COMMON FORUM on
Contaminated land in the European Union
13 & 14 May 2014
BERLIN, GERMANY
Meeting Report
7 July, 2014
Dr Dominique Darmendrail
Common Forum 2014.041
1
The 2014 Berlin meeting was attended by:
Ana Alzola (Spain / Basque Country)
Christian Andersen (Denmark)
Andreas Bieber (Germany)
Sophie Capus (Luxemburg)
Marijke Cardon (Belgium / Flanders)
Maggie Charnley (the United Kingdom)
Margot de Cleen (the Netherlands)
Dominique Darmendrail (COMMON FORUM)
Joerg Frauenstein(Germany)
Esther Goidts (Belgium / Wallonia)
Zelmira Greifova (Slovakia)
Burcu Gungor (Turkey)
Thomas Hartnik (Norway)
Marie Jailler (Belgium / Wallonia)
Tina Leger (France)
Hans-Peter Koschitzky (Germany / NANOREM)
Frank LAME (the Netherlands / ISO TC 190)
Aurélien Louis (France)
Co Molennar (the Netherlands)
Dietmar Müller-Grabher (Austria)
Paul Nathanail (CABERNET)
Anna-Maija Pajukallio (Finland)
Rasa Radiene (Lithuania)
Jussi Reinikainen (Finland)
Grzegorz Siebelec (Poland)
Anja Sinke (NICOLE)
Morten Sorensen (Denmarkà
Eddy Van Dyck (Belgium / Flanders)
Sandra Vasin (Germany, City of Stuttgart)
Regina Vilao (Portugal)
Martha Wepner – Branko (Austria)
Monika Wysser-Schwab (Switzerland)
Note: Handouts of all presentations from this meeting are available for download at
www.commonforum.eu
Common Forum 2014.041
2
Session 0 – Welcome Address
This meeting was attended by new representatives from:

Denmark, Morten Sorensen

France, Aurélien Louis

Norway, Thomas Hartnik

Portugal, Regina Vilao

Turkey, Burcu Gungor

The United Kingdom, Maggie Charnley
The spring 2014 meeting of Common Forum was opened by Andreas Bieber, from the German
Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB). It was held back
to back with the Joint Common Forum – NICOLE Workshop on “A European policy framework on
contaminated land: enabling integrated land management and promoting sustainability”.
Session 1 - Contaminated Land Management in Germany
Germany, with its 16 Laender and its 84 Million inhabitants, has identified 315,000 sites suspected to
be contaminated (of which two thirds are old industrial sites, the others old waste disposals) and
15,000 contaminated sites. 25,000 have been already remediated.
Since 1998, contaminated sites management has been covered by the Federal Soil Protection Act
instead of sometimes differing Laender regulations. It was completed by the 1999 Federal Soil
Protection Ordinance. The Laender remain responsible for the execution of the legislation and
regulations. The Federal Soil Protection Act addresses harmful soil changes (if the soil functions are
impaired and if this leads to risks for human health or for the environment) and has two pillars: one
on prevention of future soil problems and one on remediation of the existing soil problems.
According to the Act, the land owner and the polluter are responsible parties for the remediation of
the polluted soil and groundwater to eliminate the risk in the long term.
The procedure to find out whether a site is a polluted/contaminated site and where remedial action
is required, is based on the following steps:
- Phase 1 / checking the suspicion of pollution (based on documents, records, site inspections,
and existing investigations)
- Phase 2 / if the suspicion cannot be excluded, the sites are registered and exploratory
investigation is conducted by the competent authority,
- Phase 3 / if the exploratory investigation shows that the trigger levels (see figure below) are
exceeded or other findings, then there is a reasonable suspicion of pollution and detailed
investigation should be performed by the polluter or the land owner, followed by
remediation if necessary.
-
Three types of levels (in terms of soil contamination) are defined:
Common Forum 2014.041
3
Future changes are currently envisaged:
- More substances should be covered by levels
- Some existing levels will be changed (in fact decreased) to take into account new scientific
developments.
- New analytical methods will be proposed.
Main points of discussion were:

How ecosystems are targeted? Ecological quality is considered through the precaution levels.

How these values are used (referring to land uses)

Excavated soil management is mainly covered by waste legislation. Precaution levels from
the soil Act are the basis for the reuse of soils.

How will the changes be managed? Do past decisions, based on the old levels, need to be
reconsidered with new (lower) levels?
It is expected that lowering the trigger levels (which trigger detailed investigation, not
remediation) will generally not affect past decisions on remediation requirements.
Session 2A: Information about countries

Germany / The MAGPLAN project / Sandra Vasin, City of Stuttgart
MAGPlan(3.4 M€ project funded under EU LIFE+ Env programme) aims at developing a management
plan to prevent threats from point sources on the good chemical status of groundwater in urban
areas, with a particular focus on key sources of chlorinated hydrocarbons (CHC), relevant to the
mineral springs. The MAGPlan approach looks at the whole area – an integral approach, not at single
sites which are quite numerous in the project area (800 potentially contaminated sites, out of them
186 contaminated sites with CHC, of which 6 have an influence on the deep aquifer and thus on
mineral springs).
As the mineral springs are used for recreation and medical purposes, the trigger values applied are
“zero tolerance” values.
The proposed approach is an iterative process, based on the following:
Common Forum 2014.041
4
Extensive detailed investigations are currently being conducted in the North and the Central parts of
the project area. A groundwater management plan will be developed during 2015 and implemented
after formal approval by the city council and water authority.
Remediation targets and measures will be set for each site, with monitoring at the project area scale
being used to assess the efficiency of the proposed remediation plan.
More information on www.magplan-life.eu

Slovakia / Contribution of Common Forum to management of contaminated sites in
Slovakia / Zelmira Greifova
Two main regulations have being developed since the entrance of Slovakia into the European Union:
- For new pollution: the Act on prevention and remedying of environmental damage, adopted
on September 1st 2007 (transposition of the EU Environmental Liability Directive),
Common Forum 2014.041
5
-
For historical pollution: the Act on Certain Measures in Relation to Environmental burdens,
adopted on January 1st 2012.
For this second reference, the Slovakian Ministry established a working group to consider the main
identified problems (lack of national legislation on environmental burdens, absence of budget
allocation, low public awareness). The first legislative drafts were rejected in 2006.
The Slovakian representatives found some support for solving some of the issues:
- Financial mechanisms: by Belgium / Flanders and the United Kingdom
o The EU structural funds were blocked because of the missing mechanism of
determining the responsible person, therefore establishing a method for
determining the responsible person in relation to the Environmental burden was a
key issue.
- Assessment methodology related to sustainable remediation measures: by Austria
- Risk of pollution by mining waste: by Germany:
o The Guideline MoE SR No. 1/2012-7 on the analysis of the risk of pollution of the
territory is under revision and will include an appendix on Potential risk or danger
with regard to human beings (health), environment (water, soil, etc.), and physical
stability.
Those contributions have helped achieve successful projects for managing contaminated land in
Slovakia.
In the last 2 years, 4 projects were launched:
- Monitoring of Environmental burdens at priority sites (2012 – 2015)
 Project leader: State Geological Institute of Dionýz Štúr
 Budget allocation/source: 7 985 920,- € / OP “Environment”
 Number of sites: 161
 Result of the project: Set up of monitoring system for high and medium-risk environmental
burdens.
- Geological survey of Environmental burdens at priority sites (2013 – 2015)
 Project leader: Ministry of Environment of Slovak Republic
 Budget allocation/source : 8 639 553,- € / OP “Environment”
 Result of the project: Detailed geological survey of 54 sites, including environmental and
health risks assessment as a basis for remediation feasibility studies.
- Remediation of Environmental burdens at priority sites (2013 – 2015)
 Project leader: Ministry of Environment of Slovak Republic, Ministry of Defense of Slovak
Republic
 Budget allocation/source: 48 000 000 € / OP “Environment”
 Result of the project: Remediation of 19 sites.
- Potential Environmental burdens – Geological survey at priority sites (2014 – 2015)
 Project leader: Ministry of Environment of Slovak Republic
 Budget allocation/source: 10 000 000 € / OP “Environment”
 Result of the project: Detailed geological survey of 87 sites, including environmental and
health risks assessment as a basis for remediation feasibility studies.
Common Forum 2014.041
6

France / New law and guidance on excavated soil management / Tina Léger
New legislative provisions on contaminated land management have been voted in recently in France.
They are relating to:
• Better information for the public and stakeholders:
• “Zones of information on soil” will be created for areas where contamination is
known and where land use change should require soil contamination management
measures (namely the “BASOL” database sites). This information will be incorporated
into the urban planning documents.
• Therefore when a building permit or a planning permission is required: the applicant
must provide a certificate, made by an engineering firm qualified for contaminated
sites and soils that states that the project has taken the contamination into
consideration.
•
Facilitation of brownfields redevelopment:
• So far, when operational activity ceases, the operator, under the Prefect control, has
the obligation to make the site safe and to reclaim it for its future use.
• Now if any third party (such as property developer) wants to carry out the
remediation of the site instead of the operator, this applicant must:
• Provide written agreement from the last operator
• Be associated with the future land use proposed
• Have a financial guarantee to cover the remediation costs.
•
Clarification of liabilities: the chain of liabilities is now set in law as follows:
• 1/ The last operator of the plant or the waste producer or the holder
• 2/ Alternatively, the landowner if it is proved that he has been negligent or is linked
to the polluting activity
• In case of land use change, the person responsible for the land use change is in
charge of the contaminated soil management measures and has to bear the
corresponding remediation costs.
These new provisions will request implementation decrees to be discussed and adopted within the
upcoming months.
Several technical guidance documents have been published for the reuse of excavated soils:
In April 2012, guidelines about the reuse of excavated soils for road construction or as part
of a development project. It sets out the criteria of acceptance for an excavated soil at a
receiver site (stand still principle, preservation of ecosystems and groundwater, compatibility
of soils with the future use of the receiver site for project development). Two tools have
been developed to help decision-makers: Hydrotex (groundwater risk assessment) and
Terrass (soil French stock exchange).
- In December 2013, guidance on soils characterization.
Common Forum 2014.041
7
Further information on the approach and the related tools can be found on:
Guidance on the French Environment Ministry web site:
http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/Guide-de-reutilisation-hors-site.html
TERRASS (the French Soil Stock Exchange)
http://terrass.brgm.fr

Belgium – Flanders / Update on the new cofounding instrument / Marijke Cardon
On the 1st of September 2013, Flanders introduced a subsidy system for soil remediation costs. The
system is compliant with the Polluter Pays Principle (Parties who have caused the contamination in a
period of 30 years prior to the application are excluded from co-financing support) and the EU State
Aid regulations (EU 1407/2013). The annual budget available is currently 3.630.000 EUR.
This remediation subsidy system has been introduced to accelerate the remediation process and
relies on strict conditions:
For the beneficiary:
Owner of the contaminated site before
June 1st 2008
No exemption from legal
decontamination obligation
Not having caused the contamination in
a period of 30 years prior to the
application
No prior violation of soil legislation
About the pollution:
Declaration of conformity of the soil
remediation project after May 31st 2008
Remediation is financed by the
beneficiary
Contamination is serious and
remediation is necessary
Not related to petrol stations or dry
cleaners
No other subsidy granted for the
remediation
Eligible costs comprise: Remediation costs, Environmental consultancy and other costs if they are
Common Forum 2014.041
8
necessary for the remediation (safety costs, demolishing …).
Percentages of co-financing vary from up to 35% for enterprises and 50% for individual persons or
publics institutions, with a maximum of 200.000 EUR per beneficiary over 3 years.
Since the launch in September 2013, 21 applications have been approved for a global grant of
2.013.225 EUR for a total remediation cost of 7.065.369 EUR leading to an average of 95.868 EUR cofinancing per application.
SHORT NOTICES FROM OTHER COUNTRIES

The Netherlands / Co Molenaar
The Netherlands are working on:
 The Soil Remediation Circular was adjusted in 2013
 The Modernisation of the legislation (one spatial law in which the environmental themes are
integrated), one of the main issues for the Ministry: the law will come in to force in 2018
 Inventory of soil and subsurface societal interests (the foreseen claims on natural capital and
resources (land use, groundwater, energy resources, building materials, climate mitigation) for
the coming 100 years will be identified): a first draft version of the spatial plan and
accompanying framework is expected in December 2014; an EIA and CBA are under
construction
 Inventory of agreements between Government - local authorities and industries (a new
covenant on soil and subsurface policy and spatial planning, decentralisation of policy tasks,
knowledge structure and development): draft agreements are due this year, to be signed in
2015
 Evaluation of Knowledge and research structure: the proposition is part of the 2015
agreements, as is the update of the knowledge agenda (use subsurface, circular economy,
resource efficiency)
 The Netherlands Soil Platform (a forum for international cooperation and exchange of
experiences and knowledge) was relaunched in December 2013
 Health regulations for working in contaminated soils (research by RIVM and Ministries of
Infrastructure and the Social Affairs and Employment Address in cooperation with the civil
engineering sector)
 NL EU presidency in 2016: NL wants Liveable cities (smart cities) on the agenda.
Session 2B: Continuing the elaboration of a research and knowledge agenda
for CLM and soil Protection / Margot de Cleen & Co Molenaar
Since we discussed this issue (Bratislava, May 2013 and Durban, October 2013), the Horizon 2020 call
has been launched, with a specific bullet on this issue: H2020 Call SC5-10b on “structuring research
on soil, land-use and land management in Europe”.
The INSPIRATION proposal, initiated by the German Environment Agency with the support of
Common Forum (secretariat and members), is based on the following conceptual model and has
three key premises:
Common Forum 2014.041
9
•
•
•
Improving efficient use of knowledge by a demand driven and bottom up strategic research
agenda (SRA)
Ensuring success in addressing societal challenges by a Policy Science Interaction and
interaction with stakeholders
Establishing a transnational network of funding bodies and cooperating industries by
recognition of individual demands in the SRA
Up-scaling to the area of decision-making / action is needed to find additional potential solutions,
realise value creation and attract potential investors, and meet the new societal challenges (e.g.
climate change mitigation, land pressure and investments on brownfield redevelopment,
preservation of the natural capital and in particular the services given by the Soil – Sediment – Water
System (SSWs)). The necessary balance between the use and the protection of natural resources can
only be achieved by land management.
As reminder, please note that the specific needs for contaminated land identified during CF
discussions have been compiled and are available at:
http://www.commonforum.eu/Documents/DOC/PositionPapers/Towards_an_European_Research_
Agenda_For_Contaminated_Land_Management.pdf).
The evaluation report for the H2020 proposal is expected by the beginning of September 2013.
Depending on the results, different issues should be further discussed within Common Forum:
- If INSPIRATION is successful, are CF members prepared to play a role in necessary inventories
to develop the SRA? Possible inputs from CF could be:
o Potential stakeholders in your country
o Potential colleagues in your organization
o Prior societal challenges in your country/organization (rural, urban)
o Existing research agenda’s and research activities
o Good examples and potential case studies
o CF members could be identified as contact points for the national / regional
workshops planned in INSPIRATION (limited to 1 or 2 days).
Common Forum 2014.041
10
-
-
What is the CF strategy if the call is awarded to another consortium?
o The current secretariat budget is not able to support a contribution. This should be
discussed when the winning consortium is known.
In both situations, how do we organize a CF contribution?
o For the moment, only individual contributions are envisaged.
If none is granted, how should we continue?
o EC call is an extra incentive for having more resources for developing this strategic
research agenda. If no incentive, we should continue the discussions within CF
meetings and develop a shared agenda for Soil and Land.
o After the European Soil Partnership meeting (see below) an opportunity is available
by joining in the working group for the Soil Agenda for the ESP (Esther and Margot
have applied).
Session 3: Research and technical issues

Update on ISO documents / Frank LAMÉ
Frank Lamé, Chairman of ISO/TC 190 ‘Soil Quality’ and of CEN/TC 345 ‘Characterization of soils’, was
invited to Berlin meeting for discussing:
- What is the role of standards for legislations and regulations?
- The reason for that came up with a discussion on the terminology standard (ISO 11074) from
ISO/TC 190,
- How can bodies like the Common Forum interact?
ISO/TC 190 (see flyer on the CF website) started in 1985 and currently has produced 154 standards,
via 6 committees:
 SC 1: terminology (11074), but for example also data exchange
 SC 2: sampling
 SC 3: Analysis – both in the laboratory as in the field (screening)
 SC 4: Biological characterization – determination of soil fauna, but also test on toxicology
 SC 5: Physical methods (things like water content) – dormant
 SC 6: was radioactivity, but this was moved to another TC already in 1993
 SC 7: Soil and site assessments
CEN/TC 345 was established in 2002 in light of the upcoming Soil Framework Directive for providing
technical instruments for the Framework Directive. With no developments in that area, CEN/TC 345
decided to start the process of adopting specific ISO-standards from ISO/TC 190 as EN-ISO-standards
as harmonization within the EU is considered important. Some 40 EN-ISO-standards have been
published.
While ISO standards can be adopted on a voluntarily basis, CEN standards are to be accepted in
Member States by the national standardisation bodies. When accepted at the European scale,
national standards with the same scope need to be withdrawn. The transformation of an ISO
standard into an EN standard is done on a case by case procedure, with vote at the qualified
majority. It is up to the national governments to refer to standards in their legislation and to decide
to which standards they refer.
The current challenges of the standardisation are:
- The limited funding and the fewer experts involved on a voluntary basis in the standardisation
work,
Common Forum 2014.041
11
o There is no central fund for supporting these activities. EC mandates CEN for some
issues (not yet for soil).
- In light of the standards published, some committees will transfer from a standard
development stage towards a standard maintenance stage (possible revision or withdrawal
every 5 years)
- The current matrix oriented organisation which is no longer optimal regarding the more general
issues to consider (circular economy, climate change, food en feed production),
- The costs of standards which are not free even for the experts contributing.
On the 5th of June 2014, the future organization of the environmental (and related) standardization
will be discussed in Brussels (more information at: http://www.cen.eu/News/Events/Pages/EV-201406.aspx). According to the topics to be discussed, it is important that national governments are also
involved in that discussion.
Statement - Dietmar MÜLLER-GRABHERR
With regard to experiences in Austria standards originating from ISO/TC 190 are not always helpful.
As a trivial example Austria had to withdraw a national standard and to accept an EN-ISO-standard
on pH-determination, although experience has shown that the ISO-method is not appropriate for
specific soils in Austria.
Recently the ISO 11074 on terminology has been proposed for an EN-ISO standard. The approved
draft version (March 2014) provides definitions which are clearly not compatible with EU regulations.
Austria voted against the adoption of ISO 11074.
Key questions for Common Forum are:
- If it’s a European standard will it be enhancing our common understanding and be
supportive to our discussions?
- Will European countries, citizens or environment benefit from this particular EN-ISO
document?
- Could it be worth taking action to the further process and organize a common effort before
the voting at the next/last stage of the FDIS (final draft international standard EN)?
Common Forum 2014.041
12
Following the existing procedure and the known timing, adoption during the next year could be
possible. Common Forum representatives are invited to make contact with their national
standardization bodies to team up and get involved in the ongoing European standardization
processes. In particular the upcoming final voting for adopting ISO 11074 as a EN-ISO is of concern.
DISCUSSION
After the two general statements, different issues were discussed:
- The European countries most actively involved in TC 190 are DE, NL, FR, UK and Nordic
countries,
-The status of the ISO 11074 and its transposition in a CEN standard:
o At this stage of the ISO procedure, no more comments or requests for revisions can be
sent. The decision to be taken in autumn is yes or no.
o Note that, with the parallel voting procedure, it is possible to vote Yes for an ISO
version and No for an EN-ISO-version.
- The connection between CEN Standards and EU regulatory guidance (e.g. IED baseline report
guidance developed by DG ENV, with a parallel working group with no formal reviewing
procedure, or the construction products standard described within CEN TC 351),
-The decision procedure for developing a new standard:
o ISO TCs are autonomous for taking a decision, while it’s up to the national
standardisation bodies actively participating in that TC to vote in that decision
process. Prioritisation and financial issues are organised at national level via the
national standardisation bodies.
O Starting the process of standardisation requires the involvement of 5 country
standardisation bodies.
- In order to have influence on the standardisation process, it is essential to organise
participation on the national level and based on that ensure participation at the international
(CEN / ISO) level

The ISO document on Sustainable Remediation / Paul Nathanail (Chair of ISO
TC190/CS7/WG12)
Proposed in September 2012 the creation of a specific working group dedicated to Sustainable
remediation was approved by the International Standardisation Organisation (ISO) in November
2012. The ISO document should provide:
 A standard terminology and information about the key components and aspects of
sustainable remediation.
 Informative advice on the selection of sustainable remediation strategies.
The most active countries within this working group (ISO/TC 190/SC 7/WG 12) are UK (including the
WG chair), Germany (secretariat via DIN), Australia, Austria, France, Italy, Japan, Netherlands and
Sweden. Much of the initial draft of the document was prepared by colleagues from SURF and SURF
Canada who are unable to join the Working Group as their national standards bodies are not
members of TC190.
The structure of the document has slightly changed (cf. slides) and currently under modification for
improving readability and ISO rules compliance. Main messages are now:
Common Forum 2014.041
13
-
-
-
SR is about successfully managing unacceptable risks (e.g. to human health and/or the
environment) in a way that optimises the net environmental, social and economic impacts of
the remediation.
Should be implemented in a risk based land management context, after the risk evaluation
has identified a need for remediation and a technical appraisal has short listed candidate
remediation strategies with a tiered approach
There is a need to identify site specific indicators that can differentiate between the
shortlisted strategies and then metrics for each indicator.
The governance context is important but no specific comment on the pros and cons of
different governance contexts is given; instead it is recognised that what may be sustainable
remediation in one context may not be in another.
The future steps are:
• Finalisation of text and formatting into ISO template by late June
• Submission to TC190/SC7
• Voting by SC7 – expected by late autumn 2014
• Discussion at TC190 meeting (Berlin, October 2014)
• Adoption as Technical Specification
• Review 3 years after publication for updating to a Standard.

The FP7 NANOREM project / Hans - Peter KOSCHITZKY
A four year, €14 million research project funded through the European Commission FP7 called
NanoRem started in 2013. The overarching aim of NanoRem is to develop, and support the
appropriate use of in situ remediation technologies for soil and groundwater contaminations using
different nanoparticles (NPs) in Europe.
Its main goals are:
• Identification of the most appropriate nanoremediation technological approaches that could
achieve a step-change in practical remediation performance.
• Development of lower cost production techniques and production at commercially relevant
scales for different NPs, also for large-scale (field) applications.
• Determination of the mobility and migration potential of nanoparticles in the subsurface,
and their potential to cause harm, focusing on the NP types most likely to be adopted into
practical use in the EU.
• Development of a comprehensive toolbox for the design of nanoremediation applications,
field scale nanoremediation performance and determination of the fate of NPs in the
subsurface, also during the field applications.
• Dissemination and stakeholder dialog to ensure that research, development and
demonstration meet end-user and regulatory requirements.
• Pre-deployment risk assessment - regulatory requirement,
• sustainability,
• market niche
• Provision of tests at representative scales (field sites, pilots) to validate cost, performance,
and fate and transport findings.
Common Forum 2014.041
14
NanoRem is structured in 9 work packages (WP2 to WP10, with regards to content) with a three
levels approach:
I.
Development and production of different NPs: WP2 and WP3
II.
Properties and behavior of the NPs in the environment: WP4 to WP7
III.
Application, permission (approval) and promotion of the remediation technologies
a. Large scale experiments and pilot sites: WP8 and WP10
b. Dissemination, communication and exploitation: WP9
It will be focused on the following nanoparticles:
Particle name
Manufacturer
Comment / used in NanoRem
NANOFER 25s
NanoIron
Reference particle,
WP10: Large Scale Flume , Pilot sites (DNAPL) Czech
Republic (CZ)
NANOFER STAR
NanoIron
(air stable)
NANOFER STAR*
WP4: Cannot be transported
To be optimized
NanoIron
(air stable)
Modified NANOFER STAR
Needed in WP 10: Large Scale Flume
Pilot site Israel (IS)
Milled Fe(0)
UVR-FIA
Needed in WP 10, Pilot site Zurzach, Switerland (CH)
Carbo-Iron (lab)
UFZ
Needed in WP10: Large Scale Flume
Carbo-Iron (industry)
SciDre Dresden
Pilot site Hungary (HU)
Fe-Oxide
HMGU
Needed in WP 10 : Large Scale Container,
Pilot Sites (LNAPL) Czech Republic (CZ), Portugal (PO),
Spain (ES)
Bio-Fe-oxides
UMAN
Research status
Fe-Zeolites
UFZ
Research status
Nano-Metals (Mg, Al)
USTUTT
No final product available yet
Ferrates
USTUTT
No final product available yet
The first key outcomes after one year are related to:
• The production of new types of nZVI particles with surface stabilization
• The production and improvement of nZVI based on grinding/milling
• Optimization and property adjustment of particles
• A description of chemical and physical characterization of particles
• The development of standardized experimental protocols to facilitate comparison of NP
mobility and fate
• The launch of large scale experiments for testing of appropriate injection technologies for
varying subsurface conditions, and providing knowledge on degradation products under
controlled large scale conditions.
• The detailed description of the 7 proposed field sites on which nanoparticles could be tested
(existing site conceptual models have to be illustrated and harmonised within NanoRem)
Common Forum 2014.041
15
•
•
•
The engagement of actions on stakeholders involvement (LQM Pre-deployment Risk
Assessment tool, Nottingham Workshop 16-17 July 2013, with a report on Potential
Environmental Risks of Nanoparticle Deployment - still under final discussion)
The implementation of the NanoRem website (www.nanorem.eu)
A NanoRem newsletter and several info materials (poster, etc.).
Common Forum also discussed:
- Acceptance of nanoparticles / nanoremediation in the different CF countries:
- In the UK, there is a voluntary moratorium on the use of nanoparticles
- In Wallonia, this has not yet been identified as a key issue needing decision.
- Questions / issues of concern for regulators and policy-makers: Dominique will compile all
for further discussion with the Nanorem project team.
Session 4: European Agenda

Soil Protection: results of the ENV Council discussion / Andreas BIEBER
During the March 2014 Environment Council, an informal exchange of views was organised to
consider the possibility of re-launching a rethink around work on Soil Protection. The debate was
based on two questions by the Presidency on whether soil protection remains an objective for action
at the level of the Union and, if yes, which is the appropriate approach to achieve it (legislation or
something else). The debate confirmed an already known state of play with a number of Member
States opposing to the proposed binding legislation on soil. Nevertheless, MS remain committed to
soil protection objectives as approved in the 7th Environment Action Programme.
The Commissioner, Janez Potocnik, concluded that the Commission will come back with "something
possible, more flexible, more adaptable to local circumstances and more coherent with other
policies". After the effective withdrawal of the directive draft (21 May 2014), this topic will need to
be discussed with the New EU Commission (no further action expected before autumn 2014).
The last EU scale discussions (EEA workshop on soil economics, DG ENV study and upcoming
conference on “land as a resource”, announced policy document for 2015) highlight the land
dimension in soil policy. Common Forum should discuss in the upcoming meetings:
- What should be the challenges to target and the potential targets of such Land policy?
- The need to be proactive in the development of such policy, in particular in the light of
proposed new initiatives on soil by the upcoming EU presidencies.

Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) / Update on actions of Member States
Several countries of the CF network have undertaken national work to propose recommendations on
the IED baseline report tool.
a) The German technical guidelines on IED Baseline Report / Joerg FRAUENSTEIN
Common Forum 2014.041
16
The guidance for preparation of the baseline report on the state of soil and groundwater in Germany
has been finally approved and published. It intends to give the competent authorities guidance on
the assessment of baseline reports submitted to them within the context of permit procedures under
emission control law, and to assist installation operators and consultants commissioned by them
when preparing a baseline report.
The applicant intending to operate an installation falling within the scope of the IED in which relevant
hazardous substances are used, produced or released must submit a baseline report together with
the permit application documents. The elaboration of the baseline report can be defined as
following.
The main steps are:
- The identification of substances of
relevance (those falling under the CLP
regulation)
- The assessment of relevance which is
done via two criteria: i) the
fundamental ability of a substance to
cause
pollution
of
soil
or
groundwater on the site of the
installation, and ii) the quantity.
- The situation type of previous use of
the site requesting a new permit
(greenfield or brownfield) which will
influence the approach:
a) For both cases, the guidance sets
out specific requirements about
the characterisation of site
conditions, practical performance
of sampling, soil, soil-air and
groundwater analyses.
b) For sites with previous use,
guidance is also given about the
way in which a suitable sampling
strategy is to be designed, which
should be agreed by the applicant
with the permit authority.
To fulfil the site characterisation purpose of the baseline report, and for later comparisons with the
baseline state, the decision on the way in which the grid of soil measurement points is configured is
crucial and should be documented carefully with repeatable accuracy. Therefore, the German
guidance proposes examples for i) the selection and positioning of sampling points, ii) the definition
of the demarcation of the study area, iii) the use of previously available information, and iv) the
consideration of the upcoming components of the installation which should be considered for further
characterisation.
Under Art. 22(3)(1) IED the obligation to return the site to the state established in the baseline report
covers only such pollution that arose after that state was determined, and only with regard to such
substances that count among the “relevant hazardous substances” of the installation closed. Insofar,
Common Forum 2014.041
17
the obligation to return the site to the original state supplements existing obligations. It does not
imply that an operator is exempted of the obligation to avert hazards. Thus the pre-existing
obligations under soil protection law and the new obligations concerning preparation of a baseline
report apply independently.
An English version of the guidance is available at:
http://www.commonforum.eu/Documents/Meetings/2014/Berlin/Baseline_Report_Germany.pdf
The main identified challenges are:
- a broad variety of cases (installation, industrial branches, substances, mixtures and
underground)
- communications between operator and competent authority (e.g. concept for site
investigation)
- content, use and approval of existing data
- dealing with existing contamination.
The discussion has been focused on: i) how to consider preventive, control/maintenance measures
for the substances of relevance (Germany has chosen a “not fully closed – not fully open” approach),
ii) the use of the water hazard classes as thresholds, and iii) the connection with the soil legislation
(used in particular for substances where there is no risk phrase).
b) Finland / Jussi REININKAINEN
Finland recently launched discussions around developing Finnish guidance for the IED baseline
report. At this stage of the discussions, the Finnish guidance will follow a case-by-case approach for:
- The list of activities that will be submitted to,
- And the hazardous substances of relevance
The guidance will present the procedure (mainly following the EC guidance) to be applied
appropriately on the different sites. Some examples will be provided to support its implementation.
The main identified challenges at the moment are:
- How to determine relevant substances?
- How to carry out investigations and reliably define the baseline on existing sites with existing
(slight) contamination and structures?
- How to define “significant pollution” at site closure, as it should already contribute to the
required sampling strategy for baseline investigations? e.g. an increase of 20% of what?
- How operators and authorities are able to agree on the “correct” baseline?
- How to avoid additional obligations that the baseline report may, but should not trigger?
- The return to baseline conditions, while a risk-based approach is currently applied to all
operations and sites.
Finland will conduct a feedback study on the practices developed during its implementation.
c) The EC guidance on baseline report
Common Forum 2014.041
18
The EC guidance has finally been published on May, 5 (https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/ae2546842fdc-41c5-9af49d6b0c4c9862/C_2014_2834_1_COMMUNICATION_FROM_COMMISSION_EN_V2_P1_765812.DOC).
It clarifies the stepwise approach and some of the key elements for decision, in particular the criteria
to consider for defining the possibility of soil and groundwater contamination at the site (three
elements to consider: quantities, environment characteristics at the site of possible emission,
measures of prevention to avoid that contamination from taking place). It remains challenging on
some specific issues such as:
• “Contamination and Pollution considered as interchangeable”
• Information necessary to determine the state of soil and groundwater – should be
given (if referring to the IED text) when there are significant quantities to consider,
not in all cases?
• All “demonstrations / decisions” should be made and held by the competent
authorities (a little bit beyond the IED formal requirements?)
• Reference to ISO/CEN prior to national standards (no place for national mandatory
protocols? No difference between the different types of standards?)
• Stages 3, 5 and 7
• Uncertainties; limited to 2 important Elements (GW baseline data and use of
statistical data)????
d) Tour de table:
-
-
France: the French guidance has been published in May 2014 (available at:
http://www.developpementdurable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Guide_Elaboration_Rapport_de_Base_IED_Dechet_v2-1.pdf).
Italy: a synthetic version in English of the Italian guidance is under preparation. There is no
change since Antonella’s presentation in Bratislava.
The Netherlands: the existing guidance, the Netherlands Soil Protection Guideline for
Industrial Activities (NRB) will be used. It has been confirmed at administrative level by the
Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment/Directorate General for the
Environment (VROM/DGM), the Union of Water Boards, the Association of Provinces and the
Association of Netherlands Municipalities within the Soil Steering Party (Stubo). Hence the
NRB has the status of a harmonising tool for assessing the need and reasonableness of soil
protection measures and facilities. However the NRB is not legally binding. The NRB only
becomes legally binding once it has been converted into conditions in permits or general
administrative orders. Deviations from it may be approved provided they are clearly
motivated, for example in the preamble to the environmental permit, and taking equality
before the law into account. Application of the NRB is therefore not optional.
o Further detailed information (preventive soil protection guidelines, reducing the risk
of dispersion, measures at facilities…) can be downloaded from:
http://rwsenvironment.eu/subjects/soil/legislation-and/soil-protection
e) Follow-up action on this issue:
Common Forum 2014.041
19
After discussion, CF network decided to extend the questionnaire developed for the Joint Workshop
presentation (IED baseline report comparison) for assessing all guidance developed and comparing
national guidelines and the EC guidance which will be the reference document for any litigation at
the European Court of Justice.

Environmental Liability Directive – Bios Study results :
In 2013, the European Commission instructed BIO Intelligence Service to conduct a study on the
implementation challenges and obstacles of the Environmental Liability Directive. NICOLE and
Common Forum were interviewed with other European stakeholders. The final report is available at:
http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/study-on-eld-effectiveness-scope-and-exceptions-referencepbKH0414080/. The EC guidance should be available in September 2014.
a) The NICOLE’s point of view / Anja SINKE
Overall NICOLE sees the ELD and implementation by the MS, as an effective piece of European
legislation serving its purpose of providing “a framework of environmental liability based on the
‘polluter-pays' principle, to prevent and remedy environmental damage”. For most European
Member States NICOLE sees the ELD as topping up already existing legislation.
NICOLE answered a series of questions. Highlighted below three specific topics on which NICOLE
provided input and where the recommendations of the BIOIS report were significantly deviating.
NICOLE
BIOS recommendations
Strict liability
Keep defences - state of art defence’ Delete defences
and/or ‘state of permit defence’,
which puts a fair nuance to the
concept of strict liability
Scope
Is adequate
Thresholds
Value if Risk-based & sustainable
Generic lowering
include
overall
NEBA
(net
environment
benefit
analysis)
principles
Expand (e.g. Air damage, and
potentially those covered by
nuclear conventions)
NICOLE is considering sending an official statement on the BIOS report and embedded
recommendations.
b) The CF answer / Dominique DARMENDRAIL
Questions for Common Forum were about:
- Status quo or evolution? Pipelines, mining, shale gas exploration/exploitation:
- The scope of strict liability is already broad and Annex III to the ELD covers a large
range of activities. Thus, it already covers all activities listed in Annex I to the
Common Forum 2014.041
20
-
-
Industrial Emissions Directive (IED, 2010/75/EU). Before considering “adding” new
activities to the list of Annex III, it would be more relevant first to ensure that this
Annex is properly applied.
Scope of environmental damage:
- The ELD considers separately soil, water and ecosystem damage. A wider approach
would be justified, not only for the sake of environmental benefits but in a sense of
resource protection and effectiveness also economically (finding synergies).
Appropriateness of the significance thresholds for land and water damages:
- For water resources, the European Commission should consider that there is existing
EU legislation that determines what resource is to be protected and how (Water
Framework Directive, GW Daughter Directive). Hence, an important point would be, in
relation to significance thresholds, to refer to the provisions of this legislation to
ensure coherence
For soil and land, defining what ‘significance’ is should be a local / regional debate
(comparison to natural geochemical backgrounds). Significance should be described
in terms of intensity, extent and duration. All European countries with a land
protection policy or a contaminated land policy / provisions (in environment Code in
general) consider Human Health Protection + water resources protection and
(directly or indirectly) Ecosystems protection in a broader integrated way.
Common forum’s comments are reported back in the Bios report, but are not reflected in the
conclusions (except for the integration of land/soil and water damage). After discussion, Common
Forum decided to send a short statement to the European Commission to reinforce our concerns.
-

The European Soil Partnership / Eddy Van DYCK
In the framework of the Global Soil Partnership (GSP) launched in 2013 by the FAO
(http://www.fao.org/globalsoilpartnership/en/), the European Commission and several European
stakeholders established the regional soil partnership for Europe. This new European Soil Partnership
(ESP) is aims to bring together all stakeholders and institutions in Europe willing to adopt the
principles of the World Soil Charter.
The ESP has five pillars:
- Soil management in Europe: challenges and opportunities
- Towards European policies on the sustainable management of soil resources
- Promote targeted soil research
- Soil data and information
- Harmonization of methods and measurement
The EC Joint Research Centre will host the first ESP meeting next week in Ispra (Italy). Some of the
Common Forum members (Maggie Charnley, Margot De Cleen, Esther Goidts, Grzegorz Siebelec,
Eddy Van Dyck) are planning to participate and to contribute to some of the thematic sessions.
During the Berlin meeting, Common Forum discussed:
a) Key messages to contribute to the “Views about the pillars“ for soil management in Europe:
challenges and opportunities – subtopic 'soil contamination and restoration activities.
(Contribution to the presentation by Eddy Van Dyck, invited as presenter for this topic at the
ESP-meeting)
b) How do we – as Common Forum – see a possible co-operation with / within European Soil
Partnership?
Common Forum 2014.041
21
This last point should be discussed in Napoli depending of the results of ISPRA meeting.
Session 5: Secretariat issues
 Environmental Technology Verification (ETV)
The Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) is a quite recent EC tool to help innovative
environmental technologies reach the market. For achieving this, claims about the performance of
innovative environmental technologies are verified by qualified third parties called verification
bodies. Currently 3 of the 7 environmental technologies areas are covered by the ETV programme
(Water treatment and monitoring, Materials / waste and resources, Energy technologies). But EC
recently announced the integration of contaminated sites remediation technologies by 2016. A ISO
guidance is also under preparation.
 Horizon 2020 / Proposals with CF members:
Common Forum has been involved in two proposals for the first call of Horizon 2020, the new EC RTD
funding programme:
- One on the creation of a network of public procurers for soil decontamination
- One on the elaboration of a Research and Knowledge agenda for soil
The results of the evaluation phase are expected beginning of September.

IMPEL / DECO Project finalisation
Since the last meeting, the draft final report provided by the DECO coordinator (ARPA Lombardia)
Conclusions of report has been reviewed 3 weeks ago. The Italian coordinator should consolidate the
remarks and disseminate to the DECO project team for validation by June 2014.
It should be presented at an IMPEL CLUSTER meeting in autumn 2014 for a possible approval at
IMPEL GA in October or November 2014.
 International Activities – International Committee on Contaminated land
The 11th ICCL meeting was held in Durban (South Africa) on the 9 & 10th of October 2013, followed by
an open workshop on innovative technology for the remediation of contaminated land on the 11th of
October. 85 and 156 people respectively attended the ICCL meeting and the Joint workshop. 4 new
countries were involved: Lesotho, Mozambique, South Korea and Vietnam.
The 12th edition will be held in Melbourne (Australia) in September 2015 back to back to the CLEANUP Conference. More information (dates, topics of interest) will be disseminated in autumn.
For 2017, interested countries should contact Dominique for proposing a candidature.
 CF secretariat Networking activities
a) With NICOLE: via the WG regulation (new chair to be identified in Berlin)
b) With SEDNET: for participating to a new working group on sediment science & policy
interfacing.
Common Forum 2014.041
22
c) With CABERNET: for the organisation of the October Conference (see below).

-
Upcoming events:
NORDROCS 2014, Stockholm (Sweden) – 16-18 September 2014
Sustainable Remediation 2014 conference, Ferrara (Italy) – 17 – 19 September 2014
Innovative solutions for revitalization of degraded areas, Ustron (Poland), 6 – 8 October 2014
CABERNET – HOMBRE - TIMBRE conference, Frankfurt (Germany) – 14 – 16 October 2014.
Contaminated site management in Europe, Brussels (Belgium) – 20-22 October 2014.
NICOLE workshop on risk assessment and economically viable management, Prague (Czech
Republic) – 5 – 7 November 2014
Next meetings:
-
o Future CF meetings:
Napoli (Italy) – 9 & 10 October 2014
Copenhagen (Denmark) – Spring 2015
Norway ? – Spring 2016
-
o Future ICCL meeting:
Melbourne (Australia), back to back the CLEAN-UP Conference (13–17 September 2015).
Tasks List
Action
Responsible
Deadline
List of questions or concerns on nanoparticles / nano
remediation
All CF members
30 July 2014
Synthesis of questions / concerns for Nanorem
DD
September 2014
Questionnaire on IED baseline report implementation
DD/ M. Cardon
Autumn 2014
meeting
Topics to be rediscussed in Napoli:
- CF position on H2020 research knowledge
Agenda
-
Common Forum 2014.041
23