Priority pollutants

Devising a Risk Index for Priority Substances Emissions from

WWTP

Fiona Regan

Overview

Work Package

•  Interpreting PS monitoring data from DCU (Lisa Jones) and CIT: Metals, PAHs, Pesticides, VOCs

•  Identifying major sources and risk factors for PS occurrence in WW

•  Assessing risk of PS occurrence in catchments, over time

•  Understanding sources, prioritising monitoring

Priority Substance Monitoring

•  EU WFD: Waters must be of “Good” ecological and chemical status by 2015

•  WFD: 33 PS groups, including 20 PHS, plus 11 potential PS

•  PS emissions reduced to background concentrations •  PHS emissions eliminated within 20 years •  2008 EQS Directive: Average annual and maximum

acceptable concentrations specified

EQ

S D

irect

ive

Potential Priority Substances

Priority Hazardous Substances

Alachlor Anthracene AMPAAtrazine Brominated diphenylether BentazonBenzene Cadmium and its compounds Bisphenol-A

Chloroalkanes, C10-13 DicofolEndosulfan EDTA

Chlorfenvinpos Hexachlorobenzene Free cyanide Chlorpyrifos (Chlorpyrifos-theyl) Hexachlorobutadiene Glyphosate1,2-dichloroethane Hexachlorocyclohexane Mercoprop (MCPP)Dichloromethane Mercury and its compounds Musk xyleneDi(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) NonylphenolDiuron (4-nonylphenol)Fluoranthene PentachlorobenzeneIsoproturon Polyaromatic hydrocarbonsLead and its compounds (Benzo(a)pyrene) DioxinsNapthalene (Benzo(b)fluoranthene) PCBNickel and its compounds (Benzo(g,h,i)perylene)Octylphenol (Benzo(k)fluoranthene)

(Ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene)Tributyltin compounds

Pentachlorophenol (Tributyltin-cation)SimazineTrichlorobenzenesTrichloromethane (chloroform)Trifluralin

(4-(1,1',3,3'-tetramethylbutyl)-phenol)

Priority Substances

Perflurooctane sulphonic acid (PFOS)

Quinoxyfen (5,7-dichloro-4(p-fluorophenoxy)quinoline)

Pentabromodiphenylether (cogener numbers 28, 47, 99, 100, 153 and 154)

Ireland Monitoring •  SERBD PS screening programmes •  Expert Working Group identified 202 (WFD + 161)

candidate substances •  Produced preliminary screening list of 41 PS •  TNO: 47 of the 51 analysed PS found in water •  18 PS in 10% samples, 3 in >50% of the samples –

naphthalene, fluoranthene, nickel –  Median concentrations ranged from 0.009 µg L-1 for

fluoranthene to 1.4 µg L-1 for Nickel

•  Long-term compliance monitoring required

Priority Substances in Wastewater

•  Waste water major point-source input to surface waters

•  Responsible for localised EQS exceedance? •  Often upstream of drinking water abstraction! •  Can be controlled •  Combined sewer discharges and “high-risk” runoff •  Few data on waste water PS discharges •  Will complement storm water studies, and inform

targeted PS monitoring (both WW and SW)

WWTP Removal

(to sludge /air)

Diffuse sources

Was

teW

ater

Drainage

Storm overflow

River

Direct sources

Final Effluent

Surf

ace

wat

er

1. Source magnitude / type

2. Diffuse loss risk / conditions

3. Surface water - sewer connectivity

5.WWTP removal efficiency

4. Sewer mixing and overflow

Potential High Risk Source Sites (SWRBD)

•  Oil and gasworks sites (IPPC, LA) •  (Hazardous) waste disposal/handling

sites (EPA, LA) •  Mining sites (IPPC) •  Chemical plants (IPPC, LA) •  Airports, railway depots, dockyards,

petroleum import terminals (LA) •  Timber treatment (IPPC, LA) •  Filling stations (LA) •  Building sites (LA)

• Past industrial sites

• Roads • Industrial estates • Combined drainage areas

Connectivity to sewers?

Pesticides: High Risk Landuse

•  Sports grounds (Incl golf courses) •  Parks and open urban areas

•  Intensive animal rearing (IPPC) •  Intensive tillage (potatoes) (CORINE) •  Forestry (Coillte spray data) •  Intensive grassland (CORINE)

Source intensity

Con

nect

ivity

Households

Commercial

Industry

Roa

ds -

traffi

c

Con

tam

inat

ed si

tes

Point sources, continuous input, baseline loading and concentrations

Diffuse sources, periodic input, peak loading and concentrations

WWTP Treatment Agglom. PE Plant PE 2007 compliance Receiving waters

Ballincollig, Cork Secondary 15,000 15,000 F (BOD, COD, TSS) Freshwater-R

Bandon, Cork Secondary 6,200 8,000 F (sample no.s) Freshwater-R

Charleville, Cork Secondary 7,500 6,415 F (sample no.s) Freshwater-R

Clonakilty, Cork Secondary 15,000 15,000 F (TSS) Estuarine

Fermoy, Cork Secondary, NR 12,960 12,960 P Freshwater-R

Mallow, Cork Secondary, NR 12,000 12,000 P Freshwater-R

Ringaskiddy, Cork None 12,000 97,556 F (no 2nd treatment) Estuarine

Rosscarbery, Cork Primary 2,500 2,500 NA Coastal

Ringsend, Dublin Secondary 2,870,000 1,640,000 F (BOD, COD, TSS) Estuarine

Swords, Dublin Secondary, NR 50,000 60,000 F (BOD, TSS) Estuarine























Study Approach WWTP Treatment Agglom. PE Plant PE 2007 compliance Receiving waters











Industry dominated, no final treatment: possible to ID industry input












Monthly sampling, plus intensive summer + winter sampling periods Monthly sampling, plus intensive summer + winter sampling periods












Monthly sampling, plus intensive summer + winter sampling periods












Monthly sampling, plus intensive summer + winter sampling periods























Monthly sampling, plus intensive summer + winter sampling periods Monthly sampling, plus intensive summer + winter sampling periods

Study Approach cont…

Ten catchments, range of sizes, physical characteristics, industrial contributions, treatment levels

1.  Collate data on potential sources (e.g. industry) and risk

factors (e.g. combined drainage) for each catchment 2.  Compile literature data on source magnitudes and WWTP

removal efficiencies 3.  Look for associations between meterological or physico-

chem parameters and PS concs / loads 4.  Devise risk index for high PS in effluent (across

catchments, over time): compare with mon data

Case-study Ringsend SWORDS WWTP

Licensed industry License n Risk

IPPC-Chemicals 27 Ms, PAH, VOCIPPC- Food & Drink 4IPPC- Metals 4 Ms, PAH, VOCIPPC-Minerals, Fibre, Glass 3 PAH, VOCIPPC-Power Stations 5 PAH, VOCIPPC-Surface Coatings 17 PAH, VOCIPPC-Wood Paper Textiles 6 PAH, VOC

EPA-Hazardous Waste 13 Ms, VOC, PAHEPA-Integrated Waste Management 4 Ms, VOC, PAHEPA-Landfill 2 Ms, VOC, PAHEPA-Materials Recovery Facility 4 Ms, VOC, PAHEPA-Waste Transfer Facility 15 Ms, VOC, PAH

License n Risk

LA-Airport 2 PAH, VOCLA-Chemical 13 Ms, PAH, VOCLA-College 9 VOCLA-Construction 28 Ms, PAHLA-Dentist 1 MsLA-Electronics 1 Ms, VOCLA-Filling Station 67 M, PAH, VOCLA Food & Drink 63LA-Garage 33 PAH, VOCLA-Gym 7LA-Haulage Depot 51 M, PAH, VOCLA-Hotel 3LA-Hospital 19 VOCLA-Hairdresser 1 VOCLA-Laundry 5 M, PAH, VOCLA-Metal 10 Ms, PAH, VOCLA-Oil Distribution 1 PAH, VOCLA-Office 6LA-Printers 16 VOCLA-Retail 25LA-Sport 6 PestLA-Washing (Outdoors)4 Ms, PAHLA-Waste 6 Ms, PAH, VOCOther 10

Separate direct vs diffuse inputs?

Data from EPA, DCC, SDCC, FCC. Awaiting DLRCC…

Other risk factors •  Traffic volume or road area •  Intensive agriculture and forestry in / near catchment •  Local authority pesticide application •  Extent of combined drainage •  Temporal

–  meteorological (heavy rainfall after dry period) –  traffic volume patterns (stats)

Data from Met Eireann and NRA require update and processing. Awaiting CC pest app data…

Ringsend effluent

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 1400000 1600000Flow (m3 day-1)

Perc

enta

ge in

fluen

t TSS

rem

oved

Routine operating variability (random?)

Process failure: Non predictable risk factor

Capacity excedence?Risk Factor?

On average, less efficient at higher flows: Risk factor

Stats…

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

1600000

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0

Rainfall (mm day-1)

Flow (

m3 da

y-1)

High non-meteo variability

Above 800,000 m3 = rain

R2 = 0.55

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

1600000

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0

Rainfall (mm day-1)

Flow (

m3 da

y-1)

High non-meteo variability

Above 600,000 m3 = rain

Rain, next-day flow

More data and analysis required. New parameter (e.g. daily-flow increase vs

rainfall?)

Same-day rain and flow

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0Rainfall (mm day-1)

TSS

load

(ton

nes

day-

1)

Rain, next day TSS total load

Rainfall threshold for TSS and PAH loss risk? More data and analysis required…

Owenahincha agglomeration

PAH Loading Risk Index 1.  Discharge from licensed high-risk industry 2.  Frequency of contaminated sites 3.  Traffic volume 4.  Combined drains x (2 + 3) (+ urban, - rural ?) 5.  Normalised according to popn

Effluent PAH conc Risk Index 1.  Loading Index x:

i.  Meteorological conditions ii.  WWTP removal efficiency

2.  Normalised acc to flow per popn

Work Plan •  Complete industrial point source database

–  Distinguish IPPC direct from diffuse inputs? •  Literature search for magnitude of PS emissions from

various sources •  Find data on past industrial sites? •  Collate NRA traffic volume data for each catchment •  Obtain and collate pesticide use data from CCs •  Obtain Met Eireann data to Nov and compare with

Ringsend / Swords effluent PS concs •  Obtain flow and physico-chem data from Swords and Cork

WWTPs •  Literature search for WWTP PS removal efficiencies

Work Overview…. •  A review was used to identify the major

factors leading to Priority Pollutant (PP) loading from WWTPs, integrated and conceptualised in a basic conceptual model.

•  Available data sources were identified for the major PP loading risk factors. Then, through a combination of quantitative data collation (e.g. number of discharge licences issued to different types of operations) and qualitative risk assessment (risk ranking), risk databases were compiled for major sources.

….Work Overview •  Databases were compiled for Local

Authority and EPA licensed discharges, and agglomeration traffic. Results from these databases were integrated into a simple risk model for agglomeration PP loading, combined with basic WWTP (e.g. capacity and treatment level) and agglomeration (e.g. population and area) data, and finally expressed as elevated risk in a national context following normalisation procedures.

Work Overview

•  Collate available literature and statistical data that could be used to inform targeted PP monitoring strategies.

•  Focus on readily-available data relevant to major PP risk factors identified by conceptual modelling, and develop appropriate indicators.

•  Indicators are applied to ten WWTP agglomerations currently being monitored to predict the relative risk of elevated PP loading to receiving waters across agglomerations and over time.

List of WWTP

•  Cork –  Ballincollig –  Bandon –  Charleville –  Clonakilty –  Fermoy –  Mallow –  Ringaskiddy –  Rosscarbery

•  Dublin –  Ringsend –  Swords

Collated Data

•  Basic information on WWTPs and the agglomerations they serve in Ireland is provided in documentation submitted to the EPA in application for Urban Wastewater Discharge Licences (http://www.epa.ie).

From EPA Urban Waste Water Report

•  Removal factors applied to WWTPs in dry- and wet- weather flow conditions, based on removal efficiencies derived from Seriki et al. (2008) and load factors (agglomeration PE divided by WWTP PE capacity).

Seriki K., Gasperi J., Castillo L., Scholes L., Eriksson E., Revitt M., Meinhold J., Atanasova N. (2008) Priority pollutants behaviour in end of pipe wastewater treatment plants. In Source Control Options for Reducing Emissions of Priority Pollutants (ScorePP)

•  WWTP load factors were calculated as a ratio of agglomeration PE loading to WWTP PE capacity.

•  WWTP risk factor = 1-removal fraction (e.g. 80% PAH removal for standard secondary treatment in Dry Weather Flow = 0.2)

•  For CY, because secondary treatment capacity limited to approx half average agglomeration PE, DWF risk factor based on average of Primary and Secondary treatment

•  For Wet Weather Flow, risk factors assume primary treatment removal efficiencies

•  For WWTPs working in excess of or close to capacity, WWF removal factors were based on the assumption that overall removal efficiencies under high loading conditions were equivalent to primary treatment removal efficiencies. Removal factors were inversed into Effluent Factors (EF) for direct multiplication with loading factors.

•  Industrial installations performing listed activities above specified thresholds are licensed under the EU Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive. Licence conditions and annual reports on emissions from these installations are made publicly available by the Irish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

•  The level of information provided on PP emissions varies across installations, and for the initial purposes of our risk-based model we define risk factors for each installation according to activity class, refined based on some installation-specific information provided in licences (whether or not discharge to sewers, and surface water management).

Risk Scale

•  ‘Typical’ loading risk factors for each major PP group, applied to installations in each IPPC and Waste activity class.

•  Loading risk factors applied to individual installations may vary within activity groups, depending on licence information regarding processes, sewer discharge, and surface water management.

Licensed Risk

•  Traffic-induced loading to WWTP (PAH, VOCs, HMs) should be largely proportional to traffic volume within agglomeration combined drainage areas, as measured by Vehicle km Travelled (VKT).

•  Relevant available statistics are traffic flow on national roads in the vicinty of study agglomerations (NRA, 2009), total VKT for different vehicle types (CSO, 2009) and national VKT for six major road types (National Primary, National Secondary, Regional, Local Primary, Local Secondary, Local Tertiary)

Road typeNational VKT (M km a-1)a

Agglomeration VKM calculation

Length restriction

Sewer input

Nat. Prim. (10,665) NA

Nat. Sec. (3,865) NA

Regional 9,051 0.10 x (Popag / Popnat)

Loc. Prim 4,621 0.25 x (Popag / Popnat)

Loc. Sec 2,187 0.75 x (Popag / Popnat)

Loc. Ter 784 1.00 x (Popag / Popnat)

National road VKM travelled not used in calculations

a Cars only. NRA data for 2002 (NRA, 2001) extrapolated to 2009 based on CSO national VKM in 2009 (presentation ref)

Loca

l tra

ffic

Thro

ugh

traffi

c 2008 NRA traffic flow x road length in agglomeration

Peripheral or central road?

Sum local < 2 x agglomeration length

Estimated percentage area under combined foul-storm drainage

Ballincollig

•  DWF •  Heavy rainfall •  PE/development

Ringaskiddy

Bandon

Charleville •  Designed for a PE of up to

15,000 •  The PE and DWF are based on

measured foul flows from 1973 •  Incoming flow can be divided

evenly between two oxidation ditches –  Only one oxidation ditch in use –  PE ~ 7,000

Clonakilty •  Designed for a PE of 5,333 •  Increased loading during

summer of up to 15,000 PE •  At present two oxidation

ditches •  Application for increased

storage capacity not yet implemented

•  Hydraulic load of 6 DWF

Mallow •  Two treatment systems; 50

– 50 split between new and old plant

•  Contract out for private operation and maintenance contract –  Could be in place before the

end of the year

Rosscarberry/Owenahincha •  Proposed works may

now not take place •  Discharge from chemical

toilets and mobile homes?

Fermoy

•  Designed for a PE of 20,000

•  System was upgraded, licence states that 40 % of flow meant to go to old plant

Ringsend

Swords

Further Work

•  Meteorological data will need to be used to derive a temporal component to this risk factor.

Acknowledgements This project is funded by the EPA as part of the Science, Technology, Research and Innovation for the Environment (STRIVE) Programme 2007–2013. This programme is financed by the Irish Government under the National Development Plan 2007–2013. It is administered on behalf of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government by the Environmental Protection Agency, which has the statutory function of co-ordinating and promoting environmental research.

Priority pollutants

Environment

Transcript of Priority pollutants