| Front page | | Contents | | Previous | | Next |

Evaluation of Technology Programme for Soil and Groundwater Pollution

Summary and conclusions

From July to November 2002, KPMG carried out an evaluation of the Danish Environmental Protection Agency's Technology Program for soil and groundwater pollution.

The Environmental Protection Agency initiated the evaluation in order to obtain an overall view of the results of the program, knowledge sharing and possible effects and to collect information as to whether:

	the aims of the program have been met
	rules and routines for the administration, control and inspection have worked according to the plan
	adjustments to the program have been proposed.

The evaluation contains several different data collection and analysis activities. The process and the evaluation elements chosen, of which questionnaires are the most frequently used, are illustrated below. The evaluation is described in detail in Chapter 1.

The process and the evaluation elements chosen

Below, we summarise the results and conclusions of the evaluation.

The Technology Program

The Technology Program was established in 1996 in relation to an amendment of the Danish Waste Disposal Site Act according to which the local authorities (the counties) were given the overall responsibility for the implementation of charting, investigating and cleaning up waste pursuant to the act. In this connection, a development program was established, the so-called Technology Program, which was to finance the testing and development of improved and cheaper preventive measures. The Environmental Protection Agency was made responsible for the administration of the Technology Program.

The basis for the establishment of the program is described in "Program for technology development, soil and groundwater pollution, the Environmental Protection Agency, December 1996". This program also describes the organisation, administration and general function of the various players included in the administration of the program.

Organisation. The Waste Deposit Board has been set up by the Minister for the Environment and is therefore the top-level responsible body for the program. The Environmental Protection Agency presents proposals for principles and program areas to the Waste Deposit Board. The Board assesses, on an overall level, the need for technology developments and each year recommends principles and program areas, including the allocation of the appropriation.

The Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for the administration and allocation of the appropriation. The annual programs are prepared by the Agency in cooperation with the reference group of the program which is to ensure that the activities under the program are coordinated in relation to other activities in the area. Subsequently, the Agency is in charge of implementing specific actions, i.e. it initiates, monitors, reports and publishes field as well as investigation projects. The activities of the program are implemented in close cooperation with the local authorities (the counties), in particular appointed experts and project leaders.

Appropriation. For the implementation of the program, an amount of DKK 10 million has been set aside under the Appropriation Act in 1996 and DKK 15 million annually in the period from 1997 to 2001, however, under the Appropriation Act for 1998, an additional appropriation of DKK 4.4 million was made. For the period 1996 to 2001, the total appropriation amounted to DKK 89.4 million.

Activities and consumption. In the evaluation period from 1996 to end-2001, a total of 112 projects were initiated, including 45 field projects amounting to a total of DKK 55.9 million and 67 investigation projects totalling DKK 25.7 million. Activities and the allocation of the appropriation broken down by year are shown in the following table:

Activities and costs

Source: Project calculations from the Environmental Protection Agency

During the period, an annual average of 22 projects were initiated (variation from 14-30 projects annually). The costs have been allocated with 30% to investigation projects, 65% to field projects, 5% to experts and 0.5% to publication, tender etc. As the assistance of experts is attached to the field projects, the appropriation has been allocated according to the assumptions in the Technology Program, i.e. 30% to investigation projects and 70% to field projects.

Target areas. The program focuses on six target areas which in particular need testing of new technology. The target areas selected include the types of pollution which represent the most serious environmental and health problems and which involve significant costs for cleaning up.

The six target areas comprise the following types of pollution listed according to priority:

	Soil and/or groundwater polluted by chlorinated solvents
	Soil polluted by heavy metals
	Soil and groundwater polluted by oil/petrol, including MTBE
	Soil polluted by tar/PAH, including NSO compounds
	Mixed pollution
	Disposal site with leakage of disposal site gas.

The distribution of the 45 initiated field projects on the six target areas is shown in the following table.

Target areas

The measures taken have mainly complied with the priority appearing from the Technology Program. However, higher priority has been given to MTBE projects compared with projects related to soil polluted by heavy metals.

The Technology Program is described in detail in Chapter 2.

Administration and cooperation

Annual programs. Draft of annual programs is prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency and is discussed with the reference group of the program prior to the presentation of the final draft of the annual program to the Waste Deposit Board for approval. The annual programs are published on the Internet and submitted to the local authorities (the counties), the Waste Deposit Board, experts and the reference group.

In general, it seems that the annual programs are coordinated with other systems within the soil pollution area. However, about 20% of the counties and experts believe that the coordination is only made to a limited extent or not at all.

Field projects. The field projects are administered by the Environmental Protection Agency in cooperation with the local authorities (the counties), their consultants and contractors as well as the appointed experts who are attached as specialists in the areas selected. In cooperation with the local authorities (the counties) and experts, the Environmental Protection Agency chooses sites suited for technology testing. When site and technology have been chosen, the experts assist the counties and their consultants with the preparation of technically relevant projects which can bring about new knowledge of the technology. The above players are also included in the steering group of the field project.

All players believe that the cooperation related to field projects - choice of sites and technologies, preparation of technically relevant projects as well as implementation of the project - is satisfactory. The Environmental Protection Agency has chosen to include counties as well as experts actively in the choice of sites and technologies and has in this way succeeded in satisfying the counties and the experts and in securing a high professional standard in the choice of projects.

The in-depth analysis of selected field projects also shows that rules and procedures for the implementation and allocation of appropriations to field projects have been met.

Investigation projects. The Environmental Protection Agency initiates and monitors the investigation projects, possibly in cooperation with a steering group set up by the Agency if required. Tenders for the projects are called for in accordance with the Agency's rules governing invitations to tender which until 1 July 2001 implied that projects exceeding DKK 500,000 should be subject to public tender, or two tenders should be called for. The evaluation has shown that these rules have been followed.

The cooperation regarding investigation projects also develops satisfactorily. However, some contracting parties have indicated that often there is no correlation between the appropriation allocated to the project, the time factor and the performance expected by the Environmental Protection Agency. The Agency manages the projects strictly in order to ensure that the performance is in accordance with agreement.

The in-depth analysis of selected investigation projects also shows that rules and procedures for the implementation and allocation of appropriations to investigation projects have been met.

Consultants as stakeholders. Consultants represent significant stakeholders in the Technology Program, in investigation projects where the Environmental Protection Agency enters into an agreement with the consultant as well as in the field projects where the counties enter into an agreement with the consultant.

In connection with the investigation projects, the Environmental Protection Agency has used a fairly wide spectrum of consultants and research institutions - 20 different consultants have been used to implement 67 investigation projects. The number of consultants on field projects with whom a total of 13 counties have made an agreement is more limited. Ten consultants have been used to implement 45 field projects in 13 counties. For field as well as investigation projects, the trend is towards concluding agreements with certain consultants in a fairly large number of projects and concentrating knowledge sharing and specific expert competence on new preventive technologies in the soil pollution area with a limited number of consultants.

Administration and cooperation are described in detail in Chapter 3.

Program and project goals

Program goals. The evaluation shows that the projects under the Technology Program have widely met the overall goals.

	Development and documentation of technologies which can be used under Danish conditions and for typical pollution components.
	Initiating projects which test the limits of potential technologies within among other things cleaning levels, treatment technologies, reduction of costs and documentation
	To ensure that the results of the projects completed are available for all interested parties, including in particular the authorities who are to assess the preventive or cleaning projects.

More than 90% of the respondents find that the technologies can be used under Danish conditions and for typical components to some, a high and a very high degree.

This is also supported by the fact that all the technologies tested lie within the six target areas which have been selected as particularly significant under the Technology Program.

More than 60% of the respondents find that the technology projects test the limits of potential technologies within cleaning levels, treatment technologies, reduction of costs and documentation to some, a high and a very high degree. However, a significant number of the users also find that these goals have only been met to a modest degree or not at all. Therefore, the replies also show that is still important to develop new technologies in respect of reduction of costs, documentation of effects and new preventive technologies.

The local authorities (the counties) assess that the Technology Program as a whole has facilitated the choice of optimum technologies to be used for polluted sites. This also applies to risk assessments. However, the replies also show that some of the users believe that it is still necessary to improve the basis for the risk assessment of soil pollution as only 30-40% of the users believe that the basis for risk assessments has been improved to a high or very high degree. This also applies to the choice of optimum technologies where 40-50% believe that the basis for choosing optimum technologies has been improved to a high or very high degree. Both areas should therefore still be given high priority in relation to the Technology Program.

Knowledge sharing in relation to the projects completed has been extremely good. The evaluation shows that the majority of the respondents agree that the results of the technology projects have been made available for the interested parties. This is also supported by the calculations in Chapter 5 which show the extent of knowledge sharing for the individual projects.

Project goals. It is estimated that the project goals for the field projects have been met. The replies indicate that the majority agrees that the most relevant projects have been completed and that the result and quality of the projects have been on a high technical level. This also applies to the investigation projects completed.

Based on these replies, we assess that the Environmental Protection Agency has largely complied with the goals and targets set and provided grants for projects within the limits defined and that the Technology Program has contributed to improving the knowledge basis of users, both as regards the choice of suited technologies and the general knowledge of soil pollution.

Program and project goals are described in detail in Chapter 4.

Knowledge sharing and application

Knowledge sharing. Our general conclusion is that the knowledge sharing from field and investigation projects completed under the Technology Program is considerable. Knowledge has primarily been shared through the Environmental Protection Agency's own media (the publication 'Ny Viden', environmental reports and www.mst.dk) or through the Danish Academy of Technical Sciences (ATV)'s specialist meetings. However, many projects have also been communicated through other media, including AVJ Info, theme meetings for local authorities (the counties), but also international magazines and conferences.

As regards the field projects, 17 environmental reports, 21 status memoranda and a large number of other publications and presentations have been prepared. As regards the investigation projects, 29 environmental reports or internal work reports have been prepared.

Some of the comments in the questionnaires are related to knowledge sharing in respect of the projects under the Technology Program. In general, the comments express praise, both from those who are to use the results of the projects and from those who are to complete the projects. However, the latter also believe that things can be better.

Knowledge. Another relevant issue is whether the users of the projects, counties and consultants, have knowledge of the results of the projects. The investigation shows that in general the knowledge of consultants of available data on the projects is significant, however, there is a wide variation among consultants, probably because consultants seek knowledge which, from a commercial point of view, gives the greatest advantages.

In general, the local authorities (the counties) have less knowledge of the projects than do the consultants, and the variation between the individual counties is not as significant. The Technology Program primarily aims at giving the counties the best possible basis for prioritising sites and preventive technologies and at making optimum decisions. For this purpose, the counties must either possess the necessary knowledge themselves, or they will have to buy it from consultants.

Applicability and application. We are of the opinion that, under the Technology Program, field and investigation projects have been completed which are highly applicable and relevant for counties as well as for consultants and which are widely used and will also be used in future. However, some projects are almost unknown and not used at all.

Knowledge sharing and application are described in detail in Chapter 5.

Conclusion

The Technology Program was established in 1996 for the purpose of developing new technologies for cleaning up polluted sites. The program first and foremost aims at developing new, effective and cheap technologies so that the maximum number of sites can be cleaned up at the minimum time and cost.

Under the Technology Program, a total of 112 projects have been completed from 1996 to end-2001 all of which comply with the limits and goals of the Technology Program. The program has clearly contributed to improving the basis for risk assessments related to present pollutions as well as to the choice of preventive technologies which offer optimum solutions for specific types of pollution. Under the program, knowledge has been gained of a number of new technologies which offer a high cleaning effect and which therefore show great promise as the preventive technologies of the future.

Overall assessment. The administration of the program, which has been the responsibility of the Environmental Protection Agency, has been very satisfactory, including the qualified and differentiated utilisation of the appropriation to the Technology Program. The program has been administered in close cooperation with counties, consultants and research institutions which has ensured the high technical quality of the projects and guaranteed that these have been directly applicable in relation to the preventive measures of the counties for soil and groundwater pollutions.

The Environmental Protection Agency has also arranged for the communication of results from the Technology Program to the direct users (counties and consultants) who have in this way been able to use the results for other preventive measures. The communication has worked very satisfactorily.

Accordingly, we believe that the Technology Program has contributed significantly to technological developments in the area and that experiences and knowledge have in a satisfactory way been communicated to the end users (counties and consultants).

Public financing? Although, in our opinion, the program has been successful, it should be considered whether public financing is necessary to ensure technological developments.

The need for and reasons for using public financing for technological developments should be seen in relation to the fact that the public authorities are responsible for implementing and financing cleaning up of pollutions prior to 1 January 2001. Accordingly, the public authorities are also responsible for ensuring that the financing for cleaning up is used in the best and most efficient way so that a maximum number of sites can be cleaned up for the appropriation provided under the Appropriation Act.

It therefore seems fair that the public financing of the Technology Program continues until cheaper and more effective technologies have been developed for the most typical pollutions in Denmark or until the need for public financing of cleaning efforts has decreased significantly.

Proposed improvements

In our examination and evaluation, we have also focussed on areas where the Technology Program can be improved and adjusted. We have identified the following ideas and proposals for adjustments and improvements which should be included in the future plans of the Environmental Protection Agency (however not evaluation of financial and administrative consequences):

Coordination of activities with other programs which are also responsible for technological developments in respect of soil and groundwater. Approx. 20% of the experts and counties find that the Technology Program is only coordinated with other programs to a limited extent or not at all. In our opinion, the Environmental Protection Agency should therefore consider how to improve this coordination. This should also be seen in the light of the closing down of the reference group at 1 January 2002 as a result of cost-cutting measures.

It seems that changes to the target areas are needed and that special emphasis should placed in the Program in the future. The counties and consultants recommend that the list should be changed as follows:

1. Chlorinated solvents
2. Pesticides
3. Oil/petrol, including MTBE
4. Soil polluted by tar/ PAH, including NSO
5. Mixed pollution
6. Soil polluted by heavy metals
7. Disposal sites with leakage of disposal site gas.

The prioritisation of target areas has not changed significantly except that soil polluted by heavy metals has been given a lower priority and replaced by pesticides as the second priority. Pesticides have not previously been prioritised as a target area under the Technology Program as it is assumed that the efforts against pesticides are financed by other programs. It should be considered whether this should continue to be the case.

In addition, the following target areas are mentioned: CFC gasses, urban soil, new types of pollutions, softeners and hardeners, disposal site percolate in clay soil, natural substances, nitrate, risk assessment and environmentally sound and low-technological preventive technologies.

Goal revision. In our opinion, the goals set for investigation and field projects are not applicable as management tools for the activities under the program. In our opinion, the goals define the limits and assumptions of the projects to which the Environmental Protection Agency can provide grants under the Technology Program. This is sufficient for the day-to-day administration of the program. However, in our opinion, a management tool is needed for the program to set up goals for specific target areas for the scope of the technological development and as to when a target area may be considered sufficiently documented and may therefore be excluded from the prioritisation list.

The goal revision should also include considerations as to the expected duration of the Technology Program based on when the development has reached a satisfactory level and/or when, pursuant to the Danish Soil Contamination Act, so many sites have been cleaned up that the public cleaning efforts are limited.

In the opinion of the counties, the Technology Program has facilitated the choice of optimum technologies for polluted sites. This also applies to risk assessments. However, the replies also show that some respondents are of the opinion that it is still necessary to improve the basis for risk assessments in relation to soil pollution and the choice of optimum technologies. In relation to the Technology Program, high priority should therefore still be given to both areas. Also, we believe that special focus should be on cutting the costs of using the methods.

Continued focus on the broadness of the choice of consultants. In our opinion, the Environmental Protection Agency has used a wide spectrum of consultants and research institutions in connection with investigation projects. Nevertheless, some consultants experience that only a limited number of consultants have been responsible for the majority of the projects. Accordingly, a wide spectrum of consultants and research institutions should be used, and the choice of consultants and the basis for decisions (tenders, professional competence etc.) should be made visible.

Several respondents have requested more grants to the Technology Program. This should probably be seen in the light of the reduction of the appropriation in 2002 when the appropriation was reduced by approx. 50%. In the evaluation, we have not commented on the size of the appropriation to the Technology Program.

Increased focus on process understanding for tested technologies. Process understanding is the fundamental condition for understanding the results achieved and is accordingly also the fundamental condition for assessing the possibilities of improving/changing the technology so that it best meets the wishes formulated in the Technology Program (best and cheapest).

Improved correlation between economy, time consumption and expected performance. Several contracting parties have stated that they have experienced that in some of the projects there has been no correlation between the economy of the project and the performance expected by the Environmental Protection Agency. It should be ensured that contracting party and the Environmental Protection Agency agree on the ambition level before the contract is signed.

Instructions on the documentation of effect, economy and technology. Some respondents wish that guidelines be prepared for the testing of technology projects which describe the documentation required in respect of the effect and costs related to the technology.

Knowledge sharing. Many find that the present knowledge sharing is extremely important and should be maintained and improved. Some respondents request diagrams summarising methods and results (analogous to the latest chart in NIRAS' report (Environmental Project No. 714/2002)). Other respondents indicate that final reports should be published more promptly, and some wish that the continuous communication of preliminary results should be improved through publication in the homepage of the Environmental Protection Agency.

International knowledge sharing. Several respondents state that knowledge sharing with foreign countries should be improved so that the knowledge achieved can also be used by others. Some also indicate that, under the Technology Program, it should also be possible to support the publication of scientific results in foreign journals.

| Front page | | Contents | | Previous | | Next | | Top |