, with limited and simplified data and
assessments, the second step introduces a simplified option of performing a Life Cycle
Assessment (see table 2). Simplifications are based on focusing the LCA by identifying the most
relevant measures and processes of remediation projects and technologies. As a third step a full
LCA might be performed.

Table 1: Tiered approach for assessing wider environmental effects of

land remediation technologies and projects
data quality and data analysis
Key Elements Impact Impact
& Categories Parameters Assessment
Processes
Tier 1: Qualification Phase + +++ - qualitative

Tier 2: Simplified Analysis ++ + + quantitative

Tier 3: Life Cycle Analysis +++ +++ +++ quantitative

+ overview++ selective+++ comprehensive

Thus a tiered approach supports both a practical and cost effective way forward. In moving from a
lower to a higher tier there is a growing demand on data and by the reduction of the level of
uncertainty an increasing significance of the results. With regard to soil and groundwater
remediation projects and technologies the assessment of wider environmental impacts will
regularly include two tiers, a Qualification Phase and a Simplified Analysis of wider environmental
impacts. A full Life Cycle Assessment might be appropriate depending on the size of projects as a
support to select remediation approaches and technologies for large site remediation projects
(‘mega-sites’).
As an integral part of the general assessment procedure transparency and reproducibility are
fundamental elements which require to be covered by an adequate reporting of all inputs,
considerations and judgements at each tier.

Defining Options, Goal and Scope

As a prerequisite for assessing the wider environmental impacts of remediation projects or
technologies the options under assessment need to be defined and explained by a brief
description. Furthermore one of the options under consideration is to be assigned to be a
‘reference scenario’, which is recognised as a conventional and frequently remediation approach or
technology and will be used a baseline for comparisons on wider environmental impacts.
As further starting point the overall goal(s) of the remediation project (e.g. by remediation target
values, mass reduction of relevant pollutants, reduction and control of plumes) and the goal of the
assessment of environmental impacts (e.g. identification and quantification of major secondary
environmental effects) needs to be described briefly. As a second step the scope of the
assessment procedure needs to be defined by project (system) boundaries and the functional unit.
The project boundaries are technical and geographical boundaries as well as the duration (time) of
the project.
It has to be pointed out that this preparatory stage of the assessment is the crucial phase
predetermining work during the following stages and the overall results.
Geographical boundaries have to be understood in a broad sense. Contaminated materials may be
transferred to a treatment or disposal facility off-site. Therefore even geographically separated
remediation facilities need to be considered as being part of the ‘system’. Environmental effects

8
caused by the operation of off-site-treatments have to be included to the overall assessment. In
difference environmental effects caused by the installation or the closure of such facilities are not
to be considered except they are closely related or caused by the project itself.
Boundaries in time need to be defined along the duration of the reference scenario. Depending on
the remediation approach and technologies theoretically employed within the reference scenario
the duration usually may vary from less than one year up to 20 to 30 years (one generation).
Exemptions might be necessary for mega-site projects where simply by size of the problem,
difficult geological and hydrogeological site settings or ‘hard-to-treat’ pollutants like e.g. DNAPL or
explosives, it is likely that risk management will last for much longer periods,
The ‘functional unit’ provides the basis for comparisons. To compare remediation projects or
technologies a variety of parameters might be introduced to be used as ‘functional unit’. Given the
intention that remediation seeks to destroy or immobilise contaminants the ideal overall functional
unit is pollutant mass (kg). As the approximation of this parameter might be difficult in a lot of
situations and as the range of possible remediation technologies may rely on different biological,
physical or chemical processes
‘Cut-off’-Criteria are generally a part of the definition of the scope of a Life Cycle Analysis but are
not generally pre-defined but need to be developed at tiers 2 and 3.

Qualification of Environmental Impacts (Tier 1)

The first tier for Assessing Environmental Impacts gives emphasis to understand the relevance of
processes which are part of remediation projects or technologies and qualify the significance of the
caused wider environmental impacts. Therefore the Assessment is done only qualitatively and at a
lower level of detail considering impact categories in a more generic way. The significance of wider
environmental impacts depends on the intensity of processes (e.g. energy consumption) and the
duration.
Referring to the general brief descriptions (see section 4.2) each option which is considered within
the assessment is to be characterised by a comprehensive outline of key elements (see example
figure 2) and major processes involved over a life cycle (e.g. key element GAC – granular activated
carbon: production, transport, filling, recycling). The description should be supported by
appropriate means of visualisation (e.g. process trees, diagrams).
PRB-system Pump & treat
Slurry wall Wells Regeneration

Pumping system &

conduits
gates GAC container
GAC Regeneration/refill GAC Regeneration/refill
* GAC … granular activated carbon

Figure 3:Definition of processes (example) - Key elements of a

Permeable Reactive Barrier (left) and a conventional pump & treat-
system (right) considered for a LCA (BAYER, P., FINKEL, M. 2006)
Adapted from the systematic suggested by SETAC (Society of Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry, see SCHMITZ & PAULINI 1999) and from the results of SUER et al. (2004) the below
list of environmental impact categories is recommended as a basis for the qualitative assessment.
Adaptations (dropping or introducing further impact categories) should be reported and explained.

9
Table 2: List of Environmental Impact Categories for qualifying
environmental impacts of remediation projects and technologies (Tier 1
Assessment)
INPUTS energy consumption SECONDARY global warming
use of minerals IMPACTS Acidification
land use photochemical smog
water consumption ozone depletion
OUTPUTS waste generation Eutrophication
emissions to air human toxicity
emissions to surface water aquatic toxicity
terrestrial toxicity

According to the list of Environmental Impact Categories and starting with a ‘reference scenario’ all
options are to be classified with regard to the different selected environmental impact categories
according to the likely significance (low, medium or high) of impacts. Related to each classification
a brief explanation should give reference to the identified most relevant key elements (e.g. wells,
slurry walls, operation and maintenance) and processes (e.g. steel production for sheet piles,
transports) of the remediation project or technology. A high relevance is usually to be assigned to
processes which cause intensive (e.g. mass transports for large excavations and refilling) or long
lasting environmental impacts (e.g. operation of pumps longer than 10 years). Aspects considered
for the classification to qualify the intensity and duration of environmental impacts should be
described briefly.
The results of the Qualification Phase shall be displayed by
 a summarising table providing an overview on all remedial options under consideration and
the classification of the qualified environmental impact categories,
 figures introducing the key elements of each remedial option,
 tables or figures explaining the processes involved to the different key elements of a
remedial option and giving an indication on processes which are qualified as causing
significant environmental impacts.

Simplified, quantitative Assessment of Environmental Impacts (Tier 2)

The second tier for Assessing Environmental Impacts aims at enhancing the understanding of the
relevance of different processes involved to remediation projects or technologies and at a first
quantitative or double-checked qualification of the significance of the caused wider environmental
impacts. The Inventory Analysis and the Impact Assessment are performed quantitatively but with
a focus to
• those processes which have been assigned as being of major relevance and
• few selected impact categories.
For the purpose of identifying processes of major relevance in terms of the linked environmental
consequences ‘Cut-off’-Criteria for the Life Cycle approach under tier 2 can be set to 20 %.
Processes which are likely to cause less of the total balance need not be considered for Inventory
Analysis and Impact Assessment.

As an alternative and with reference to a study performed by SCHRENK (2006)

remediation projects and technologies can be divided into five groups, which show
similarities regarding the definition of the most relevant processes involved (see table 5)

10
Table 3: Grouping of remediation technologies and processes of major
relevance to be considered for Inventory Analysis (according to
SCHRENK, 2006)
excavation & Off-site On-site
landfilling* treatment* treatment In-situ treatment Containment
construction construction construction operation (e.g. construction
transports transport of transport of pumps) transports
refilling contaminated contaminated material use (e.g. material use (e.g.
- material material materials activated carbon) steel, bentonite)
- construction treatment treatment operation
- transport transport of transport of
cleaned material cleaned material

refilling refilling
Already at the first tier (see previous section) a characterisation of the remediation project and
technologies under consideration has been established. This outline on key elements and major
processes is to be used as a control and in comparison to table 4 a final description on processes
of major relevance is to be established. This description should be supported by appropriate
means of visualisation (e.g. process trees, diagrams).
Based on the proposals EURODEMO set out for a general “Framework for sustainable Land
Remediation and Management” (deliverable 5-1, see www.eurodemo.info) a core set of
environmental impact categories is recommended (see table 5). Referring to the results of the
qualification phase (providing an overview on significant environmental impacts) this core set can
be adapted.

Table 4: List of Environmental Impact Categories for qualifying

environmental impacts of remediation projects and technologies (Tier 1
Assessment)
Impact Categories Parameters
INPUTS energy consumption renewable, non-renewable & total energy consumption
water consumption m³ water
OUTPUTS waste generation hazardous & non-hazardous waste (in tons)
Secondary Impacts global warming carbon dioxide (kg CO2)

According to the final lists of relevant processes and environmental impact categories an inventory
analysis and impact assessment is to be performed. The environmental impacts are calculated for
all options under consideration. On the basis of the results for the ‘reference scenario’ the results
of the further options can be normalised.
The results of the Simplified Assessment Phase shall be displayed by
 tables or figures explaining the processes involved to the different key elements of a
remedial option and giving an indication on processes which are qualified as causing
significant environmental impacts,
 a summarising table providing an overview on all remedial options under consideration and
the results of the assessment of selected environmental impacts, and
 figures (e.g. bar charts) indicating the results of the assessment normalised to the
‘reference sceanrio’.

Life Cycle Assessment (Tier 3)

A Life Cycle Assessment is a time and resource consuming effort. Therefore the performance of
the full procedure as a third tier is only recommended for projects which involve exceptional efforts
(costs or measures) and are expected to last longer than one generation (> 30 years).

11
According to the series ISO 14040 - 14043 a complete LCA evaluates all stages of a products life
(from cradle to grave) and consists of four components as described below and highlighted by
figure 1 (see section 4.1).
(1) Goal and scope definition. The system boundaries, functional unit and data quality have to be
described. System boundaries give the frame (technically, geographically and in time) for an
environmental balance. Looking out for a comparison of technologies or projects the functional unit
is the means to establish comparability. Technologies or projects are comparable, if the and
guarantee the same benefits. As it is hardly possible and practicable to include all environmental
effects to the inventory analysis cutting criteria can be used, as e.g. material- or energy-flow of a
certain percentage (usually 5 %) of the likely total balance might not need to be accounted. Cut-off-
criteria can be:
- a life cycle phase, which does not mean principal and significant differences between
the options (technologies, projects) under comparison
- material flows of minor importance, e.g. consumption of secondary materials like
lubricants
- activities or elements of minor importance, e.g. construction of buildings
It needs to be recognised that the first stage of a LCA is the crucial phase predetermining work
during the following stages and the overall results.
(2) Inventory Analysis. At the second phase all relevant inputs and outputs (material- and energy-
flows) are accounted with regard to the functional unit. Therefore life-cycle inventories can contain
information about the materials extracted from and released to the environment over entire product
life cycles, including manufacturing supply chains, the use phase, and end-of-life processes. To
trace back material- and energy-flows a technology or project needs to be divided into processes.
Processes are modules which have to be clearly separated from each other and are the basis to
perform the accounting of material- and energy-flows. The sum of the inputs and outputs across all
considered modules defines the result of the inventory analysis. The process diagram also has
central function in the reporting while it improves the transparency and can make visible which
activities or processes cause the major material- or energy-flows.
(3) Impact Assessment. The Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) phase is the evaluation of
resource depletion impacts (inputs) and ecological relevant emissions (outputs).This is the central
stage to establish the linkage between the product or service and its potential environmental
impacts.
The first element is the definition of environmental impact categories, which needs to be tuned to
the goal and scope defined in the first phase of the analysis. The chosen impact categories should
be complete (covering all environmental problems of relevance), practical (not containing too many
categories), and independent (double counting and impact categories showing synchronisation
effects should be avoided).
The second element is the classification which aims to assign inventory input and output data to
the selected environmental impact categories. Inputs and Outputs may contribute to different
impact categories and therefore can be considered twice or more as long as the caused impacts
do not belong to same effect chain (e.g. CO2 emissions and global warming).
Finally the obligatory third element is the characterisation which is the main quantitative step
assigning the contributions of each input or output to the selected impact categories and
establishing the final quantitative estimates for all impact categories. It has to be recognised that a
direct comparison on these categories is not possible. Such a comparison could be involved along
a further step of valuation or weighting. In particular weighting is often not science-based and
includes non-technical but rather political values.
(4) Interpretation. The final interpretation aims to be a systematic procedure to identify, check and
qualify information with reference to the defined goal and scope of the LCA. Three elements and
steps are considered:
1. identification of significant parameters focusing to the most relevant environmental impacts
of life cycle phases of high relevance
2. analysis of completeness, sensitivity and consistency (methods and data valid to assess
the goal)

12
 3. conclusions, recommendations and reporting
For commencing a full Life Cycle Analysis the according ISO standards (ISO 14040 – 14043) are
to be considered.

Regulatory issues
The question here is ‘can this technology be applied in compliance with regulatory
constraints in the territory to which it is targeted?’
This is a domestic, Member State issue

The Market level

The question here is ‘how much is this potential solution needed and how much is it
encouraged by legal or financial incentives?’
This is a domestic, Member State issue

13
Background
The background to establishing appropriate priorities is contained in various key
documents –

1) The EU Sustainable Development Strategy1

Extract - “Bearing in mind worsening environmental trends, the EU's economic and social
challenges coupled with new competitive pressures and new international commitments,
the EU SDS identifies 7 key challenges and corresponding targets, operational objectives
and actions. Reference to any particular action is without prejudice to the division of
competencies between the EU and the Member States.”

Climate Change and clean energy

Overall Objective: To limit climate change and its costs and negative effects to society
and the environment
Operational objectives and targets relevant to EURODEMO:
• Kyoto Protocol commitments of the EU-15 and most EU-25 to targets for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions by 2008 – 2012, whereby the EU-15 target is for an 8%
reduction in emissions compared to 1990 levels.
• Reaching an overall saving of 9% of final energy consumption over 9 years until
2017 as indicated by the Energy End-use Efficiency and Energy Services Directive.

Conservation and management of natural resources

Overall Objective: To improve management and avoid overexploitation of natural
resources, recognising the value of ecosystem services
Operational objectives and targets relevant to EURODEMO:
• Improving resource efficiency to reduce the overall use of non renewable natural
resources and the related environmental impacts of raw materials use, thereby using
renewable natural resources at a rate that does not exceed their regeneration capacity.
• Gaining and maintaining a competitive advantage by improving resource efficiency,
inter alia through the promotion of eco-efficient innovations.
• Avoiding the generation of waste and enhancing efficient use of natural
resources by applying the concept of life-cycle thinking and promoting reuse
and recycling.

CROSS CUTTING POLICIES CONTRIBUTING TO THE KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY

Research and development
• It is key in that regard to ensure effective implementation of the 7th Framework
Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and
demonstration activities, involving academia, industry and policy-makers and to
advance the implementation of the Environmental Technology Action Plan.

1
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st10/st10117.en06.pdf

14
2) The Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection1

Extract – “With respect to management of contamination, an approach based on the

following approach is envisaged:

Figure 2 – Proposed approach for future management of soil

contamination in Europe

On the basis of a common definition of contaminated sites (i.e. sites which pose significant
risk to human health and the environment), its application by the Member States, and a
common list of potentially polluting activities, Member States will be required to identify the
contaminated sites on their territory and establish a national remediation strategy. This
strategy will be based on sound and transparent prioritisation of the sites to be remediated,
aiming at reducing soil contamination and the risk caused by it and including a mechanism
to fund the remediation of orphan sites. This is complemented by the obligation for a seller
or a prospective buyer to provide to the administration and to the other party in the
transaction a soil status report for sites where a potentially contaminating activity has
taken or is taking place. The Directive also addresses prevention of contamination via a
requirement to limit the introduction of dangerous substances into the soil.”

• In order to successfully prevent and limit risk to human health and the environment
stemming from soil contamination, Member States should identify the sites which
according to their assessment are posing a significant risk in this regard. Given
the number of sites which are likely to be contaminated, their identification requires a
systematic step-by-step approach. To monitor progress on the identification of the
contaminated sites a timetable is needed.

1
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/index.htm

15
• The identification of contaminated sites should be reflected in a national inventory of
contaminated sites to be updated regularly and made available for the public to
consult. Previous and current efforts by Member States to identify contaminated sites
should be taken into account.

• Taking into account the polluter pays principle; Member States should ensure that
action is taken to remediate the contaminated sites identified within their
national territory.

• A National Remediation Strategy should be established, in particular for the

purposes of setting remediation targets and the order of priority in which sites
should be remediated.

• There is little public awareness of the importance of soil protection, and it is therefore
necessary to introduce measures to improve knowledge, exchange of information
and best practices.

3) The Environmental Technologies Action Plan (ETAP)1

Extract - “Removing the obstacles so as to tap the full potential of environmental
technologies for protecting the environment while contributing to competitiveness and
economic growth”
Such technologies are to be –
• Eco-efficient, evaluated against ‘indicators’
These aspects are outside the scope of EuroDemo)
• Globally competitive
• Supported financially (risk funding) by EU and Member States
• Verified in an EU-wide ‘system’

4) EuroDemo Deliverable 2-3 ‘Status report on End User Needs’

• Impact reports (equivalent to eco-efficiency reports)
These aspects are relevant to the design of EuroDemo+, successor to EuroDemo.
They are operational and reporting priorities of EuroDemo’s end-users, not the
subject of this report
• Simplified procedures
• Objectives
• Indicators
• Tools
• Comparable outputs
• Certainty of outcome
• ‘Process’ capability
• Process protocols
• Success reports
• Reporting of failures

1
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/etap/index_en.htm

16
• Differentiated database, assessed/not assessed
• Data entry specification
• Data entry conditions
• Data retention criteria
• Cost reporting specification
• Cost reporting in a usable format
• Cost reporting using resource-based units
• Award scheme for database contributors
• Database search engine
• Review panel/network
• Environmental Technology Verification Programme rules of engagement
• Reciprocal web linkages
• Linkages with SedNet and NICOLE
• Reporting of added value
• Demonstration quality certification process

17