BRIDGE Background CRiteria for the IDentification of Groundwater

BRIDGE - Background CRiteria for the IDentification of Groundwater Thr. Esholds METHODOLOGY FOR GROUNDWATER THRESHOLD VALUES REFINEMENTS & FINAL PROPOSAL 15. 12. 2006| Folie 1

Content • Concepts • Determination of NBL’s • Aquatic ecosystems (GWDTE) • ‘groundwater’ 15. 12. 2006| Folie 2

Discussion Process • Lisbon Workshop • Preparatory discussions • Draft D 18 • Comments – WP 3 partners & WPleaders (29 & 30. 09. 2006) (30. 10– 15. 11. 2006) (23. 11. 2006) • Final discussions & adaptations • D 18 – Final Proposal (5. 12. 2006) 15. 12. 2006| Folie 3

Methodology Final Proposal CONTENT OF THE REPORT (D 18) 1) Introduction 2) Prerequisites of the WFD and GWDD Method development process 4) Underlying concepts 5) Pollutants, GW bodies & receptors 6) Procedure for status determination and threshold setting ANNEXE: 3) I. III. IV. V. VI. Procedure for the Determination of NBLs TV for groundwater itself (Tier 2 a) Reference Values: EQS & DWS Pollutant dilution (Surface Water) Pollutant attenuation (Surface Water) The links between the objectives prevent or limit, and 15. 12. 2006| Folie 4 status

WFD & GWDD Groundwater protection MAIN OBJECTIVES • • • Status assessment • large scale issues across GW-bodies • Threshold Values Prevent or Limit • protecting quality at local scale (!) • “Regulatory Values” Trend assessment 15. 12. 2006| Folie 5

STATUS ASSESSMENT & PROTECTION OF QUALITY Risks of pollution from diffuse/point sources (incl. landfills, wastes, contaminated soils, agriculture) Run-off Construction Products, Urban wastes Drinking water abstraction Prevent / Limit Status Assessment ref. to Receptors (Aquatic ecosystems, GWDTE, DW …) GW-body monitoring Trend assessment • • • Local Control Time 15. 12. 2006| Folie 6

15. 12. 2006| Folie 7

Methodology Underlying Concepts þ CONCEPTUAL èpressures, MODEL processes, pathways & receptors þ SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO RECEPTORS èorientation to a risk-based-approach ÖRECEPTORS þ Aquatic ecosystems, (GWDTE) v Groundwater þ TIERED APPROACH èlinking thresholds and status assessment 15. 12. 2006| Folie 8

Groundwater Quality & Status Significant Impacts 15. 12. 2006| Folie 9

MONITORED DATA Establishing TVs Flow Chart Derive NBL (according to Annex I) Tier 1 Is [pollutant] > NBL? OR Tier 2 Yes Tier 3 No Is [pollutant] > (QS/DF)? (according to Annex II) Check for trends Set threshold = NBL Status = GOOD Is [pollutant] > QS? Tier 2 a Derive TV No Set threshold = QS (or NBL if exceeding QS) Check for trends Status = GOOD No Yes Set threshold = (QS/DF)*AF Check for trends Set threshold = QS/DF Status = GOOD Is [pollutant] > TV? Tier 4 Rules Is [pollutant] > (QS/DF)*AF? 1. Use the appropriate quality standard, QS. If ecological risk use EQS. Yes Does appropriate Investigation show that conditions for good chemical status are not met? Yes No Status = GOOD No Check for trends If human health risk use DWS. 2. If dilution factor, DF, not known assume = 1. 0 3. If attenuation factor, AF, not known assume = 1. 0 4. In check for Trends use ALL triggers-consider need for trend reversal if crossing each trigger 15. 12. 2006| Folie 10 Status = POOR Define Objectives and Measures

Natural Background Levels Refinements è NBLBRIDGE = BLGWDD separate data sets according to salt water impact l separate data sets for aerobic (e. g. ≥ 1 mg O 2/l) and anaerobic (< 1 mg O 2/l) aquifer l Advice when to select the 90% or 97. 7% as the NBL l 15. 12. 2006| Folie 11

TIERED APPROACH Aquatic Ecosystems matching risk characterisation for surface water vs. groundwater or è other evidence for a substantial transfer of pollutants Ö Proposal EQS [COM(2006) 397 final! è § û AA-EQS (annual average) [DF vs. Multiple discharges] T 4: Attenuation T 3: Dilution T 2: EQS T 1: NBL 15. 12. 2006| Folie 12

Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems lack of legal and scientific background è general assumption: aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems (e. g. wetlands) need to adapt to similar conditions è Simplified procedure Ö Monitored damages or Ö Aquatic EQS [COM(2006) 397 final: AA-EQS] Ö Exclude other possible impacts § Groundwater quantity § p. H, buffering effects, oxygen & nutrient concentrations è specific investigation by ecologists 15. 12. 2006| Folie 13

Groundwater as a Receptor Groundwater should be protected in its own rights þ No agreed common understanding of the WFD and the GWDD and the role of threshold values Possible approaches: Ö Groundwater as a resource Ö Groundwater ‘itself’ Ö Groundwater as an ecosystem L Policy discussions/decisions: è • WG C & Drafting group ‘status and compliance’ 15. 12. 2006| Folie 14

Groundwater ‘itself’ Thresholds at Tier 2 a è Relation NBL to Ref-QS ê (NBL + MPA) (Confidence Interval Comparison) ê 15. 12. 2006| Folie 15

Refined Methodology + Specific Practical Descriptions Overview on receptor specific screening Receptor Criteria for GW Chemical Status Reference Value Surface Water AA-EQS GWDTE special regime DWPA l other uses l l Groundwater DWS l use related saline intrusion l widespread pollutants l significant impairment l NBL l QS (see WFD) l l use related 15. 12. 2006| Folie 16

Threshold Values PREREQUISITES: • may be GW-body specific (GWDD) è even at the level of GW-bodies sensitive to delineation across aquifers with different hydrogeochemical characteristics • specific pollutants: see risk characterisation (Art. 5 reports!) • receptors need to be defined clearly! è Receptor • ‘Groundwater’: management decision relevant TV: according to sensitive receptor 15. 12. 2006| Folie 17

Environmental thresholds Towards a common approach ü Final proposal: December, 5 th ü Final BRIDGE Meeting: December, 15 th HANDING OVER TO è WG C & Drafting group ‘status and compliance’ 15. 12. 2006| Folie 18

Status assessment Thresholds & Compliance regime GWDD: þ single monitoring stations þ GW-body (aggregated data) BRIDGE was not to work on compliance, but: o Reports: D 16: Sampling, Measuring, Quality Assurance o D 17: Integrated Data Aggregation o o regarding ecological receptors (and saline intrusion): limiting to ‘compliance areas’ in interaction with surface water 15. 12. 2006| Folie 19

Bureau de Recherche Géologiques et Minières (FR); ACTeon (FR) Akademia Gorniczo-Hutnicza (PL) Application Européenne de Technologies et de Services (FR) Autorita' di Bacino del Fiume Tevere (IT) Budapest University of Technology and Economics (HU) Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford (UK) Danish Environmental Protection Agency (DK) Danmarks og Grønlands Geologiske Undersøgelse (DK) Executive Environment Agency England & Wales (UK) Federal Environmental Agency-Germany (DE) Forschungszentrum Juelich Gmb. H (DE) Flemish Institute of Technological Research (BE) Geological Survey of Lithuania (LT) Hessisches Landesamt fuer Umwelt und Geologie (DE) Instituto Geologico y Minero de Espana (ES) National Agricultural Research Foundation (GR) Nederlandse Organisatie voor Toegepast Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NL) Office International de l'Eau (FR) Suomen ympäristökeskus (FI) Universidade de Aveiro (PT) Université de Liège, Aquapôle (BE) Universiteit Gent (BE) 15. 12. 2006| Folie 20 University of Tartu (EE) Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL) Umweltbundesamt Gmb. H (AT)

Thank you ! 15. 12. 2006| Folie 21

Aquatic Ecosystems Env. Quality Standards Proposal EQS [COM(2006) 397 f, 17. 06] ÖAA-EQS (annual average) ÖMAC-EQS (max. allowable concentration) Ö ANNEX I, PART C: Compliance Ö NBL > EQS or Ö hardness, p. H or other water quality parameters affect bioavailability of metals, MS may take this into account when assessing monitoring results Ö Art. 2(5): EC may set up a compulsory calculation methods National EQS for additional pollutants 15. 12. 2006| Folie 22 ý [PNEC (Predicted No Effect Concentration)] ý

Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems no EQS available l hardly any existing data on impacts by chemical pollution l groundwater chemical status to be assessed separately, if l significant damage evident è evidence, that damage is not caused by quantitative problems è 15. 12. 2006| Folie 23