Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:E:Environmental Management and Health:Vol10.Issue5.1999:
Protecting Europe's groundwater: legislative
approaches and policy initiatives
Phyllis B. Judd
Ashby de la Zouch, Leicestershire, UK
C. Paul Nathanail
Ashby de la Zouch, Leicestershire, UK
Keywords
Groundwater, EC, Directives,
Pollution
Abstract
There have been many positive
recent developments in the
groundwater legislation and policies of the 15 European Community member States (excluding
Luxembourg), as the States recognise the importance of implementing the EC Groundwater
Directive, The Integrated Pollution
Prevention Control Directive and
other relevant EC directives. All
member States recognise the importance of protecting groundwater and most have enacted
legislation and/or established policies to do so. However, there are
significant variations in their approaches; these variations are
reflected in their approaches to
site registration and classification
schemes. Similarly, some member
States do not yet have policies
that specify explicit risk assessment procedures, while others
have formal risk assessment procedures in place for registering,
classifying and prioritising sites.
The authors wish to
acknowledge funding by the
European Union through a
SOCRATES project.
Environmental Management
and Health
10/5 [1999] 303±309
# MCB University Press
[ISSN 0956-6163]
Introduction
The focus of this paper is quite broad to be
addressed comprehensively in this relatively
brief document. However, this paper is in fact
based on an in-depth, long-term study recently completed by the authors. That study
involved compiling 17 research papers describing contaminated land policies in the 15
European Community member States (excluding Luxembourg), the USA and Canada.
At present, in most member States,
groundwater is protected as a source of
drinking water. Groundwater reserves are
under pressure from over-exploitation and in
some member States, water shortages are
already occurring. Furthermore, the ecological consequences of groundwater pollution
are still poorly understood and would likely
provide additional motives for groundwater
protection (Ferguson et al., 1998a). This study
provides an overview of groundwater legislation currently enacted and policies proposed and/or in effect in the member States.
This paper is structured into several
topic areas. The next section, European
Community Directives, sets the framework
and requirements for member States in
terms of EC legislative requirements and
policy objectives regarding groundwater
and related areas. The following sections
describe pollution prevention legislation
and policies, site registration/classification
schemes and the role of risk assessment. An
overview is provided for each section,
followed by specific examples from the
member States.
Two publications arising out of the European Community Concerted Action on Contaminated Sites in Europe (CARACAS)
provide further details on approaches to risk
assessment in Europe (Ferguson et al., 1998a)
and policy developments in European Community member States (Ferguson et al.,
1998b).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com
European Community Directives
The European Community plays an important role in developing environmental policy
throughout the EC on an integrated basis,
controlling and preventing pollution in all
member States. The EC Treaty (as amended
by the Single European Act 1986 and the
Treaty on European Union 1993) establishes
the aims of the EC; it is the primary source of
EC law and from it the EC institutions derive
their power to enact secondary legislation
(Wolf and White, 1997).
While only EC Directives are of direct
relevance to this paper, it is appropriate to
differentiate between EC Regulations and
Directives, as follows:
.
EC Regulations are directly applicable to
all member States and can be used to
ensure that the law is exactly the same
throughout the EC. Since they are binding
in their entirety, there is no need for
member States to take further action to
implement the Regulations for them to be
in effect (Wolf and White, 1997).
.
Similarly, EC Directives are generally
applicable to all member States. However,
while they are binding regarding the
results to be achieved, they differ from
Regulations in that the choice and means
of implementation are at the discretion of
the individual State (Wolf and White,
1997).
As the majority of EC environmental ``legislative acts'', including those governing
groundwater, take the form of Directives, it is
to be expected that there would be significant
divergences amongst member States in their
approaches to managing groundwater. This
is in fact the case; these differences will be
identified and demonstrated in the balance of
this paper.
The Groundwater Directive
The Groundwater Directive 80/68/EEC aims
to prevent the pollution of groundwater by
certain substances, and to reduce or eliminate any damage caused by pollution
(Wolf and White, 1997). The Directive includes two Lists, derived from the Dangerous
[ 303 ]
Phyllis B. Judd and
C. Paul Nathanail
Protecting Europe's
groundwater: legislative
approaches and policy
initiatives
Environmental Management
and Health
10/5 [1999] 303±309
Substances into Water Directive discussed
below. List I includes exceptionally toxic or
persistent substances such as organohalogens, organophosphorous compounds, mercury, lead, known carcinogens and many
pesticides; these are to be prevented from
entering groundwaters. List II includes many
other heavy metals, cyanide, ammonia and
other substances; these are to be limited by a
consent system (Ball and Bell, 1997).
The integrated pollution prevention control
directive
In September 1996, the European Council
adopted EC Directive 96/61/EC (OJ No L257/
6) which came into effect on 30 October 1996;
it requires all member States to establish
systems of Integrated Pollution Prevention
Control (IPPC). The purpose of the Directive
is to establish systems of IPPC for the
polluting ``activities'' which are listed in
Annex 1 of the Directive; the polluting
``activities'' are to be controlled to prevent or
minimise pollution of any environmental
medium. Member States are required to
implement the Directive in 1999 (Wolf and
White, 1997).
Other relevant EC Directives
The first EC water Directive, Directive 76/
464EEC on Dangerous Substances into Water
is the major Directive which aims to control
dangerous substances released into the
aquatic environment. Its aim is to reduce or
eliminate specified dangerous substances
from water. The Directive is a framework
directive that has subsequently been expanded upon by a number of so-called
Daughter Directives, including the Groundwater Directive (Wolf and White, 1997).
Other relevant EC Directives include Directives 75/440 EEC and 80/778/EEC on
drinking water, Directive 76/160/EEC on
bathing waters, Directive 78/659/EEC on
waters for freshwater fish and Directive 79/
923/EEC on shell fish waters (Wolf and
White, 1997)
Pollution prevention legislation
and policy
Groundwater pollution prevention legislation and policies in the European Community member States are inextricably linked to
the States' contaminated land legislation and
policies. All member States recognise the
importance of establishing and effecting
policies to manage contaminated land; similarly, the member States recognise the importance of protecting groundwater,
[ 304 ]
especially that which is used for water
supply.
Some member States have enacted specific
legislation and developed regulations that
establish requirements for protecting
groundwater; in other member States these
requirements are not explicit but may be
readily inferred from other legislation and
regulations. In some cases, while the need is
recognised, it is only very recently that any
actions have been taken to address the
problem.
The following examples demonstrate some
of the more common legislative and policy
initiatives as well as the variations in
approaches:
.
In Ireland, the Environmental Protection
Agency provides guidance and assistance
to local authorities. The agency is responsible for issuing Integrated Pollution
Control licences for scheduled activities.
Preventive measures are included in the
licences to ensure that contamination of
soil or groundwater does not occur; monitoring provisions are also included,
where appropriate. Furthermore, EPA
requires the licensee to make proposals
for the remediation of the soil or groundwater and to provide a time-scale for
carrying out the remedial work (Leech,
1994).
.
In Austria, the Law for the Clean-up of
Contaminated Sites (ALSAG) defines contaminated sites as disposal and industrial
sites, together with soil and groundwater
resources which they may have polluted,
which are believed ± on the basis of results
of risk assessment ± to pose considerable
threat to public health or to the environment. The definition does not include land
polluted in connection with agricultural
or comparable applications. Groundwater
is categorised into that which is important
for water-supply and that which is not
exploited (Schamann, 1998).
.
The Netherlands generally has a high
water table and is dependent on groundwater for 80 percent of its drinking supply
(Christie and Teeuw, 1996). Consequently,
the prevention of soil pollution and restoration of contaminated land are part of
an integrated environmental policy for
the protection of soil, including groundwater and sediments (Denneman, 1997).
The history of soil protection policy in
The Netherlands dates back to 1962 when
the Minister of Social Affairs and Public
Health established a scientific committee
to investigate the necessity for establishing legal measures for groundwater protection; it recommended that legal
measures should be taken to protect the
Phyllis B. Judd and
C. Paul Nathanail
Protecting Europe's
groundwater: legislative
approaches and policy
initiatives
Environmental Management
and Health
10/5 [1999] 303±309
.
soil as well, particularly near groundwater extraction wells used for drinking
water (Visser, 1993).
Greece has a few major plains (e.g.
Thessaly, Central Macedonia) where intensive agriculture is practised with extensive use of fertilisers and pesticides.
The extensive use of such substances has
significantly increased the contamination
of underground aquifers in the area and
presents one of the major issues of
groundwater contamination in Greece.
Joint Ministerial Decision 16190/1335/
1997, ``Measures for the Protection of Surface Waters and Groundwater from Nitrate Pollution due to Agricultural
Activities'', was just issued in 1997 to
address these problem areas (Kavvadas,
1998).
Site registration/classification
schemes
The term ``site registration'' refers to the
means by which EC member States identify
and develop lists or registers of contaminated
sites. The list of sites is then prioritised based
on some type of preliminary classification
and decision-making scheme that allows
relative assessments to be made. This approach is similar to that of an early model,
the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) developed
by the US Environmental Protection Agency
in the 1980s, as part of the Superfund
Programme. The HRS provided a relative
assessment of potentially contaminated sites
using a point system (Ferguson et al., 1998a).
Because of the need for making consistent
decisions covering large numbers of contaminated sites, many EC member States use
priority-setting approaches of one sort or
another to classify sites. The evaluation
criteria commonly used to prioritise contaminated sites include a determination of
the distance to groundwater and aquifer
sensitivity and the existence of drinking
waterwells/service water wells/drinking
water plant (Ferguson et al., 1998a).
Member States' approaches to site registration/classification vary significantly. In
some member States, the approach is formalised while in others it is much less well
developed. Furthermore, in some States, the
process is undertaken at the national government level while in others it is a function
of regional or local jurisdictions.
The following examples illustrate some of
the variations in approaches to site registration/classification:
.
In Finland, a list of potentially contaminated sites was compiled under
.
.
``SAMASE'', a nation-wide project in 199092. Most of the information was collected
by regional environmental authorities
such as waste management, water, public
health, construction, and regional planning authorities. Information was extracted from an extensive selection of
sources including permits, announcements, chemical and oil accident reports,
and industrial registers; other documents
concerning potentially polluting activities
or events were also screened (Puolanne
and Assmuth, 1997).
The data collected were entered into a
database. Sites with potential or known
risks that could adversely affect the environment or public health were visited
and those considered to be most harmful
were preliminarily investigated and assessed. The survey of contaminated soil
sites has been continued by the Regional
Environment Centres in connection with
the need to prioritise sites for clean-up
programmes (Puolanne and Assmuth,
1997).
Suspected contaminated sites are classified according to risk class, as follows:
Risk class 01 are those sites where contamination is estimated to be significant;
risk class 02 are those sites where minor
contamination is possible, but contaminant migration is not probable; risk class
03 are those sites where significant contamination and contaminant migration
are suspected; and risk class 04 are those
sites where significant contamination and
contaminant migration are verified by
investigation (Puolanne and Assmuth,
1997).
In France, in a December 1993 ministerial
circular, the prefects were informed of the
Government's intention to set up a national register of polluted sites. The national policy that evolved focuses on the
inventory, selection, and treatment of
sites suspected to be contaminated
through former industrial uses
(Darmendrail, 1997).
Currently, three complementary methods of inventory are being used:
± establishment or declaration of pollution (accidents, fortuitous discovery);
± systematic study of active sites, particularly for some priority sectors; and
± regional historical studies enabling old
industrial sites, where industrial activity has caused potential pollution, to
be inventoried (Darmendrail, 1997).
The system of selection uses a series of
screens, each with increasingly more
stringent criteria. Each screen corresponds to a diagnostic level requiring
[ 305 ]
Phyllis B. Judd and
C. Paul Nathanail
Protecting Europe's
groundwater: legislative
approaches and policy
initiatives
Environmental Management
and Health
10/5 [1999] 303±309
.
.
further and more complex technical and
scientific investigations. The first screen
aims to define sites for priority studies
using only documentary criteria; these
criteria concern primarily the nature of
the activity, its importance and the vulnerability of the site environment. The
second screen consists of an initial diagnosis (or ``soil study'') and a simplified
assessment of the risks to classify the sites
into three categories: sites needing
further investigation and detailed risk
assessment; sites ``under surveillance'' for
which a monitoring system should be
defined and implemented; and ``commonplace'' sites, which can be used for specific
purposes without further investigations
or work (Darmendrail, 1997).
In England and Wales, Section 143 of the
Environmental Protection Act 1990 provided for the registration of sites previously or currently used for a wide range
of different contaminative uses, defined as
any use of land which may cause it to be
contaminated with noxious substances.
However, in the face of continuing opposition, in 1993 the Government withdrew
its proposals for establishing registers of
contaminated land (Hester and Harrison,
1997).
The Environment Act 1995 rescinded
Section 143, but some local authorities
may, in the interim, have compiled some
of the information which they would have
needed. Furthermore, some local authorities have been developing strategies to
identify potentially contaminated land in
advance of Part IIa of the Environmental
Protection Act 1990 being implemented
(Nathanail and Earl, 1997).
While Portugal does not yet have a
specific administrative framework for
dealing with contaminated sites, issues
related to contaminated soil are of increasing importance. Sufficient information is currently available to make a
preliminary identification and characterisation of those sites related to existing
industrial areas and uncontrolled waste
deposits (Lima, 1998).
The role of risk assessment
In the context of contaminated land in
Europe, risk assessment has mainly been
used to set priorities, which means that risk
is not treated as an absolute quantitative
measure describing the environmental or
human health impact of soil and groundwater contamination but as an indicator that
is used for comparative purposes only. A
[ 306 ]
better term for risk-based priority setting is
comparative risk analysis. Risk assessment is
the scientific process addressing the informal
questions ``How risky is it?'', or ``What is the
chance of a bad outcome?'' (Ferguson et al.,
1998a).
In most States, groundwater is protected as
a resource that should remain pure, as
implied by the EC Groundwater Directive.
There may be situations, however, where the
application of this principle in groundwater
protection has become impossible due to the
extent and persistence of contamination. In
these situations, a more risk-oriented approach may be used (Ferguson et al., 1998a).
As of this time, some member States do not
yet have policies for contaminated land that
specify explicit risk assessment procedures.
Other States are starting to develop formal
procedures for assessment and remediation
of contaminated land. In States where such
procedures already exist, risk assessment is
mostly used for registering, classifying and
prioritising sites (Ferguson et al., 1998a).
Variations in current approaches to risk
assessment in the member States are demonstrated by the following examples:
.
In Sweden, risk assessments of contaminated sites are comprehensive evaluations of the toxicity of the contaminants to
human health and the environment; the
amounts and concentrations of contaminants at the site; the present location of
the contaminants and the conditions allowing further migration to the surroundings; and the sensitivity of man and
the environment in the area surrounding
the site (Norman, 1997).
The assessment focuses on both present
and future situations and includes soil,
groundwater, sediment and surface water.
There are three stages of risk assessment.
At the first stage, risk classification, sites
are classified into one of four risk classes,
based on detailed desk studies. At the next
stage, a simplified risk assessment is
performed, based on generic guideline
values; the purpose of this risk assessment is to understand the risks associated
with the present situation prior to remedial work and to assess acceptable levels
of contamination after remediation is
completed. At the third stage, a detailed
risk assessment is performed, based on
site-specific values, if generic guideline
values are not applicable to the site or if
no generic guideline values exist
(Norman, 1997).
The Environmental Protection Agency
intends to carry out most of the inventory
work within a five-year period commencing from 1996, to establish general
Phyllis B. Judd and
C. Paul Nathanail
Protecting Europe's
groundwater: legislative
approaches and policy
initiatives
.
Environmental Management
and Health
10/5 [1999] 303±309
.
.
guideline values for the most common
contaminants and to further develop risk
assessment methodologies (Hasselsten,
1996).
England and Wales have adopted a risk
management approach to the assessment
and management of potentially contaminated land. It uses a source-pathwayreceptor linkage (or target) approach and
aims to restore sites for a specific so-called
``fitness for purpose'' (Nathanail, 1996).
Phased assessments are conducted to ensure effort is focused on minimising
potential risks to end users, structures
and the environment, without entailing
excessive costs (Nathanail, 1996). Land is
assessed to determine the possibility of
harm to human health and the environment through the use of appropriate
technical information. Information
sources include the CLR reports such as
CLR 1, which provides a framework for
the assessment of impact of contaminated
land on controlled waters, and CLR 6,
which provides prioritisation and categorisation procedures for sites that may
be contaminated. Additional sources include the Construction Industry Research
and Information Association's (CIRIA)
series of technical guidance documents on
contaminated land (Nathanail, 1997).
In The Netherlands, sites on the Dutch
Inventory of Contaminated Sites are
prioritised according to their need for
remediation. Since nearly all of the
drinking water is derived from groundwater, groundwater protection has a very
high priority. Standards for groundwater
resources that are currently or will be
used for drinking water, are based on
drinking water standards. Generally, a
lower priority is given to surface water
(Martin et al., 1996). Among sites presenting threats to groundwater, highest
priority is given to sites situated within
areas designated as ``areas of special
interest for water supply'', which are
areas that are intended to supply the
highest quality drinking water
(Edelgaard, 1997).
In Belgium, the three autonomous regions
differ in their approaches to environmental issues; this is reflected in how each
manages contaminated land. In the Flemish Region, the methodology for the derivation of soil standards uses five land-use
classes with specific risk groups defined.
The land use classes are nature, agricultural area, residential area, recreational
area, and industrial area; with the exception of nature, all of the land use classes
have human beings as the major risk
.
group. The methodology for the derivation
of soil standards for these land use classes
is based on the use of an exposure model.
The soil standards for groundwater are
equal to those in the drinking water
quality guidelines. Serious threat to human health is evaluated by use of a risk
assessment model (Cornelis, 1997).
In the Walloon Region, consideration
was given to the maximum number of
``identifiable'' sites in order to produce an
exhaustive inventory of ``potential risk''
sites, based on their past uses and the
characteristics of the local environment.
Sites were identified as those of ``highest
priority'' either because they presented a
high risk of contamination or because
they were already targeted for specific
redevelopment schemes (Miller, 1996). A
system for the classification of ``dumps''
on the basis of risks for water pollution,
human health, and ecosystems is being
developed. The ranking is performed on
the basis of a checklist that considers the
source (location characteristics), the vectors (transport) and the risk groups. The
model is partly approved and is now
validated (Miller, 1996).
The Brussels Capital Region does not
yet have a scheme for classifying sites
(Van Dyck, 1998).
In Italy, a risk-based tiered procedure for
the decision-making process relative to
contaminated land remediation has been
outlined. The procedure envisages two
simplified risk-based assessments, generic
and site-specific, as tools for site-screening and for defining clean-up objectives.
Different receptors, land uses and exposure pathways are considered through
validated exposure/migration models.
Protection of groundwater, as a drinking
water resource, is accomplished by defining standards as well as appropriate soil
values (Quercia, 1997).
Conclusion
As demonstrated, there are currently major
differences in EC member States' approaches
to managing groundwater resources. However, there have been encouraging recent
developments in that progress had been made
in recognising the importance of protecting
the resource and in implementing applicable
legislation and policy initiatives. Success in
protecting and cleaning-up groundwater is a
long-term project that will benefit from the
continued co-ordination among member
States.
[ 307 ]
Phyllis B. Judd and
C. Paul Nathanail
Protecting Europe's
groundwater: legislative
approaches and policy
initiatives
Environmental Management
and Health
10/5 [1999] 303±309
There are several areas regarding environmental groundwater protection that require further research. For example,
contaminated land and groundwater risk
assessment is still underpinned largely by
scientific research done for other purposes.
Further research is needed on the nature of
contaminated land and its impact on water
resources and the relationship between
water contamination and fitness for use
which specifies the conditions for sustainable land use (Ferguson et al., 1998, a,b).
Additional research is also required for
methods to predict whether soil pollution
will, in the long run, migrate to groundwater,
and to what extent groundwater pollution
will disperse and affect abstracted or surface
water quality. Current practice is mostly
based on a geohydrological model. A broader
scientific basis including geological, geotechnical and probabilistic approaches may
yield substantial improvements (Ferguson
et al., 1998, a,b). Much of this research will
also benefit from joint efforts by EC member
States.
References
Ball, S. and Bell, S. (1997), Environmental Law, 3rd
ed., Blackstone Press Limited, London.
Christie, S. and Teeuw, R.M. (1996), ``A comparison of European states policy on `orphan'
sites'', in Lerner, D.N. and Walton, N. (Eds),
Contaminated Land and Groundwater-Future
Directions, Proceedings of 32nd Annual
Conference of the Engineering Group of the
Geological Society, University of Portsmouth.
Cornelis, C. (1997), ``Country report ± Belgium,
current situation and research projects'', in
Kasamas, H. (Ed.), Concerted Action on Risk
Assessment for Contaminated Sites, Basic
Information Report, 1st Project Year, Vol. 1.
Darmendrail, D. (1997), ``France ± technical
guidance documents for the French policy for
treatment and rehabilitation of polluted sites
and soils progress as of 01/09/1996'', in
Kasamas, H. (Ed.), Concerted Action on Risk
Assessment for Contaminated Sites, Basic
Information Report, 1st Project Year, Vol. 1.
Denneman, C. (1997), ``Country report-risk assessment in soil protection policy in The
Netherlands'', in Kasamas, H. (Ed.),
CARACAS, Concerted Action on Risk
Assessment for Contaminated Sites, Basic
Information Report, 1st Project Year, Vol. 1.
Edelgaard, I. (1997), ``Country report ± Denmark'',
in Kasamas, H. (Ed.), CARACAS, Concerted
Action on Risk Assessment for Contaminated
Sites, Basic Information Report, 1st Project
Year, Vol. 1.
Ferguson, C., Darmendrail, D., Freier, K., Jensen,
B.K., Jensen, J., Kasamas, H., Urzelai, A. and
Vegter, J. (Eds) (1998a), Risk Assessment for
Contaminated Sites in Europe: Volume I ±
[ 308 ]
Scientific Basis, Land Quality Press,
Nottingham.
Ferguson, C., Darmendrail, D., Freier, K., Jensen,
B.K., Jensen, J., Kasamas, H., Urzelai, A. and
Vegter, J. (Eds) (1998b, in preparation), Risk
Assessment for Contaminated Sites in Europe:
Volume II ± Policy, Land Quality Press,
Nottingham.
Hasselsten, I. (1996), ``Country Report ± Sweden'',
in The Common Forum on Contaminated Land
in the European Union, Summary Report,
Third meeting, 23 and 24 September,
Stockholm.
Hester, R.E. and Harrison, R.M. (Eds) (1997),
Contaminated Land and its Reclamation,
Thomas Telford Publishing, London.
Kasamas, H. (Ed.) (1997) CARACAS, Concerted
Action on Risk Assessment for Contaminated
Sites, Basic Information Report, 1st Project
Year, Vol. 1.
Kavvadas, M. (1998), Personal communication.
Leech, B. (1994), ``Contaminated land ± the situation in Ireland'' in International Workshop on
Contaminated Sites in the European Union:
``Policies and Strategies'', 8/9 December,
Bonn.
Lima, A. (1998), Personal communication.
Martin, I., Visser, W. and Bardos, P. (1996), Review
of Policy Papers Presented to the NATO/CCMS
Pilot Study on Research, Development and
Evaluation of Remedial Action Technologies
for Contaminated Soil and Groundwater, May.
Miller, J. (1996), Wallonia: The Regional Approach
to Land Contamination, Groupe d'Etude
Habitat/Territoire (GEHAT), UniversiteÂ
Libre de Bruxelles.
Nathanail, C.P. (1996), ``Redeveloping brown field
sites: remediation of soil contamination and
reuse of landfill sites'', paper presented to
Hazardous Waste Management Seminar,
sponsored by the Department of Trade and
Industry, October.
Nathanail, C.P. (1997), ``Contaminated land policy
in England and Wales'', paper presented to
Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
Environmental Awareness Seminar,
28 October, DERA, Malvern.
Nathanail, C.P. and Earl, N. (1997), ``Contaminated land base line studies for local authorities'', in Beating Contamination: ``State-ofthe Art'' Contaminated Land Management,
Conference Documentation, 17-18 November,
London.
Norman, F. (1997), ``Country Report ± Sweden'', in
Kasamas, H. (Ed.), CARACAS, Concerted
Action on Risk Assessment for Contaminated
Sites, Basic Information Report, 1st Project
Year, Vol. 1.
Puolanne, J. and Assmuth, T. (1997), ``Country
report ± clean-up of contaminated soil sites in
Finland'', in Kasamas, H. (Ed.), CARACAS,
Concerted Action on Risk Assessment for
Contaminated Sites, Basic Information Report,
1st Project Year, Vol. 1.
Phyllis B. Judd and
C. Paul Nathanail
Protecting Europe's
groundwater: legislative
approaches and policy
initiatives
Environmental Management
and Health
10/5 [1999] 303±309
Quercia, F. (1997), ``CARACAS ± National approaches and RTD projects on risk assessment for contaminated land (revised report)'',
unpublished, to be included in 1998
CARACAS report.
Schamann, M. (1998), Personal communication.
United Nations Department of Technical Cooperation for Development (1991), Ground
Water in Western and Central Europe, Natural
Resources Water Series, No. 27, United Nations, New York, NY.
Van Dyck, E. (1998), Personal communication.
Visser, W. (1993), Contaminated Land Policies in
Some Industrialised Countries, Technical Soil
Protection Committee, The Hague.
Wolf, S. and White, A. (1997), Principles of
Environmental Law, 2nd ed., Cavendish Publishing Limited, London.
(Phyllis, B. Judd is an Environmental Policy
Consultant. She has worked extensively in
both the public and private sectors in the
USA as well as in academia in the UK. She
can be contacted by e-mail on
Phyllis.Judd@ntu.ac.uk
C. Paul Nathanail is a Senior Lecturer in
the School of Chemical, Environmental and
Mining Engineering at the University of
Nottingham and is Course Director of the
MSc in Contaminated Land Management.
E-mail: Paul.Nathanail@ nottingham.ac.uk)
[ 309 ]
approaches and policy initiatives
Phyllis B. Judd
Ashby de la Zouch, Leicestershire, UK
C. Paul Nathanail
Ashby de la Zouch, Leicestershire, UK
Keywords
Groundwater, EC, Directives,
Pollution
Abstract
There have been many positive
recent developments in the
groundwater legislation and policies of the 15 European Community member States (excluding
Luxembourg), as the States recognise the importance of implementing the EC Groundwater
Directive, The Integrated Pollution
Prevention Control Directive and
other relevant EC directives. All
member States recognise the importance of protecting groundwater and most have enacted
legislation and/or established policies to do so. However, there are
significant variations in their approaches; these variations are
reflected in their approaches to
site registration and classification
schemes. Similarly, some member
States do not yet have policies
that specify explicit risk assessment procedures, while others
have formal risk assessment procedures in place for registering,
classifying and prioritising sites.
The authors wish to
acknowledge funding by the
European Union through a
SOCRATES project.
Environmental Management
and Health
10/5 [1999] 303±309
# MCB University Press
[ISSN 0956-6163]
Introduction
The focus of this paper is quite broad to be
addressed comprehensively in this relatively
brief document. However, this paper is in fact
based on an in-depth, long-term study recently completed by the authors. That study
involved compiling 17 research papers describing contaminated land policies in the 15
European Community member States (excluding Luxembourg), the USA and Canada.
At present, in most member States,
groundwater is protected as a source of
drinking water. Groundwater reserves are
under pressure from over-exploitation and in
some member States, water shortages are
already occurring. Furthermore, the ecological consequences of groundwater pollution
are still poorly understood and would likely
provide additional motives for groundwater
protection (Ferguson et al., 1998a). This study
provides an overview of groundwater legislation currently enacted and policies proposed and/or in effect in the member States.
This paper is structured into several
topic areas. The next section, European
Community Directives, sets the framework
and requirements for member States in
terms of EC legislative requirements and
policy objectives regarding groundwater
and related areas. The following sections
describe pollution prevention legislation
and policies, site registration/classification
schemes and the role of risk assessment. An
overview is provided for each section,
followed by specific examples from the
member States.
Two publications arising out of the European Community Concerted Action on Contaminated Sites in Europe (CARACAS)
provide further details on approaches to risk
assessment in Europe (Ferguson et al., 1998a)
and policy developments in European Community member States (Ferguson et al.,
1998b).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com
European Community Directives
The European Community plays an important role in developing environmental policy
throughout the EC on an integrated basis,
controlling and preventing pollution in all
member States. The EC Treaty (as amended
by the Single European Act 1986 and the
Treaty on European Union 1993) establishes
the aims of the EC; it is the primary source of
EC law and from it the EC institutions derive
their power to enact secondary legislation
(Wolf and White, 1997).
While only EC Directives are of direct
relevance to this paper, it is appropriate to
differentiate between EC Regulations and
Directives, as follows:
.
EC Regulations are directly applicable to
all member States and can be used to
ensure that the law is exactly the same
throughout the EC. Since they are binding
in their entirety, there is no need for
member States to take further action to
implement the Regulations for them to be
in effect (Wolf and White, 1997).
.
Similarly, EC Directives are generally
applicable to all member States. However,
while they are binding regarding the
results to be achieved, they differ from
Regulations in that the choice and means
of implementation are at the discretion of
the individual State (Wolf and White,
1997).
As the majority of EC environmental ``legislative acts'', including those governing
groundwater, take the form of Directives, it is
to be expected that there would be significant
divergences amongst member States in their
approaches to managing groundwater. This
is in fact the case; these differences will be
identified and demonstrated in the balance of
this paper.
The Groundwater Directive
The Groundwater Directive 80/68/EEC aims
to prevent the pollution of groundwater by
certain substances, and to reduce or eliminate any damage caused by pollution
(Wolf and White, 1997). The Directive includes two Lists, derived from the Dangerous
[ 303 ]
Phyllis B. Judd and
C. Paul Nathanail
Protecting Europe's
groundwater: legislative
approaches and policy
initiatives
Environmental Management
and Health
10/5 [1999] 303±309
Substances into Water Directive discussed
below. List I includes exceptionally toxic or
persistent substances such as organohalogens, organophosphorous compounds, mercury, lead, known carcinogens and many
pesticides; these are to be prevented from
entering groundwaters. List II includes many
other heavy metals, cyanide, ammonia and
other substances; these are to be limited by a
consent system (Ball and Bell, 1997).
The integrated pollution prevention control
directive
In September 1996, the European Council
adopted EC Directive 96/61/EC (OJ No L257/
6) which came into effect on 30 October 1996;
it requires all member States to establish
systems of Integrated Pollution Prevention
Control (IPPC). The purpose of the Directive
is to establish systems of IPPC for the
polluting ``activities'' which are listed in
Annex 1 of the Directive; the polluting
``activities'' are to be controlled to prevent or
minimise pollution of any environmental
medium. Member States are required to
implement the Directive in 1999 (Wolf and
White, 1997).
Other relevant EC Directives
The first EC water Directive, Directive 76/
464EEC on Dangerous Substances into Water
is the major Directive which aims to control
dangerous substances released into the
aquatic environment. Its aim is to reduce or
eliminate specified dangerous substances
from water. The Directive is a framework
directive that has subsequently been expanded upon by a number of so-called
Daughter Directives, including the Groundwater Directive (Wolf and White, 1997).
Other relevant EC Directives include Directives 75/440 EEC and 80/778/EEC on
drinking water, Directive 76/160/EEC on
bathing waters, Directive 78/659/EEC on
waters for freshwater fish and Directive 79/
923/EEC on shell fish waters (Wolf and
White, 1997)
Pollution prevention legislation
and policy
Groundwater pollution prevention legislation and policies in the European Community member States are inextricably linked to
the States' contaminated land legislation and
policies. All member States recognise the
importance of establishing and effecting
policies to manage contaminated land; similarly, the member States recognise the importance of protecting groundwater,
[ 304 ]
especially that which is used for water
supply.
Some member States have enacted specific
legislation and developed regulations that
establish requirements for protecting
groundwater; in other member States these
requirements are not explicit but may be
readily inferred from other legislation and
regulations. In some cases, while the need is
recognised, it is only very recently that any
actions have been taken to address the
problem.
The following examples demonstrate some
of the more common legislative and policy
initiatives as well as the variations in
approaches:
.
In Ireland, the Environmental Protection
Agency provides guidance and assistance
to local authorities. The agency is responsible for issuing Integrated Pollution
Control licences for scheduled activities.
Preventive measures are included in the
licences to ensure that contamination of
soil or groundwater does not occur; monitoring provisions are also included,
where appropriate. Furthermore, EPA
requires the licensee to make proposals
for the remediation of the soil or groundwater and to provide a time-scale for
carrying out the remedial work (Leech,
1994).
.
In Austria, the Law for the Clean-up of
Contaminated Sites (ALSAG) defines contaminated sites as disposal and industrial
sites, together with soil and groundwater
resources which they may have polluted,
which are believed ± on the basis of results
of risk assessment ± to pose considerable
threat to public health or to the environment. The definition does not include land
polluted in connection with agricultural
or comparable applications. Groundwater
is categorised into that which is important
for water-supply and that which is not
exploited (Schamann, 1998).
.
The Netherlands generally has a high
water table and is dependent on groundwater for 80 percent of its drinking supply
(Christie and Teeuw, 1996). Consequently,
the prevention of soil pollution and restoration of contaminated land are part of
an integrated environmental policy for
the protection of soil, including groundwater and sediments (Denneman, 1997).
The history of soil protection policy in
The Netherlands dates back to 1962 when
the Minister of Social Affairs and Public
Health established a scientific committee
to investigate the necessity for establishing legal measures for groundwater protection; it recommended that legal
measures should be taken to protect the
Phyllis B. Judd and
C. Paul Nathanail
Protecting Europe's
groundwater: legislative
approaches and policy
initiatives
Environmental Management
and Health
10/5 [1999] 303±309
.
soil as well, particularly near groundwater extraction wells used for drinking
water (Visser, 1993).
Greece has a few major plains (e.g.
Thessaly, Central Macedonia) where intensive agriculture is practised with extensive use of fertilisers and pesticides.
The extensive use of such substances has
significantly increased the contamination
of underground aquifers in the area and
presents one of the major issues of
groundwater contamination in Greece.
Joint Ministerial Decision 16190/1335/
1997, ``Measures for the Protection of Surface Waters and Groundwater from Nitrate Pollution due to Agricultural
Activities'', was just issued in 1997 to
address these problem areas (Kavvadas,
1998).
Site registration/classification
schemes
The term ``site registration'' refers to the
means by which EC member States identify
and develop lists or registers of contaminated
sites. The list of sites is then prioritised based
on some type of preliminary classification
and decision-making scheme that allows
relative assessments to be made. This approach is similar to that of an early model,
the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) developed
by the US Environmental Protection Agency
in the 1980s, as part of the Superfund
Programme. The HRS provided a relative
assessment of potentially contaminated sites
using a point system (Ferguson et al., 1998a).
Because of the need for making consistent
decisions covering large numbers of contaminated sites, many EC member States use
priority-setting approaches of one sort or
another to classify sites. The evaluation
criteria commonly used to prioritise contaminated sites include a determination of
the distance to groundwater and aquifer
sensitivity and the existence of drinking
waterwells/service water wells/drinking
water plant (Ferguson et al., 1998a).
Member States' approaches to site registration/classification vary significantly. In
some member States, the approach is formalised while in others it is much less well
developed. Furthermore, in some States, the
process is undertaken at the national government level while in others it is a function
of regional or local jurisdictions.
The following examples illustrate some of
the variations in approaches to site registration/classification:
.
In Finland, a list of potentially contaminated sites was compiled under
.
.
``SAMASE'', a nation-wide project in 199092. Most of the information was collected
by regional environmental authorities
such as waste management, water, public
health, construction, and regional planning authorities. Information was extracted from an extensive selection of
sources including permits, announcements, chemical and oil accident reports,
and industrial registers; other documents
concerning potentially polluting activities
or events were also screened (Puolanne
and Assmuth, 1997).
The data collected were entered into a
database. Sites with potential or known
risks that could adversely affect the environment or public health were visited
and those considered to be most harmful
were preliminarily investigated and assessed. The survey of contaminated soil
sites has been continued by the Regional
Environment Centres in connection with
the need to prioritise sites for clean-up
programmes (Puolanne and Assmuth,
1997).
Suspected contaminated sites are classified according to risk class, as follows:
Risk class 01 are those sites where contamination is estimated to be significant;
risk class 02 are those sites where minor
contamination is possible, but contaminant migration is not probable; risk class
03 are those sites where significant contamination and contaminant migration
are suspected; and risk class 04 are those
sites where significant contamination and
contaminant migration are verified by
investigation (Puolanne and Assmuth,
1997).
In France, in a December 1993 ministerial
circular, the prefects were informed of the
Government's intention to set up a national register of polluted sites. The national policy that evolved focuses on the
inventory, selection, and treatment of
sites suspected to be contaminated
through former industrial uses
(Darmendrail, 1997).
Currently, three complementary methods of inventory are being used:
± establishment or declaration of pollution (accidents, fortuitous discovery);
± systematic study of active sites, particularly for some priority sectors; and
± regional historical studies enabling old
industrial sites, where industrial activity has caused potential pollution, to
be inventoried (Darmendrail, 1997).
The system of selection uses a series of
screens, each with increasingly more
stringent criteria. Each screen corresponds to a diagnostic level requiring
[ 305 ]
Phyllis B. Judd and
C. Paul Nathanail
Protecting Europe's
groundwater: legislative
approaches and policy
initiatives
Environmental Management
and Health
10/5 [1999] 303±309
.
.
further and more complex technical and
scientific investigations. The first screen
aims to define sites for priority studies
using only documentary criteria; these
criteria concern primarily the nature of
the activity, its importance and the vulnerability of the site environment. The
second screen consists of an initial diagnosis (or ``soil study'') and a simplified
assessment of the risks to classify the sites
into three categories: sites needing
further investigation and detailed risk
assessment; sites ``under surveillance'' for
which a monitoring system should be
defined and implemented; and ``commonplace'' sites, which can be used for specific
purposes without further investigations
or work (Darmendrail, 1997).
In England and Wales, Section 143 of the
Environmental Protection Act 1990 provided for the registration of sites previously or currently used for a wide range
of different contaminative uses, defined as
any use of land which may cause it to be
contaminated with noxious substances.
However, in the face of continuing opposition, in 1993 the Government withdrew
its proposals for establishing registers of
contaminated land (Hester and Harrison,
1997).
The Environment Act 1995 rescinded
Section 143, but some local authorities
may, in the interim, have compiled some
of the information which they would have
needed. Furthermore, some local authorities have been developing strategies to
identify potentially contaminated land in
advance of Part IIa of the Environmental
Protection Act 1990 being implemented
(Nathanail and Earl, 1997).
While Portugal does not yet have a
specific administrative framework for
dealing with contaminated sites, issues
related to contaminated soil are of increasing importance. Sufficient information is currently available to make a
preliminary identification and characterisation of those sites related to existing
industrial areas and uncontrolled waste
deposits (Lima, 1998).
The role of risk assessment
In the context of contaminated land in
Europe, risk assessment has mainly been
used to set priorities, which means that risk
is not treated as an absolute quantitative
measure describing the environmental or
human health impact of soil and groundwater contamination but as an indicator that
is used for comparative purposes only. A
[ 306 ]
better term for risk-based priority setting is
comparative risk analysis. Risk assessment is
the scientific process addressing the informal
questions ``How risky is it?'', or ``What is the
chance of a bad outcome?'' (Ferguson et al.,
1998a).
In most States, groundwater is protected as
a resource that should remain pure, as
implied by the EC Groundwater Directive.
There may be situations, however, where the
application of this principle in groundwater
protection has become impossible due to the
extent and persistence of contamination. In
these situations, a more risk-oriented approach may be used (Ferguson et al., 1998a).
As of this time, some member States do not
yet have policies for contaminated land that
specify explicit risk assessment procedures.
Other States are starting to develop formal
procedures for assessment and remediation
of contaminated land. In States where such
procedures already exist, risk assessment is
mostly used for registering, classifying and
prioritising sites (Ferguson et al., 1998a).
Variations in current approaches to risk
assessment in the member States are demonstrated by the following examples:
.
In Sweden, risk assessments of contaminated sites are comprehensive evaluations of the toxicity of the contaminants to
human health and the environment; the
amounts and concentrations of contaminants at the site; the present location of
the contaminants and the conditions allowing further migration to the surroundings; and the sensitivity of man and
the environment in the area surrounding
the site (Norman, 1997).
The assessment focuses on both present
and future situations and includes soil,
groundwater, sediment and surface water.
There are three stages of risk assessment.
At the first stage, risk classification, sites
are classified into one of four risk classes,
based on detailed desk studies. At the next
stage, a simplified risk assessment is
performed, based on generic guideline
values; the purpose of this risk assessment is to understand the risks associated
with the present situation prior to remedial work and to assess acceptable levels
of contamination after remediation is
completed. At the third stage, a detailed
risk assessment is performed, based on
site-specific values, if generic guideline
values are not applicable to the site or if
no generic guideline values exist
(Norman, 1997).
The Environmental Protection Agency
intends to carry out most of the inventory
work within a five-year period commencing from 1996, to establish general
Phyllis B. Judd and
C. Paul Nathanail
Protecting Europe's
groundwater: legislative
approaches and policy
initiatives
.
Environmental Management
and Health
10/5 [1999] 303±309
.
.
guideline values for the most common
contaminants and to further develop risk
assessment methodologies (Hasselsten,
1996).
England and Wales have adopted a risk
management approach to the assessment
and management of potentially contaminated land. It uses a source-pathwayreceptor linkage (or target) approach and
aims to restore sites for a specific so-called
``fitness for purpose'' (Nathanail, 1996).
Phased assessments are conducted to ensure effort is focused on minimising
potential risks to end users, structures
and the environment, without entailing
excessive costs (Nathanail, 1996). Land is
assessed to determine the possibility of
harm to human health and the environment through the use of appropriate
technical information. Information
sources include the CLR reports such as
CLR 1, which provides a framework for
the assessment of impact of contaminated
land on controlled waters, and CLR 6,
which provides prioritisation and categorisation procedures for sites that may
be contaminated. Additional sources include the Construction Industry Research
and Information Association's (CIRIA)
series of technical guidance documents on
contaminated land (Nathanail, 1997).
In The Netherlands, sites on the Dutch
Inventory of Contaminated Sites are
prioritised according to their need for
remediation. Since nearly all of the
drinking water is derived from groundwater, groundwater protection has a very
high priority. Standards for groundwater
resources that are currently or will be
used for drinking water, are based on
drinking water standards. Generally, a
lower priority is given to surface water
(Martin et al., 1996). Among sites presenting threats to groundwater, highest
priority is given to sites situated within
areas designated as ``areas of special
interest for water supply'', which are
areas that are intended to supply the
highest quality drinking water
(Edelgaard, 1997).
In Belgium, the three autonomous regions
differ in their approaches to environmental issues; this is reflected in how each
manages contaminated land. In the Flemish Region, the methodology for the derivation of soil standards uses five land-use
classes with specific risk groups defined.
The land use classes are nature, agricultural area, residential area, recreational
area, and industrial area; with the exception of nature, all of the land use classes
have human beings as the major risk
.
group. The methodology for the derivation
of soil standards for these land use classes
is based on the use of an exposure model.
The soil standards for groundwater are
equal to those in the drinking water
quality guidelines. Serious threat to human health is evaluated by use of a risk
assessment model (Cornelis, 1997).
In the Walloon Region, consideration
was given to the maximum number of
``identifiable'' sites in order to produce an
exhaustive inventory of ``potential risk''
sites, based on their past uses and the
characteristics of the local environment.
Sites were identified as those of ``highest
priority'' either because they presented a
high risk of contamination or because
they were already targeted for specific
redevelopment schemes (Miller, 1996). A
system for the classification of ``dumps''
on the basis of risks for water pollution,
human health, and ecosystems is being
developed. The ranking is performed on
the basis of a checklist that considers the
source (location characteristics), the vectors (transport) and the risk groups. The
model is partly approved and is now
validated (Miller, 1996).
The Brussels Capital Region does not
yet have a scheme for classifying sites
(Van Dyck, 1998).
In Italy, a risk-based tiered procedure for
the decision-making process relative to
contaminated land remediation has been
outlined. The procedure envisages two
simplified risk-based assessments, generic
and site-specific, as tools for site-screening and for defining clean-up objectives.
Different receptors, land uses and exposure pathways are considered through
validated exposure/migration models.
Protection of groundwater, as a drinking
water resource, is accomplished by defining standards as well as appropriate soil
values (Quercia, 1997).
Conclusion
As demonstrated, there are currently major
differences in EC member States' approaches
to managing groundwater resources. However, there have been encouraging recent
developments in that progress had been made
in recognising the importance of protecting
the resource and in implementing applicable
legislation and policy initiatives. Success in
protecting and cleaning-up groundwater is a
long-term project that will benefit from the
continued co-ordination among member
States.
[ 307 ]
Phyllis B. Judd and
C. Paul Nathanail
Protecting Europe's
groundwater: legislative
approaches and policy
initiatives
Environmental Management
and Health
10/5 [1999] 303±309
There are several areas regarding environmental groundwater protection that require further research. For example,
contaminated land and groundwater risk
assessment is still underpinned largely by
scientific research done for other purposes.
Further research is needed on the nature of
contaminated land and its impact on water
resources and the relationship between
water contamination and fitness for use
which specifies the conditions for sustainable land use (Ferguson et al., 1998, a,b).
Additional research is also required for
methods to predict whether soil pollution
will, in the long run, migrate to groundwater,
and to what extent groundwater pollution
will disperse and affect abstracted or surface
water quality. Current practice is mostly
based on a geohydrological model. A broader
scientific basis including geological, geotechnical and probabilistic approaches may
yield substantial improvements (Ferguson
et al., 1998, a,b). Much of this research will
also benefit from joint efforts by EC member
States.
References
Ball, S. and Bell, S. (1997), Environmental Law, 3rd
ed., Blackstone Press Limited, London.
Christie, S. and Teeuw, R.M. (1996), ``A comparison of European states policy on `orphan'
sites'', in Lerner, D.N. and Walton, N. (Eds),
Contaminated Land and Groundwater-Future
Directions, Proceedings of 32nd Annual
Conference of the Engineering Group of the
Geological Society, University of Portsmouth.
Cornelis, C. (1997), ``Country report ± Belgium,
current situation and research projects'', in
Kasamas, H. (Ed.), Concerted Action on Risk
Assessment for Contaminated Sites, Basic
Information Report, 1st Project Year, Vol. 1.
Darmendrail, D. (1997), ``France ± technical
guidance documents for the French policy for
treatment and rehabilitation of polluted sites
and soils progress as of 01/09/1996'', in
Kasamas, H. (Ed.), Concerted Action on Risk
Assessment for Contaminated Sites, Basic
Information Report, 1st Project Year, Vol. 1.
Denneman, C. (1997), ``Country report-risk assessment in soil protection policy in The
Netherlands'', in Kasamas, H. (Ed.),
CARACAS, Concerted Action on Risk
Assessment for Contaminated Sites, Basic
Information Report, 1st Project Year, Vol. 1.
Edelgaard, I. (1997), ``Country report ± Denmark'',
in Kasamas, H. (Ed.), CARACAS, Concerted
Action on Risk Assessment for Contaminated
Sites, Basic Information Report, 1st Project
Year, Vol. 1.
Ferguson, C., Darmendrail, D., Freier, K., Jensen,
B.K., Jensen, J., Kasamas, H., Urzelai, A. and
Vegter, J. (Eds) (1998a), Risk Assessment for
Contaminated Sites in Europe: Volume I ±
[ 308 ]
Scientific Basis, Land Quality Press,
Nottingham.
Ferguson, C., Darmendrail, D., Freier, K., Jensen,
B.K., Jensen, J., Kasamas, H., Urzelai, A. and
Vegter, J. (Eds) (1998b, in preparation), Risk
Assessment for Contaminated Sites in Europe:
Volume II ± Policy, Land Quality Press,
Nottingham.
Hasselsten, I. (1996), ``Country Report ± Sweden'',
in The Common Forum on Contaminated Land
in the European Union, Summary Report,
Third meeting, 23 and 24 September,
Stockholm.
Hester, R.E. and Harrison, R.M. (Eds) (1997),
Contaminated Land and its Reclamation,
Thomas Telford Publishing, London.
Kasamas, H. (Ed.) (1997) CARACAS, Concerted
Action on Risk Assessment for Contaminated
Sites, Basic Information Report, 1st Project
Year, Vol. 1.
Kavvadas, M. (1998), Personal communication.
Leech, B. (1994), ``Contaminated land ± the situation in Ireland'' in International Workshop on
Contaminated Sites in the European Union:
``Policies and Strategies'', 8/9 December,
Bonn.
Lima, A. (1998), Personal communication.
Martin, I., Visser, W. and Bardos, P. (1996), Review
of Policy Papers Presented to the NATO/CCMS
Pilot Study on Research, Development and
Evaluation of Remedial Action Technologies
for Contaminated Soil and Groundwater, May.
Miller, J. (1996), Wallonia: The Regional Approach
to Land Contamination, Groupe d'Etude
Habitat/Territoire (GEHAT), UniversiteÂ
Libre de Bruxelles.
Nathanail, C.P. (1996), ``Redeveloping brown field
sites: remediation of soil contamination and
reuse of landfill sites'', paper presented to
Hazardous Waste Management Seminar,
sponsored by the Department of Trade and
Industry, October.
Nathanail, C.P. (1997), ``Contaminated land policy
in England and Wales'', paper presented to
Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
Environmental Awareness Seminar,
28 October, DERA, Malvern.
Nathanail, C.P. and Earl, N. (1997), ``Contaminated land base line studies for local authorities'', in Beating Contamination: ``State-ofthe Art'' Contaminated Land Management,
Conference Documentation, 17-18 November,
London.
Norman, F. (1997), ``Country Report ± Sweden'', in
Kasamas, H. (Ed.), CARACAS, Concerted
Action on Risk Assessment for Contaminated
Sites, Basic Information Report, 1st Project
Year, Vol. 1.
Puolanne, J. and Assmuth, T. (1997), ``Country
report ± clean-up of contaminated soil sites in
Finland'', in Kasamas, H. (Ed.), CARACAS,
Concerted Action on Risk Assessment for
Contaminated Sites, Basic Information Report,
1st Project Year, Vol. 1.
Phyllis B. Judd and
C. Paul Nathanail
Protecting Europe's
groundwater: legislative
approaches and policy
initiatives
Environmental Management
and Health
10/5 [1999] 303±309
Quercia, F. (1997), ``CARACAS ± National approaches and RTD projects on risk assessment for contaminated land (revised report)'',
unpublished, to be included in 1998
CARACAS report.
Schamann, M. (1998), Personal communication.
United Nations Department of Technical Cooperation for Development (1991), Ground
Water in Western and Central Europe, Natural
Resources Water Series, No. 27, United Nations, New York, NY.
Van Dyck, E. (1998), Personal communication.
Visser, W. (1993), Contaminated Land Policies in
Some Industrialised Countries, Technical Soil
Protection Committee, The Hague.
Wolf, S. and White, A. (1997), Principles of
Environmental Law, 2nd ed., Cavendish Publishing Limited, London.
(Phyllis, B. Judd is an Environmental Policy
Consultant. She has worked extensively in
both the public and private sectors in the
USA as well as in academia in the UK. She
can be contacted by e-mail on
Phyllis.Judd@ntu.ac.uk
C. Paul Nathanail is a Senior Lecturer in
the School of Chemical, Environmental and
Mining Engineering at the University of
Nottingham and is Course Director of the
MSc in Contaminated Land Management.
E-mail: Paul.Nathanail@ nottingham.ac.uk)
[ 309 ]