Índice de Materias
4. INTERACCIONES MACROMOLECULARES EN MEDIOS AGLOMERADOS
The following business case has been prepared on the basis of thirteen interviews. The interviews include eight company representatives (including two end users), three testing bodies and two academic organisations.
A3.1 Introduction
This business case builds on the findings of the main market analysis which showed that, while soil and groundwater remediation technologies is a mature market, there are a large number of innovative technology companies seeking to bring new testing and site characterisation and diagnostic techniques to commercialisation. These have the potential to significantly decrease the need for laboratory testing29 and hence speed up the process of site characterisation whilst also improving knowledge about site contaminants. Overall, such technologies could provide a step change in current practices which in turn could reduce costs considerably.
The companies featured in this business case have products that cover different types of site characterisation including: probes, on site samplers, heavy metal detectors and X-ray fluorescents. New technologies require on site demonstration which is time consuming, costly and often difficult to conduct due to the lack of appropriate sites for testing. The industry is dominated by large environmental engineering consulting firms that test new technologies for quality assurance before use after considering their performance claims. This is necessary because of the diverse nature of contaminated sites. Testing and validation are a prerequisite for acceptance of a new product. This business case shows the benefits that ETV will bring to both technology developers and end users.
A3.1.1 Current status of the market and technology
Contaminated land is a prevalent problem in the EU and while many countries such as the UK, Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark and France are stable, others such as Spain, Greece and those in Eastern Europe have large market opportunities. Austria and Germany in particular have large market potential. The Czech Republic has a growing market for land remediation with increased confidence in the available applications. Sweden and the Netherlands have stable markets which would benefit from the increased use of site characterisation applications to reduce laboratory costs. The UK is one of the largest land remediation markets in the EU with a legacy of contaminated sites. Turnover for contaminated land remediation (not including assessment) was €0.83 billion in 200730. In France, another sizeable market, the turnover for land remediation was €0.8 billion in 2007, with growth forecast to reach €1.3 billion in 2012. In the Netherlands, a recent industry consultation by environmental technology trade association VLM found contaminated land and groundwater sector turnover to be worth €286m in 2008.
Contaminated sites can contain a vast number of contaminants (e.g. organic chemicals, heavy metals, etc.) that require identification and analysis. Laboratory testing is traditionally used to test samples of soil and groundwater collected by drilling test wells and taking core samples. This is an expensive, invasive and time consuming process. Samples are then tested to identify if contaminants are present and to determine what they are. More site investigation is then needed to assess where the contaminants are in order to ‘map’ out the site. The opportunities that the latest site investigation technologies offer are faster identification and characterisation methods.
29 Laboratory testing is a critical component of the soil and groundwater remediation market and a prerequisite for any major
remediation project
33 Site characterisation technologies in the EU are relatively new compared with remediation techniques, some of which are over 25 years old. There are now opportunities to introduce advanced technologies into the market which can reduce the time spent on extracting samples from sites and sending them to laboratories and hence greatly reduce stage one site characterisation costs. This in turn allows risk assessments performed in laboratories to be more focused and efficient. According to technology developers the site characterisation market has started to take off in the past ten years. However, strict regulations and a lack of end user confidence in adopting new technologies has stalled innovation31.
The commercial market in soil and groundwater testing in environmental laboratories currently accounts for the majority of testing techniques for the contaminated land sector. However, it is estimated that approximately 75% of soil and groundwater testing could be conducted on-site with compact probes and test kits32. This creates a huge potential increase in the market for rapid measurement technologies33. However, the current market for such real time analytical tools is immature for the following reasons:
• Significant lack of regulator knowledge and awareness; • End user resistance to new/unproven technologies; • Lack of harmonised standards across different regions; • Restricted access to testing sites.
Companies involved in developing site characterisation and diagnostic tools are small specialized firms that often focus on the development of specific technologies. They work with large construction and consultancy companies that have the experience, skills and equipment needed for comprehensive remediation projects.
A3.2 Innovation drivers
A3.2.1 Main EU and Member states regulations influencing the development of the technology
The most significant EU Directives for contaminated land are: • The Water Framework Directive;
• Landfill Directive;
• Environmental Liability Directive;
• Soil Framework Directive (in the decision-making process).
These Directives have increased the need for land remediation by forcing developers to consider the impacts of contaminated soil and groundwater on human health, as well as exposing developers to very large liability risks that would otherwise limit remedial actions. Restrictions on what can be disposed of in landfill sites (together with the imposition of large landfill fees and taxes) have also driven innovations in on site land remediation technologies. The use of site characterisation equipment is not comprehensively regulated. Local authorities, member state environment agencies and consulting firms dictate which technologies they deem acceptable based on prior knowledge. Contaminated land is
31 Consultation with Derek Pedley, Environmental Sustainability Knowledge Transfer Network. 32 Tang, Alec (2007): Rapid measurements tools. Environmental Knowledge Transfer Network. 33 Tang, Alec (2007): Rapid measurements tools. Environmental Knowledge Transfer Network.
34 regulated by present levels of contamination, not how remediation is achieved. Thus the use and acceptability of technologies, overall, is determined on a individual, highly subjective basis. The acceptance of site characterisation technologies is highly dependent on end user knowledge of the technology and regulator knowledge.
In the area of land remediation, local authority personal who are generally not experts often have a lack of confidence in new processes. They tend to use techniques that they have known to be used in the past so as to avoid failure and perceived detrimental impacts on human health from poor remediation34. This has largely affected the uptake of new site investigation technologies and has contributed to the resistance of innovation.
A3.2.2 Non-regulatory end user requirements on innovation and performance
The primary driver of investment in site investigation tools is to reduce costs. The main objective of the company responsible for designing a site remediation project is to ensure that it has the most comprehensive analysis and mapping of the nature and extent of a site’s contamination at least possible cost. The potential to reduce the costs to consultants of using laboratory testing for multiple samples of groundwater and/or soil, whilst also enhancing the knowledge of where precisely contamination might exist on site, creates a strong incentive for technology developers to bring innovative site investigation tools to market. Furthermore, the ability of new techniques to provide real time analysis of contaminants creates a further selling point which could help to refine a remediation project and save money.
A3.3 Current and future performance of technologies
A3.3.1 Current technology provision
There are now a large number of real time site characterisation and diagnostic technologies on the market. Examples include35:
• Biosensors to detect dioxins, producing results within ten minutes; • DNA dye detectors;
• X-ray fluorescent meters;
• Membrane probe detectors with spectrometers to detect contaminant ‘hot spots’ for contaminants for site ‘heat mapping’.
The application of some new technologies is more accepted in some Member States than others (e.g. XRD is widely used in Germany compared to the UK).
A3.3.2 Indication of ‘State-of-the-art’ for current technologies Leading edge technologies currently being developed include:
• Soil scanners and soil diagnostic tools used to detect the presence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in soil36;
34 EURODEMO (2007): European platform for demonstration of efficient soil and groundwater remediation. Sixth Framework
Programme, European Commission.
35 There are variations of these technologies and many of the innovations in site characterisation are focused on improving
these technologies and applying them in new ways.
36 Historically PAHs are detected with chemical testing in laboratories which is time consuming, costly and exposure of samples
35 • Cone Penetrometer Technology (CPT) used for rapid site characterisation of
organic matter;
• Hand held X-ray Diffraction (XRD) used to detect heavy metals;
• Hand held X-ray Spectrometer (XRS) used to measure pH and carbon levels in soil; • Geophysical tracer equipment to detect fuels and dyes;
• Geo-probes used for on-site soil sampling which limits drilling and the need for wells;
• Multi-parameter and multi-species sensors;
• Combined phases (gases and aerosols) detection in one sensor; • Embedded optical fibre sensors;
• Wireless sensors, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) for the remote collection of data as well as telemetry;
• Biosensors for biotoxicity, bioaerosols and bioluminus bacteria;
• Miniaturisation of systems (e.g. laser-ablation mass spectrometry) for ‘Lab on a chip’ sensors.
While these products are diverse in their underpinning technologies and the contaminants they aim to diagnose, new developments and innovation in the field of site investigation are all focused on reducing costs by decreasing the amount of necessary laboratory testing. Technology developers interviewed for this business case indicated that they do not face extensive competition in their particular product areas. This is an indication of the relatively new development of this sector. It also highlights the market need for a large number of real time analysers for different contaminants. One technology developer noted that:
“the need for innovation surrounds analysis in the field as opposed to in the lab. However, to date lab testing has always been safer due to the high levels of standardization in labs. Labs are heavily regulated and therefore testing standards are trusted and well known.”
Regarding future market development and efficiency in the sector one developer stated that
“Site characterisation is key to the remediation market. What is needed are tools that are quick to use, coupled with pragmatic approaches that allow contractors to map sites in order to properly mitigate health risks.”
A3.3.3 Likely developments of technology performance standards
Given the current relatively immature status of site characterisation technology and the advanced technical knowledge held by product developers and end users, it is unlikely that performance standards will be adopted for some time.
A3.4 Technology developers being examined in this business case
Company A - has developed a scanner for soil which is a chemical and biological sensor for the rapid detection of PAHs. It is currently developing biosensors for the rapid detection of dioxins in soil. Its main sales are in North America and to a lesser extent the EU with the Middle East offering growth opportunities.
36 Company B - has over ten years experience of developing site characterisation and remediation techniques. It specialises in the development of biosensors to determine whether or not bioremediation of soil is a plausible option for any given site. It has two products on sale and two in development. It sells into the EU, Eastern Europe and China. Company C - is Dutch owned, over fifty years old and specialises in the development of site characterisation technologies (e.g. a soil core sampler to detect volatile organics and a sampling probe that can be installed rapidly and under all geological conditions and tests soil on multiple parameters). It is also a member of the standardisation board for technical requirements of soil and groundwater sampling technologies in the Netherlands. Selling products globally, it has ten to twenty technologies under development at any one time. Company D - has developed a handheld luminator that emits light to detect bacteria and provides a toxicity tests for soils. This technology is traditionally used for testing in water and groundwater but the company has adapted it for soils. The company was acquired by a large water utility in 2008. It is active in the EU and Japan.
Company E - is a multinational company that specialises in site characterisation and is also a developer of rapid measurement tools. It employs over 13,000 staff across its EU offices and has a turnover of €2.3 billion in 2010. It is developing hand held XRF screening tools that detect the presence of heavy metals, as well as rapid screening tools for CPT.
A summary of each developer is shown in Table A3.1. All firms have at least one product in the market and a pipeline of innovations. As stated in the market analysis, the UK and the Netherlands are two of the largest markets in the EU, and have numerous innovative technology developers, which helps explain the concentration of firms from these two member states.
Table A3.1: Overview of technology developers in this business case Organisation information Technology developer A Technology developer B Technology developer C Technology developer D Technology developer E Member State UK UK NL UK NL
Size Micro Small Medium Micro Large
Age (years) 6-10 11-20 20+ 6-10 20+ Products in development 2 2 5+ 1 3-5 Market ready products 2 3-5 0 1 2 Products in market 1 2 5+ 1 5+
Product description Soil scanner to detect PAHs in soil Biosensors for the chemical analysis of soil Soil sampler coring tube to test for volatiles Hand held luminator for detection of bacteria in soil Hand held XRD heavy metal detector
37
NEED FOR ETV
A3.5 Routes to market for companies
A3.5.1 Summary of the key barriers to market acceptance
Table A3.2 below shows that the three most importance barriers in the site investigation market are:
• the highly risk averse nature of the remediation industry; • a lack of suitable sites for testing products; and,
• uncertainty about the suitability of new technologies, given the diverse nature of contaminated sites.
Table A3.2: Rationale for ETV - Barriers
Technology Developer
Barriers A B C D E
We have limited or no track record of sales x x x
Our company is of insufficient scale (e.g. turnover) to provide credible
guarantees to customers x x
Our new product price is higher than incumbent technologies x
Customers are uncertain about our product’s environmental performance x x x
Customers are uncertain as to how suitable our product is to their operations (i.e.
fitness for use) x x x x x
We lack legitimacy for our environmental performance claims x x
We are unable to demonstrate the performance of our technology in real world
operational conditions x
Our customers are highly risk averse and prefer to buy market proven
technologies x x x x x
We have yet to achieve the right quality standards / accreditations (e.g.
ISO9001/14001) to satisfy customers x
Lack of mutual recognition and harmonised standards prevents market access x x x
Other: Lack of suitable sites for testing x x x x
A3.5.2 Current standards, norms and labelling that are used for the technology (family) Standardisation provides a set of specific parameters against which technologies can be tested. Examples of ISO standards in this sector are shown in the Box below.
ISO requirements for the site characterisation sector
ISO 15799:2003 - Soil quality Guidance on the ecotoxicological characterization of soils and soil materials
38 ISO/TS 17892-11:2004 - Geotechnical investigation and testing Laboratory testing of soil -- Part 11: Determination of permeability by constant and falling head
ISO 10381-5:2005 - Soil quality -- Sampling Part 5: Guidance on the procedure for the investigation of urban and industrial sites with regard to soil contamination
ISO 10381-7:2005 - Soil quality -- Sampling Part 7: Guidance on sampling of soil gas ISO 22475-1:2006 - Geotechnical investigation and testing -- Sampling methods and groundwater measurements Part 1: Technical principles for execution
ISO/TS 21268-3:2007 - Soil quality -- Leaching procedures for subsequent chemical and ecotoxicological testing of soil and soil materials Part 3: Up-flow percolation test
ISO/TS 21268-4:2007 - Soil quality -- Leaching procedures for subsequent chemical and ecotoxicological testing of soil and soil materials Part 4: Influence of pH on leaching with initial acid/base addition
ISO 17402:2008 - Soil quality Requirements and guidance for the selection and application of methods for the assessment of bioavailability of contaminants in soil and soil materials ISO 18772:2008 - Soil quality Guidance on leaching procedures for subsequent chemical and ecotoxicological testing of soils and soil materials
Note: CEN, EN and ISO standards for Geo-technical investigation are interrelated and overlapping, only ISO titles are presented.
ASTM International37, through its 141 technical standards writing committees and extensive industry networks, has developed over 12,000 international voluntary consensus standards that are globally recognised. Some of those applied to groundwater monitoring are shown in Table A3.3
Table A3.3: ASTM standards that apply to water monitoring
Standard Name What the standard covers
ASTM D7045 - 04(2010)
Standard Guide for Optimization of Ground Water Monitoring Constituents for Detection
Monitoring Programmes for RCRA Waste Disposal Facilities
Identification of effective groundwater monitoring constituents for a detection-monitoring programme.
ASTM D5092 - 04(2010)e1
Standard Practice for Design and Installation of Ground Water Monitoring Wells
Design and installation of groundwater monitoring wells will promote (1) efficient and effective site hydrogeological characterization; (2) durable and reliable well construction; and (3) acquisition of representative groundwater quality samples, groundwater levels, and hydraulic conductivity testing data from monitoring wells.
ASTM D5521 - 05
Standard Guide for Development of Ground- Water Monitoring Wells in Granular Aquifers
representative samples of ground water that can be analyzed to determine physical properties and water-quality parameters of the sample or potentiometric levels that are representative of the total hydraulic head of that portion of the aquifer screened by the well, or both
Current standards and regulations in the contaminated land sector have two drawbacks:
39 • They do not provide scope for validating more advanced technologies that go
beyond the standard;
• They regulate the levels and types of containments present on the site, not the process of testing for or identifying them. Therefore, if a technology is able to scan a site and analyse the types of contaminants present, no standards exist to show the time saved by the avoidance of laboratory testing or the costs savings provided. One company noted that the merit and strength of ISO standards largely depends on the working group that has written them. There are therefore large differences in how