Maturity Directive 2006/118/EC · Groundwater Protection
Your groundwater obligations, measured site by site and turned into a costed action plan.
10 themes, a 5-level scale. And the action that moves each level to the next.
The framework’s 10 themes, already written from L1 to L5. One company, one business unit, or 300 at once.
Maturity Directive 2006/118/EC · Groundwater Protection
10 themes, 5-level scale.
Nordhavn Industries
53 / 100
They measure their maturity with Datamensio
An example
This could be your situation.
Take one company as an example: three sites, three spreadsheets, no shared answer.
Nobody can consolidate.
Nordhavn Industries, 2,400 people in Hamburg, Lyon and Porto. A client asks where the group stands. Each site answers in its own spreadsheet, with its own scales.
Three weeks, a single base.
One Directive 2006/118/EC, as amended by Directive 2014/80/EU assessment launched across all three sites at once, from the managers’ interview notes. The framework was already written, its 10 themes and levels L1 to L5 too.
Two costs avoided before being committed.
A score of 53 out of 100, with the gap concentrated on three themes. The AI companion spotted that two actions duplicated those of another audit. The committee report took one sentence to request.
What it saved them
- 3sites measured on the same base, instead of three questionnaires to reconcile
- 2duplicate actions caught before the spend
- 1committee report, with no manual rework
These figures are an example. They could be yours.
The standard imposes processes. Datamensio says where you stand.
01
The framework is already written
Themes, questions and levels L1 to L5, all written. You do not start from an empty spreadsheet.
02
The score lands the same day
Online, by self-assessment link or in interview. Theme by theme, comparable over time.
03
The gap becomes a costed plan
Every step up carries its action. The AI prioritises on expected effect, not on the order of the standard.
04
Progress can be demonstrated
Campaign after campaign, against your target and against your own past. That is what your board asks for.
The maturity scale
One level, the next, and the action that links the two.
It is this mechanism, one level, the level above, and the action that connects them, that turns an observation into a trajectory.
Are upward trends in pollutant concentrations identified and addressed?
- N1
No trend analysis. Analysis results are compared against the regulatory threshold round by round, without being plotted as a series.
- N2
Results are archived and sometimes plotted as graphs, but interpretation remains visual and depends on whoever produces the report.
- N3
A trend analysis method is defined and applied to the relevant parameters at each monitoring point. Identified trends trigger a documented action.
- N4
Trend reversal starting points are set per parameter and per water body, exceedances trigger documented measures, and the effectiveness of these measures is checked in subsequent monitoring rounds.
- N5
The method and starting points are periodically reviewed as data series lengthen, the hydrogeological context evolves and the authority provides feedback, with a record of revisions kept.
Action to move from L2 to L3
Formalise the trend analysis method per parameter and per piezometer, apply it to the whole available historical record before the next monitoring round, and put trend review on the agenda of the site environmental review.
« With Datamensio, we meet our objectives far more efficiently. The ERDF inspection services and our supervising ministry particularly appreciated an approach that gives them reliable data. »
Director, CCI 94CCI Île-de-France
« We believe this is the most suitable solution to scale our transformation project and measure impact according to our needs. »
Maja SucekChief Operating Officer, Interreg Danube
Rarely on its own
Frameworks combine. Put several together to cover your business, or have the AI write yours.
Take your first measurement
What this framework covers
Directive 2006/118/EC is the daughter directive of the Water Framework Directive dedicated to groundwater. It sets two quality standards applicable across the Union, 50 mg/l for nitrates and 0.1 µg/l per active pesticide substance, and leaves it to Member States to establish threshold values for other relevant pollutants. It requires the chemical status of each water body to be assessed, significant and sustained upward trends to be identified, starting points for trend reversal to be defined, and pollutant inputs into groundwater to be prevented or limited.
For an operator of a quarry, mine or storage facility, the difficulty is not knowing the text. It is demonstrating, site by site, what the arrangements in place actually deliver. Does the piezometric network cover both the hydraulic upgradient and downgradient of each activity area, or only the historical points? Are the threshold values set by the authority reflected in internal alert thresholds, or is interpretation done case by case on receipt of the analysis reports? Does a drift in sulphates or metals across three monitoring rounds trigger a documented action, or does it remain a comment in the annual report?
One point deserves clarifying. Directive 2014/80/EU replaced Annex II of 2006/118/EC and tightened the list of substances to be considered when setting threshold values, notably adding nitrite and total phosphorus, and clarifying how natural geochemical background levels should be taken into account. Many operating files still work from the original list and a direct comparison against quality standards, without distinguishing what stems from the natural background of the mining terrain and what stems from the activity itself. This distinction shapes the technical case put to the authority.
A compliance audit settles the matter: the monitoring programme exists or it does not, results are submitted or they are not. A maturity assessment asks a different question: what level of control does each practice sit at, and what specific action moves it to the next level. An operator can be fully compliant on its reporting obligations and still sit at level 2 on the statistical interpretation of trends or on the link between monitoring and post-closure management. The assessment makes this gap visible and quantifies it.
Within Datamensio, the framework is ready to use and adaptable. The AI adjusts the themes, questions and levels to your context, metal mines, alluvial quarries, tailings storage, or builds a bespoke version from your operating permits and monitoring reports.
Reference standard: Directive 2006/118/EC, as amended by Directive 2014/80/EU
The themes assessed
Understanding the hydrogeological context
Characterisation of the water bodies concerned, flow direction and velocity, aquifer vulnerability, natural geochemical background levels, protected areas and drinking water abstraction points located downgradient.
Quality standards and threshold values
Application of nitrate and pesticide standards, threshold values set by the Member State for relevant pollutants, list of substances under the revised Annex II, justification of the parameters chosen for the site.
Monitoring programme
Siting and representativeness of upgradient and downgradient monitoring points, sampling frequencies, parameters analysed, laboratory qualification, traceability of sampling and measurement chains.
Assessment of chemical status
Method for aggregating results, treatment of occasional exceedances, assessment of the extent of contamination, the site’s contribution to the water body’s status.
Trends and reversal
Usable data series, statistical method for identifying upward trends, definition of trend reversal starting points, triggering of corrective actions.
Prevention and limitation of pollutant inputs
Sealing of storage and handling areas, management of process and runoff water, ponds and dykes, authorised discharges and infiltrations, hazardous substances present on site.
Managing exceedances and incidents
Internal alert thresholds, escalation procedure, further investigations, containment measures, notification of the authority and affected third parties.
Links with other obligations
Consistency with the river basin management plan, the extractive waste management plan, the environmental impact assessment and the environmental management system.
Data, reporting and governance
Consolidation of monitoring data, format and reliability of regulatory submissions, reporting to the management committee and local stakeholders, long term retention.
Post-closure monitoring
Duration and scope of monitoring after cessation of activity, associated financial guarantees, transfer of data and responsibilities, criteria for ending monitoring.
A short version of the framework is available for the online self-assessment.
Frequently asked questions
Does this assessment amount to a certificate of compliance with Directive 2006/118/EC?
No. Compliance is assessed against national transposing law and the requirements of your operating permit, by the competent authority. The assessment measures the maturity of your practices, documents gaps and prepares you for inspection. It issues nothing.
How does this differ from a compliance audit carried out by an engineering consultancy?
An audit concludes with a finding of compliance or a gap against each requirement. The assessment places each practice on five levels and indicates the action that raises it by one level. The two complement each other: the assessment prepares and prioritises, the audit validates.
How does this framework link to the Water Framework Directive?
2006/118/EC is the daughter directive of 2000/60/EC for groundwater: it sets out the criteria for assessing good chemical status. An assessment carried out on both frameworks shares much of its foundation, and the cross-cutting roadmap avoids duplicating actions.
How long does the assessment take?
The short version takes 20 to 30 minutes to complete per site. The full version, run collaboratively, generally takes one to two weeks, most of the time spent gathering monitoring data and permits from site teams.
Can the framework be adapted to our sites?
Yes. The themes, questions and levels can be modified, and the AI produces a bespoke version from your operating permits, monitoring reports or extractive waste management plan. You can also add themes specific to your activity.
Do you need a hydrogeologist to answer?
The questions concern management and monitoring practices, not the interpretation of a hydrodynamic model. A site environmental manager can answer most of them. The collaborative mode allows technical questions to be assigned to the hydrogeologist or the engineering consultancy.
Can several sites be compared with each other?
Yes. Assessments carried out on the same framework can be compared by theme across business units and over time. The AI groups recurring gaps into a consolidated roadmap across the portfolio, with cost, timeframe and expected impact on the score.
Where is the data hosted?
In France, with OVH, backed up at Scaleway. No transfer outside the European Union. The AI models used can be selected, including from European providers.