us and eu perspectives on green and sustainable … and eu perspectives on green and sustainable...

1

1

Welcome to the CLU-IN Internet SeminarUS and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable

RemediationDelivered: July 12, 2010, 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM, EDT (14:00-16:00 GMT

Presenters:Carlos Pachon, U.S. EPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, [email protected]

Dietmar Müller, [email protected] Côté, Environment Canada Environmental Protection Operations, [email protected]

Stephanie Fiorenza, [email protected] Bardos, [email protected]

Laurent Bakker, [email protected] Maurer, CH2M HILL International, [email protected]

Dominique Darmendrail, [email protected]

Moderator:Carlos Pachon, U.S. EPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, [email protected]

Visit the Clean Up Information Network online at www.cluin.org

2

2

Housekeeping• Please mute your phone lines, Do NOT put this call on hold

– press *6 to mute #6 to unmute your lines at anytime• Q&A • Turn off any pop-up blockers• Move through slides using # links on left or buttons

• This event is being recorded • Archives accessed for free http://cluin.org/live/archive/

Go to slide 1

Move back 1 slide

Download slides as PPT or PDF

Move forward 1 slide

Go to seminar

homepage

Submit comment or question

Report technical problems

Go to last slide

Although I’m sure that some of you have these rules memorized from previous CLU-IN events, let’s run through them quickly for our new participants.

Please mute your phone lines during the seminar to minimize disruption and background noise. If you do not have a mute button, press *6 to mute #6 to unmute your lines at anytime. Also, please do NOT put this call on hold as this may bring delightful, but unwanted background music over the lines and interupt the seminar.

You should note that throughout the seminar, we will ask for your feedback. You do not need to wait for Q&A breaks to ask questions or provide comments. To submit comments/questions and report technical problems, please use the ? Icon at the top of your screen. You can move forward/backward in the slides by using the single arrow buttons (left moves back 1 slide, right moves advances 1 slide). The double arrowed buttons will take you to 1st and last slides respectively. You may also advance to any slide using the numbered links that appear on the left side of your screen. The button with a house icon will take you back to main seminar page which displays our agenda, speaker information, links to the slides and additional resources. Lastly, the button with a computer disc can be used to download and save today’s presentation materials.

With that, please move to slide 3.

3

US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable

RemediationUS EPA Perspectives on Green Remediation

Carlos PachonUSEPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation

12 July 2010 3

US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 4

What is “Green Remediation”?

The practice of considering all environmental effects of remedy

implementation and incorporating options to minimize the environmental

footprints of cleanup actions.

US EPA


Related But Not Synonymous

RenewableEnergy

ClimateChange

GreenRemediation

Sustainable Reuse

US EPA

6


Core Elements of Green Remediation

US EPA

“Reduction, Efficiency,

and Renewables…”

“Protect Air Quality; Reduce

Greenhouse Gases…”

“Minimize, Reuse,

and Recycle…”

“Conserve, Protect,

and Restore…” “Improve Quality;

Decrease Quantity of Use…”

Core Elements

7


Diesel Consumption in an IllustrativeExcavation and Soil Amendment Project

Diesel Consumption (gallons)

PM Emission

(pounds)(a)

NOxEmission

(pounds)(a)

CO2 Emission (tons)(a)

Removing contaminated soil through use of an earth mover with a 1990 200-hp engine operating for 100 days

6,400 100 1,100 70

Hauling 35,000 yard3 of excavated soil to an offsite waste disposal facility 300 miles away, by way of 60-yard3, 425-hp tractor trailers(b)

77,000 770 10,970 850

Importing wood milling and agricultural waste from sources 50 miles away, by way of a 60-yard3, 300-hp truck(b) 2,400 100 1400 30

Applying 2,000 tons of soil amendments over 20 acres, using a 1990 290-hp, 60-yard3 dump truck and 1990 170-hp grader 260 8 1 3

Using two medium-duty pickup trucks for site preparation and remedy construction over six months(b) 380 7 170 4

Total diesel consumption and air emissions(a) Diesel Emissions Quantifier; http://cfpub.epa.gov/quantifier/view/welcome.cfm(b) including use of ULSD, as required for on-road applications

86,440gallons

985 pounds

13,641pounds

957tons

Adding retrofitting devices such as a NOx catalyst and a diesel particulate filter could reduce these emissions by as much as

25% for NOx and 90% for PM.

Estimating the Baselines

US EPA

7

8

US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 8Source: www.clu-in.org/market

Long Term GoalsEstimated Number of Sites and Cleanup Cost

2004-2033*

US EPA

99


A Priority at Many LevelsOSWER Policy: Principles for Greener CleanupsAs a matter of policy, OSWER’s goal is to evaluate cleanup actions comprehensively to ensure protection of human health and the environment and to reduce the environmental footprint of cleanup activities, to the maximum extent possible. (OSWER A.A. MathyStanislaus)

EPA Strategic Plan: Goal 5 Compliance and Environmental StewardshipStewards of the environment recycle wastes to the greatest extent possible, minimize or eliminate pollution at its source, conserve natural resources, and use energy efficiently to prevent harm to the environment or human health. By 2011, enhance public health and environmental protection and increase conservation of natural resources by promoting pollution prevention and the adoption of other stewardship practices by companies, communities, governmental organizations, and individuals. (EPA Administrator Steve Johnson)

EO 13514: Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic PerformanceIt is the policy of the United States that Federal agencies shall increase energy efficiency; measure, report, and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions from direct and indirect activities; conserve and protect water resources through efficiency, reuse, and stormwatermanagement; eliminate waste, recycle, and prevent pollution (President Obama)

US EPA

Sub-objective 5.2.1: Prevent Pollution and Promote Environmental Stewardship.By 2011, reduce pollution, conserve natural resources, and improve other environmental stewardship practices while reducing costs through implementation of EPA’s pollution prevention programs.*********************Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate ChangeProtect and improve the air so it is healthy to breathe and risks to human health and the environment are reduced. Reduce greenhouse gas intensity by enhancing partnerships with businesses and other sectors.Objective 1.3: Protect the Ozone LayerStrategic Targets:- By 2015, reduce U.S. consumption of Class II ozone-depleting substances to less than 1,520 tons per year of ozone depleting potential from the 2003 baseline of 9,900 tons per year.Objective 1.5: Reduce Greenhouse Gas EmissionsSub-objective 1.5.1: Buildings Sector. By 2012, 46 MMT of carbon equivalent will be reduced in the buildings sector (compared to the 2002 level).Sub-objective 1.5.2: Industry Sector. By 2012, 99 MMT of carbon equivalent will be reduced in the industry sector (compared to the 2002 level).Sub-objective 1.5.3: Transportation SectorBy 2012, 15 MMT of carbon equivalent will be reduced in the transportation sector (compared to the 2002 level).

10


OSWER Green Remediation “Strategy”

• Principles for Greener Cleanups: Common policy position for all U.S. EPA cleanup programs

• Superfund Green Remediation Strategy:“Operationalizing” the Principles in the Superfund Cleanup Program

• Voluntary Green Cleanup Standards & Certification System: Robust tool for fostering greener cleanups in various cleanup programs

• RE-Powering America’s Land: Renewable energy on contaminated lands

• Regional Initiatives:– Climate change strategies– Policy and guidance development, etc.

US EPA

10

111111


www.clu-in.org/greenremediation

More Information from U.S. EPA

www.epa.gov/superfund/greenremediation

• Guidance Documents• Special Issues Primers• Technical Bulletins

• Fact Sheets / Case Studies• Technology Descriptions• Internet Resources

US EPA

12


ThankThank YouYou!!Carlos Pachon

[email protected]

USEPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation

US EPA

13


Remediation

12 July 2010

EURODEMO+Dietmar MÜLLER - Environment Agency Austria

13


Constituency

• European co-ordination action (2004 – 2006)• since 2008 – umbrella to a voluntary network

– 4 national/regional demonstration platforms– 18 partners from 9 European countries

• assist and connect stakeholders on "good quality" demonstration practices across Europe

• promoting innovation for sustainable and cost-effective remediation practices


Drivers and Constraints

• European Policy:– Environmental Technology Action Plan– Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources– Climate and Energy targets (20-20-20-target)

• Regulatory: None– (hindering: draft European Soil Framework Directive)

• Market:– decreasing awareness and willingness to act/pay– decreasing public funds– innovation-resistant and sensitive regarding uncertainties– windows of opportunity through redevelopment


Impact of Drivers and Constraints

• emphasis towards relations of economic and ecological aspects: eco-efficiency

• raise understanding and confidence regarding innovate technologies and strategies

• encourage stakeholders for voluntary norms• voluntary network

– asks for commitment – missing monetary background limits activities


ECO-EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY

• better understanding through economic and ecological analysis

• to optimize processes and products and create benchmarks

decouplingfactor 4

equitable

From viable to efficient!

bearable

viable

18


RemediationIntegrating Sustainability in the Canadian Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan

Chantale Côté, Environment Canada

12 July 2010 18

FCSAP Secretariat

514 [email protected] www.federalcontaminatedsites.gc.ca

US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010

Constituency• Who are your members

– Federal departments and consolidated Crown corporations

• Who are you seeing to influence– Program partners including members, remediation

industry and academia• What do you want to achieve

– Develop and implement a framework to support the use of sustainable approaches to remediation that considers the environmental and socio-economic effects of a remediation strategy, resulting in an optimization of benefits

Environment Canada

19


Drivers

• Drivers for sustainable remediation we are responding to are:– Policy:

• Federal Sustainable Development Act (June 2008)• Federal Government Policy on Management of Real Property• Climate change adaptation

– Regulatory• none

– Market• none

Environment Canada

20


Constraints

• What we consider as sustainable remediation is also constrained by:– Policy

• Potential misuse of sustainable approaches• Property transaction: low levels of uncertainties and time constraint• Demonstration of costs and savings associated with sustainable

approaches – case studies

– Regulatory• No real regulatory constraint

– Market• Availability and market sensitization of sustainable technologies,

approaches and best practices

Environment Canada

21

FA parag. 36(3) no person shall deposit or permit the deposit of a deleterioussubstance of any type in water frequented by fish or in any place under anyconditions where the deleterious substance or any other deleterious substance thatresults from the deposit of the deleterious substance may enter any such water.


Impact of Drivers and Constraints• On “scope” of what is considered

– Improve decision-making by providing tools, training and indicators that assess the impacts of various remediation options on sustainability

• On how it is presented– Flexible framework, decision support tools

• On the “platform”: i.e. regulation / industry guidance / voluntary framework etc– Sustainability principles– Voluntary framework– Incentives : eligible costs, awards– Greener procurement

Environment Canada

22


STEP 1Identify suspect site

STEP 2Historical review

STEP 3 Initial Testing Program

STEP 4 Classify Contaminated Site using NCS

STEP 5 Detailed Testing Program

STEP 6 Reclassify the site using NCS

STEP 7 Develop Remediation/risk management strategy

STEP 8 Implement best sustainable remediation/risk

management strategy

STEP 9Confirmatory sampling and final reporting

STEP 10Long-term monitoring

STEP 3ASustainable Site Assessment including future climate conditions

STEP 5ASustainable site and risk assessment and future climate conditions

STEP 7ADevelopment of remediation or risk management goals

Sustainable Options appraisal

STEP 11Sustainable site reuse

STEP 10AAdopt sustainable long-term monitoring practices including climate

change adaptation considerations

A sustainable approach to federal contaminated sitesProposed framework

Tier 1 – Qualitative assessment based on environmental, social and economical indicators

including climate change considerations

Tier 2 – Quantitative assessment including simplified LCA

Tools, Guidance & Training

Innovative Site Investigation Cost-effective site assessment Remote data collection Etc.

Sustainable Decision Support Tool

Quantitative decision-support tools such as CBA, SRTTM

Toolkit on Greener Practices for business, site development and site cleanups

Green procurement of goods and services

Etc.

On-line/Real Time monitoring tools

Energy Conservation & renewable energy and alternative fuels in monitoring programs

Long-term stewardship BMPs Use of soil amendments for

revitalization and reuse

Environment Canada

23

24


Remediation

Stephanie Fiorenza, Ph.D.

12 July 2010

SURF

24


Constituency• Our members are from academia, consulting, industry,

and government• SURF is a non-profit corporation and professional society

and refrains from activities that would be in conflict with its tax-exempt status, such as lobbying or exerting influence

• SURF’s primary objective is to provide a forum for various stakeholders in remediation — industry, government, environmental groups, consultants, and academia — to collaborate, educate, advance, and develop consensus on applying sustainability concepts throughout the lifecycle of remediation projects, from site investigation to closure

SURF


SURF

•Drivers for sustainable remediation we are responding to are:– Policy

• Member-driven desire to improve remediation as historically practiced• Inconsistencies in environmental and sustainability policies have

created conflicting objectives

– Regulatory• Need to integrate sustainability into different regulatory programs at

US Federal and State levels

– Market• Increased focus on sustainability for corporations and governmental

entities has increased interest in and practice of sustainable remediation, along with a desire to reduce GHGs

• Need to increase value of remediation expenditures by integrating sustainability, aligning with stakeholder goals and demonstrating that burdens are not merely shifted among impact categories

Drivers


Constraints• What we consider sustainable remediation is constrained by:

–– KnowledgeKnowledge• Lack of understanding of subject, unfamiliarity with metrics and

life cycling thinking, and availability of data and tools for analysis• Lack of a significant number of case studies documenting benefits

– Regulatory• Rigid cleanup process at state and federal level

– Market• Private tools for application and analysis• Lack of experience in balancing trade-offs between costs and

sustainability benefits

SURF


Impact of Drivers and Constraints• On “scope” of what is considered

– For SURF, the drivers are what led to initiatives that we are undertaking

• On how it is presented– Our emphasis is multidisciplinary and multi-

stakeholder• On the “platform”:

– the constraints indicate where we need to focus effort, e.g., education, training modules, development of a framework, mapping of metrics

SURF

29


RemediationSuRF-UK framework for evaluating

sustainable remediation optionsProfessor Paul Bardos

12 July 2010 29


Co-authors

• R. P. Bardos• B. D. Bone, Environment Agency • R. Boyle, Homes and Communities Agency• D. Ellis, Du Pont• F. Evans, National Grid Properties Ltd• N. Harries, CL:AIRE• J.W.N. Smith, Shell Global Solutions• (Steering Group for SURF-UK)

www.claire.co.uk/surfuk

SuRF-UK


Content• SuRF-UK

– Constituency, drivers, constraints

• SuRF-UK framework for sustainable remediation• Published outputs• What next?: SuRF-UK Phase 2


SuRF-UK

32


SuRF-UK Constituency• Established in 2007, following the lead of SURF.• UK-based collaboration of regulators, industry, academics and

consultants. Open forum meetings.

• Independent co-ordination by CL:AIRE (www.claire.co.uk/surfuk)• Focus on holistic sustainability assessment of

– remediation input to high-level land-use planning – remediation input to overall site / project design (‘Better by design’)– remedial strategy selection and remediation technology selection– remediation implementation and verification

• Goals– A framework for assessing sustainable remediation

• effective, practical, regulatory acceptance

– Sustainability indicator review


SuRF-UK

Set-up as a collaborative, voluntary project. HCA provided funding for CLAIRE to co-ordinate the project and for venue hire etc, but all other input was in-kind support.

Small steering group that did most of the drafting:

CLAIRENicola Harries

IndustryFrank Evans, National Grid, ChairJonathan Smith, Royal Dutch Shell

RegulatorBrian Bone, Environment Agency

Government brownfield regeneration agencyRichard Boyle

ConsultantPaul Bardos, r3 environmental

LiaisingD Elli D P t (SURF)

32


Drivers• Industry (SAGTA)

– Good practice, Business ethics, Sustainable procurement, CSR• Regulatory (and indeed cross-sectoral)

– Appropriate and reasonable solutions– Soil Framework Directive (draft); Water Framework Directive

• Planning – Sustainability tests in planning applications– Sustainablity criteria in regional and local spatial planning

• Soil framework Directive• Cross-sectoral backing in the UK• Also response to worldwide interest:

– EU (NICOLE, SURF-UK, SURF-NL?, EURODEMO+)– USA (e.g. SURF, US EPA “green remediation”, ASTM)– Canada, Australia


SuRF-UK


Constraints

• Voluntary code only• Consensus based (Achieved! So = opportunity?)• May be more difficult as we head into guidance on tools and

indicators and cut across existing interests (e.g. existing offerings from service providers)


SuRF-UK

3535


SuRF-UK definition• Based on Brundtland Commission, 1987

• ‘the practice of demonstrating, in terms of environmental, economic and social indicators, that the benefit of undertaking remediation is greater than its impact and that the optimum remediation solution is selected through the use of a balanced decision-making process’


SuRF-UK

36


SuRF-UK: Key principles

• Optimise risk-management based on consideration of social, environmental and economic factors, but always ensure:

– Principle 1: Protection of human health and the wider environment

– Principle 2: Safe working practices– Principle 3: Consistent, clear and reproducible evidence-based

decision-making– Principle 4: Record keeping and transparent reporting. – Principle 5: Good governance and stakeholder involvement– Principle 6: Sound science


SuRF-UK

SuRF-UK emphasise a number of principles, that apply within an overarching holistic decision-making framework that requires environmental, social and economic factors to be considered.

The primary requirement is that risk-management objectives are achieved, both to protect human health and the wider environment, and this applies both to the contamination and to actions taken to remediate it.

The key principles effectively set out the non-negotiable boundaries for a sustainability assessment. Appropriate safety measures, for example, are not-negotiable, though there may, of course be different ways of achieving those levels of safety, which should be considered in the assessment.

36

US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 37www.claire.co.uk/surfuk

38


SuRF-UK, www.claire.co.uk/surfuk

38

38

US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010 39www.claire.co.uk/surfuk

Regulatory acceptance: Foreword to report


SuRF-UK Phase 2

• Objectives:– Trial the framework with real cases studies– Investigate the indicator categories further– Benchmark different assessment methods for the same site(s)

• Timescale– April 2010 to April 2011


SuRF-UK

41


RemediationSURF-NL

Sustainable Soil Quality ManagementLaurent Bakker MSc. Tauw bv

12 July 2010 41


Set up of SURF NL

• Initiative of Hans Slenders (Arcadis), Laurent Bakker (Tauw) and Elze-Lia Visser (WMA) started during NICOLE WS

• Initiative was presented on National Soil Congress in NL in 2009(‘Bodembreed’)– About 15 organizations are interested

• Funding request SKB (Dutch Foundation on Soil Quality Management) in February 2010

• ‘Positive’ response from MT SKB, but still under negotiation• Hopefully start second half of 2010, objectives:

– ‘How to express, embed and balance sustainability in the field of Soil Quality Management in NL => SUSQM!

– Case based versus Areal approach– Interaction and communication with SURF-UK, SURF-US and NICOLE

Sustainability WG – Setting up decision support framework based on the Dutch ROSA (and

REC) tool

SURF-NL


Drivers• Drivers for sustainable remediation we are responding to are:

– Policy:• Need for Soil Quality Management – soil as a common good, the use

of soil functions• Sustainable sourcing and procurement at governmental organisations• CO2 reduction, energy saving programs: e.g. Integrated Groundwater

management for implementation of ATES systems– Regulatory

• EU WFD: Approach for large scale groundwater contamination– Market Industry

• Costs savings• Sourcing and procurement as driving forces for sustainable business

for the industry (image building)

SURF-NL


Constraints• Conflicting interests - Sectorial approaches and verification• Re-evaluation of the holistic approach environmental benefits of soil

remediation – Impact of soil remediation not considered– What is the balance between risk reduction and environmental benefits?

• Dilemmas in Soil Quality Management: – Exploitation vs protection– Individual vs common good– Short term vs long term– Fast vs slow– Set free vs secure– Centralised vs decentralised– Ratio vs heart

• Soil remediation business is fading out too soon

SURF-NL



• There is a ‘will’ but no consensus• There a lot of opportunities but difficult to ‘score’• But… some good examples are availableSo..• Discussion needed on the dilemma's and existing approaches• Let sustainable assessments be a forerunner of sustainable legislation• Adaptation of strategies from other disciplines to help implementation• Look at all the functions of the soil system • Integrated management of contaminated groundwater bodies =

revaluation of contaminated sites

SURF-NL

46


RemediationNICOLE’s Shared vision on Sustainable Remediation

Olivier Maurer

12 July 2010 46


• NICOLE = European Network of site remediation professionals– Industry + Consultants + Academics + Regulators

• Research on sustainability and remediation– Barcelona 2003, Akersloot 2007, London 2008 (with SAGTA), Leuven

2009

• Steering Group decision to launch a dedicated Workgroup on SR, kickoff October 2008

• Charter– Provide a working definition of sustainability applied to remediation – Describe how sustainability thinking can be applied to remediation projects – Leverage other Think Tanks– Guidance Document, to support remediation projects of any size

• Work Group of about 20 active members, 5 subgroups: Communication, Risk management, Economics, Indicators, Case studies www.nicole.org

47

Background


Nicole’s position• A Sustainable Remediation project is about building consensus from

stakeholders on the solution that benefit the best considering environmental, social and financial factors.

• The earlier the stakeholders agree on a project’s goals, scope, boundary conditions and performance indicators, the more opportunity it generates for sustainable gain.

• Green Remediation is a component of Sustainable Remediation, typically focusing on the remedial option appraisal once a strategy has been adopted by stakeholders.

• Measuring performance throughout the execution of a SR project is key to build trust and consensus.

• Not a technical issue.

• Communication is Number one barrier and enabler.

• Conflicting interests between Liability Management, or Risk Assessment, and Sustainable Remediation.

• Favor a“Bottom-up” approach.www.nicole.org


2009 Questionnaire outcome• Confirms SR is a new concept• SR principles are currently referred to and used

across Europe in very different ways• Legislation refers to sustainable principles to

varying degrees across the European countries• Risk assessment is widely used and referred to in

Europe• Cost benefit analysis (or equivalent) is an accepted

tool only in some countries• Economic and social impacts are not widely

considered in remediation projectswww.nicole.org

US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation •• 12 July 201012 July 2010www.nicole.org 50

Levels of decision making

Regional / Locality

Site(s) or Project(s)

Remedy selection

Spatial planning

Consequences, e.g.; available land use and project possibilities

Project design / site use

Consequences: e.g.: risk management needs

Remediation design

Consequences: e.g.: remediation plan Implementation

Verification

optimisation

Consequence: completion

Sustainability A

ssessment

Remediation Process

Remediation Technical A

pproachRem

ediation Specification

Feedback to improve ongoing and future

decision making

Roadmap:

Sustainability management

Sustainability Assessment Road Map

Sustainability Management Road Map (under finalization)


SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT ROAD

MAP(under finalization)

Agreed approach

Agreed findings?

Design verification

Application

no

yes

no

yes

NICOLE Indicators Guidance

NICOLE Techniques and Tools Guidance

Roadmap:

Sustainability assessment

Focused evidence collection

Engagement (setting approach)

Review options

Review opportunities & objectives

Review parties involved

Agree objectives and options

Agree indicators / Metrics

Assign weightings (eg importance)

Define boundaries

Agree tools / techniques

Objectives

Scope

Engagement

(findings)

Sustainability appraisal

Findings / conclusions

Sensitivity analysis

Analysis

www.nicole.org

51


www.nicole.org

52

Guidance document1. ROAD MAP

– 4-page booklet – Fall 2010– links to full documentation

2. “Full” document– Introduction, NICOLE’s objectives,

SRWG methodology, definition.– Separate Chapters

• Economics, check list of tools, guidance, references

• Indicators, check list, guidance, references

• Risk assessment • Illustrations with Case studies

(web based, dynamic)– Pilot testing (duration TBD).

• Factual• Neutral• Practical• Simple

Levels of

decisio

n making

Regio

nal / Loca

lity

Site(s) or P

roject

(s)

Remedy selection

Spatial

planni

ng

Conse

quence

s, e.g.;

availab

le land

use and

project po

ssibilities

Project d

esign

/ site use

Conse

quence

s: e.g.:

risk

manag

ement

needs

Reme

diation

design

Conse

quence

s: e.g.:

remedi

ation pla

n

Implem

entation

Verific

ation

optimisation

Conse

quence

:

comple

tion

Sustainability Assessment

Remediation Process

Remediation Technical Approach

Remediation Specification

Feedback to improve ongoing and future

decision making

Roadmap:

Sustainability

management


Thank you

www.nicole.org

54


RemediationRegulators point of view

D. DARMENDRAIL / COMMON FORUM ON CONTAMINATED LAND IN EUROPE

12 July 2010 54


Constituency (1/2)• Network of contaminated land policy experts and

advisors (since 1994)– Ministries and Environment agencies, 16 countries– Guests / research networks, Community Unions

• Mission:– Being a platform for exchange of knowledge and

experiences, for initiating and following-up of international projects among members,

– Establishing a discussion platform on policy, research, technical and managerial concepts of contaminated land,

Common Forum


Constituency (2/2)• Who are you seeing to influence

– MS Governments– European Commission– Other stakeholders (Industries, Communities, …)– researchers

• What do you want to achieve– New concept for an efficient policy based on risk

management and sustainable remediation at national and European levels

Common Forum


Drivers

• Drivers for sustainable remediation we are responding to are:– Policy:

• Essentially policies at National Levels• EU level: “Risk” around the Soil Protection Directive – State

of Discussion

– Regulatory• EU Directives (IPPC, Waste, ELD, Renewable Energies)

having soil provisions

– Market• Not really of concern for our network

Common Forum


Constraints• What we consider as sustainable remediation is also

constrained by:– Policy:

• Do we need an EU Policy?• Real need of integration of current policies

– Regulatory• Several levels of legislation/regulations in MS (i) systemic

approach focused on soil contamination, ii) risk assessment, iii) risk based land management

– Market• More exchange and common tools for expanding new

concept – new techniques

Common Forum



• On “scope” of what is considered– Integration of SR in new generation of

policy/regulation (i.e. in NL)– Bottom-up approach?

• On how it is presented– Show the bigger/greener objectives and the savings

• On the “platform”: i.e. regulation / industry guidance / voluntary framework etc– More discussion for a better consensus on the

concept / How to balance stakeholder wishes?

Common Forum

60

Resources & Feedback• To view a complete list of resources for this

seminar, please visit the Additional Resources • Please complete the Feedback Form to help

ensure events like this are offered in the future

Need confirmation of your participation today?

Fill out the feedback form and check box for confirmation email.