COMMON FORUM ON CONTAMINATED LAND IN EUROPE The International Committee on Contaminated Land and the European Common Forum networks Dominique DARMENDRAIL INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE ON CONTAMINATED LAND

ICCL / Common Forum networks  Network of contaminated land policy experts and advisors dealing with contaminated land management:  International scale (since 1993), Europe (since 1994)  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, 1 INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE & COMMON FORUM ON CONTAMINATED LAND

ICCL & CF countries 2 INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE & COMMON FORUM ON CONTAMINATED LAND

The European and International Networks on contaminated land management  NATO CCMS (80s – 2007)  International Committee on Contaminated Land (since 1993)  Common forum on contaminated land in Europe (since 1994)  CARACAS (1996 – 1998)  CLARINET 1998 – 2001)  NICOLE (since 1996) + NICOLA (since 2014)  Sednet  Cabernet  Eurodemo / Eurodemo+  SNOWMAN  IMPEL (Environment inspectorate - in Europe) INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE & COMMON FORUM ON CONTAMINATED LAND

1 – Results from questionnaires to CF Members 2 - Link between MS inventories & indicator 3 – Conclusions & recommandations Outline

5 European countries which answered 2012 CF Bratislava meeting / 2013 ICCL Survey

Identified types of registers 1.Sites with potentially polluting activities 2.Potentially polluted sites 3.Sites where soil assessment has been performed 4.Polluted sites (pollutant concentration > threshold value) 5.Contaminated sites (pollutant concentration > risk value; site needs urgent intervention) 6.Remediated sites 7.Sites that need aftercare 8.Accident sites 9.Sites that are not polluted

Same exercice at the International level (2013) 7 COMMON FORUM ON CONTAMINATED LAND IN EUROPE Sites where potentially polluting activities have taken place or are taking place AT, BE, FI, FR, LU, NL, SW Potentially polluted sites AT, BE/ Wall, CA, CZ, FI, DE (Lander level), HU, IT (Region level), NL, SK, SW, CH, US (Federal facilities docket) Sites where soil assessment has been performed DE (Lander level), LU, NL, BE/ Wall Polluted sites (pollutant concentration > threshold value) AU/NSW, BE, CA (federal + Provinces ON QB), IT, NL, NO, CH, Contaminated sites (pollutant concentration > risk value; site needs urgent intervention) AU/NSW, AT, CZ, DE (Lander level) FI, FR, HU, IT, ES (region level), SE (part of the EP information system), SK, SW, CH, US (Fed + States) Remediated sites AT, BE, DE (Lander level), FI, FR, HU, IT NO, SK, SW, CH Sites that need aftercareAT, AU/NSW, BE,FR, NO, SW Accident sitesBE, FR (specific), SW Sites that are not polluted any more (or considered as such) AU/NSW, BE/ Wall, CA, FR, SW No inventory / Not yetAU /F, CN, PT(under definition), ZA (under process)

Results All of the identified registers exist somewhere but no register at all can also be an option There are also different ways to classify the sites: –Site Management Perspective e.g in Hungary B1: Before investigation B2: After investigation before remediation B3: After remediation –Urgency Perspective e.g in Slovakia Low priority Medium priority High prioritiy

Registers with specific focus  Sites where the intervention of public authorities is needed: –Austria –France –UK (part 2a-sites)  Inventories limited to historical sites: –Austria –Germany –France + inventory operating sites –Slovakia –Netherlands

Registers with specific focus Inventory reflects aptitude of site in relation to spatial planning –Norway –Luxembourg Special inventories for military sites –Norway : military sites are not public

Clarifications needed (1/5)  Definition of site :  area or point?  one or several cadastral parcels One operating site is most often on several parcels  which perimeter, in particular for the former/ historical sites: At the origin? At the closure? At the maximum of activities?  Operating site? Covered under IED  Accidents?  Historical / Legacy sites 11 COMMON FORUM ON CONTAMINATED LAND IN EUROPE

 Definitions of pollution vs. contamination (differences observed between countries, between countries and the indicator):  Some countries make a distinction between pollution and contamination, others no. 12 COMMON FORUM ON CONTAMINATED LAND IN EUROPE Clarifications needed (2/5) A : Polluted : value> threshold value Contaminated: value> risk value B : Contaminated : presence of pollutants Polluted : value>threshold value => What is the difference between threshold value and risk value (potential risks vs risks, generic vs site-specific risk assessment)? => Contamination does not necessarly present a risk, the threshold value comes from risk assessment (additionnal values can be defined for « unacceptable risks » e.g. intervention value)

 Definitions of contaminated sites : « well-defined area where the presence of soil contamination has been confirmed and this presents a potential risk to humans, water, ecosystems or other receptors »  A: Polluted sites or contaminated sites?  B: Polluted sites (with or without site-specific risk assessment done yet) 13 COMMON FORUM ON CONTAMINATED LAND IN EUROPE Clarifications needed (3/5) Sites at risk!

 Definitions of potentially contaminated sites: « sites where unacceptable soil contamination is suspected but not verified and detailed investigations need to be carried out to verify whether there is unacceptable risk of adverse impacts on receptors »  A: Sites where soil contamination has been confirmed but unacceptability must still be assessed (i.e. polluted sites)  B: Sites where soil contamination is suspected but has not been verified yet, whatever its unacceptability (i.e. potentially polluted sites) 14 COMMON FORUM ON CONTAMINATED LAND IN EUROPE Clarifications needed (4/5)

CLARIFICATIONS NEEDED (5/5) Management steps: (a) - site identification: « mapping of sites where potentially polluting activities have taken place or are still in operation » (BE, LU, NL, FR) -preliminary study: obj= deduce possibility of contamination and formulate H 0 (nature/location/distribution of contamination), if necessary limited investigation to validate H 0 (Austria, Hungary, Norway) (b) preliminary investigation: obj= confirm contamination (c) main site investigation: obj= define extent & degree of contaminatinon, risks, need for remediation measures (d) implementation of risk reduction measures  For A people: check if polluted sites are contaminated sites (i.e. > risk value)  For B people: check if sites are polluted  For A people: check if sites are polluted (limited investigations including soil analyses)  For B people: desk study to identify potentially polluted sites (without soil investigations)  For A and B people: detailed investigations including site-specific risk assessment  For A and B people: sites under remediation or after care measures Is it always necessary?

Outcomes of the surveys (1/3)  All of the identified register types exist somewhere but having no register at all can also be an option;  In general, a country has more than one inventory (e.g. one on potentially contaminated sites or sites on which polluting activities have taken place and one on contaminated sites or sites needing actions, one on remediated sites).  A national / regional register can be used for several inventories to keep track of the different situations and undertaken actions. 16 COMMON FORUM ON CONTAMINATED LAND IN EUROPE

Outcomes of the ICCL / CF survey (2/3)  There are also different ways to classify the sites in the different countries due to the context of the creation of these inventories and registers in relation with their objectives assigned in the national / regional legal frameworks ;  Contents of inventories present a great variety throughout Europe due to their creation context ;  Each inventory has to be understood in its context;  Inventories are a very important management and policy making tool, but results or statistics of different inventories are not comparable; 17 COMMON FORUM ON CONTAMINATED LAND IN EUROPE

Outcomes of the ICCL / CF survey (3/3)  When remediated sites are removed from an inventory they still appear in another one.  The elaboration and the update of the existing inventories and registers by the Member States have requested and are mobilising important financial efforts. Consequences of requesting amending / adapting / harmonising the existing tools should be carefully assessed in order to avoid additional financial burdens. 18 COMMON FORUM ON CONTAMINATED LAND IN EUROPE

2 – Link between MS inventories & indicator

Inventories and CS015 indicator  Existing inventories do not necessarly give a direct answers to the indicator questionnaire:  For example Norway and Luxembourg classifications do not allow to retrace which sites have been remediated and which sites where found clean at the first assessment  Some inventories are limited to a specific type of sites (p.ex only historical or only sites to be remediated / considered by public authority) -> distorsion of results

Inventories and CS015 indicator: Scale Factor From PCB transformator to refinery -> level of detail for potentially contaminated sites very different throughout Europe Site definition: former installation, contour of pollution or cadastral parcel? Comparison between MS using « targets » (threshold values or site specific approach) is not appropriate

3 – Conclusions & recommandations With Esther

Improvement suggested by authors of CSI015 indicator report: 1. Withdrawing of the following questions: - « Can you estimate the total area of sites identified by preliminary study » - « Could you provide the total estimated area of sites estimated to be potentially contaminated » - « How many of the sites identified as contaminated sites are under further investigation but not yet under remediation » 2. Simplification of questions 3. New structure for the parameters « management of CS »

Improvement suggested by authors: 4. New parameters for questions related to data inventories: => public access and geo-referenced data 5. Withdrawing or linking with other questions for the question related to the estimation of national expenditures - « can you estimate the overall management costs which are expected to arise in your country (public+private) »

In search of a common denominator Can Common Forum come up with suggestions/position paper for EEA? –Option to limit scope to historical sites –Option to better define the « site » –Option to limit potentially polluting activities to list Annexe II of former SFD –Definition of CS / RS: those of the former SFD? –Option to clarify link between management steps and PCS / CS inventory (+ « EU thresholds »?)

 Thanks for your attention! More information on: INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE & COMMON FORUM ON CONTAMINATED LAND