Source control of priority substances in Europe EU-project within the sixth framework program John...

Source control of priority substances in Europe

EU-project within the sixth framework program

John MuntheIVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute

www.socopse.eu

SOCOPSEJohn Munthe, ScorePP Wosrkshop, Feb 2, 2010


Project objective

To provide guidelines and decision support system tools for the implementation of the

WFD with regard to selected priority substances


11 Priority Substances

Mercury

Cadmium

Hexachlorobenzene

Tributyltin

DEHP (Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate)

Atrazine

Isoproturon

Nonylphenol

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

Anthracene

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers


SOCOPSE perspectives

Water district management – preparation of RBMPs

European Scale, European Policy development


Material flow analysisEuropean scale

Substance reportsControl technologies

Draft DecisionSupport System

Case studiesFive areas of Europe

Final Decision Support System Final Reports and Synthesis

Web site DSS, synthesis

Sources Emission control

Guidebook + tools

WFD


Material flow analysis (MFA) for selected priority substances

Describe the main flow paths of selected PSs on a European scale

Identify main source categories for European waters - for use in case studies

Necessary information to assess effectiveness and impacts of various measures


MFA diagram for HCB in Europe in 2000


Experiences - emissions

MFA useful for providing overview of use, emissions and source categories – guidance to source control

Lack of information on emissions - and production, import, export, use, fate of PS in industrial waste, household products and municipal waste water

Diffuse sources important in many locations- Atmospheric deposition- Contaminated sites- Agriculture- Households and small industries: waste water (more or less treatment)


Inventory and assessment of mitigation options

• Information from MFA on sources, source categories

• Compile information on possible measures by substance

• Based on:

•A bibliographic review : about 450 references ;

•A survey questionnaire : about 200 contacts ;

•Exchanges with stakeholders during 3 workshops: Paris, Katowice, Nieuwegein.


Summary of results

2 products from WP3 (and available for the DSS):

– Substance Reports (inventory + qualitative assessment)– Non homogeneous data on substance flux and measure costs– Most data are old data (2000)– Weak industry involvement in questionnaire and workshop

– ERSR (quantitative assessment + ERS - Multicriteria Analysis )

– Dependent on Substance Report information quality and expert judgements

Limitations

Limitations


Control options

Technical information on end of pipe control technologies and substitution partly available but information on cost of emission control options are scarce and unreliable

Control options and strategies for diffuse pollution (contaminated sites) difficult to define and evaluate

Control options for atmospheric deposition outside responsibility of Water District


A decision support systemfor management of priority substances in river basin management plans

Step by step guidance to support the development ofRBMP for PS

Update plans(2015)

Step 1:Problem definition

Step 2:Inventory of sources

Step 3:Definition of a baseline scenario

Step 5:Assessment of the effects of the measures

Step 4:Inventory of possible measures

Step 6:Selection of the best solutions

Step 0:System definition

Step 1:Problem definition

Step 2:Inventory of sources

Step 3:Definition of a baseline scenario

Step 5:Assessment of the effects

of the measures

Step 4:Inventory of possible measures

Step 6:Selection of the best solutions

Step 0:System definition


Case studies

Test and evaluate the decision support system by applying it to 5 case studies in different geographical regions and to integrate results and experiences to European scale


Case study areasThe five case studies which represent different geographical regions of Europe as well as different scales

The five cases have different characteristics in terms of pollution sources and degree of contamination of priority substances.


Case study: Kłodnica

Catchment area 1125,8 km², flow rate 20 m3/s, 1 mln. inhabitants

Agriculture 50 %, Urban and Industrial 30%, forest 20%. Industry (coal mining, energy sector, metallurgy, metal production, mechanical sector, chemical industry)

Impact: WWTP, industry, contaminated land, wastes, air deposition

PAH, Hg, Cd as relevant contaminants (representative of coal and heavy industries)

Highly Modified Water Body Monitoring system under national revision

– to be improved Priorities for water management defined

(priority pollutants not explicitly indicated)


River Vantaa

Catchment area 1 686 km2, 1 milj. inhabitants, Agriculture (24 % cultivated)

Industry (dairy, food, metal, paint, detergent, plastics)

Drinking water source (secondary) to Helsinki, Irrigation, recreation object, cultural scenery and objects

PAH, PBDE, Nonylphenol, DEHP, TBT (TPhT)

250 potential plants/sources - Connected to MWT plants

Atmospheric sources (PAH), Harbor activity(TBT), diffuse sources (DEHP, PAH, PBDE)/urban run off

Occasional exceedances of EQS: PAH, DEHP, TBT

TBT concentrations high in sediments


Ter River

Llobregat River

Ter River

Llobregat River

Introduction

TER

Length: 208 Km

Basin Area: 2955 Km2

Source Altitude: 2480 m

Rainfall: 879 mm/year

Mean Flow: 26.8 m3/year

LLOBREGAT

Length: 156 Km

Basin Area: 4957 Km2

Source Altitude: 1259 m

Rainfall: 672 mm/year

Mean Flow: 22.2 m3/s

Substances: atrazine, isoproturon, polybrominated biphenyl ethers (PBDEs), nonylphenol and di(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate


Meuse River Basin

Length: 905 km; Catchment area: 35,000 km2, 8.8 million

International river basin: five countries/six regions(FR, LU, WL, FL, GE, NL)

Rain river; large differences between summer and winter discharge (< 10 – 3,000 m3/s)

Source of water for drinking water production, agriculture, industry

Important for navigation Focus on diffuse emissions

reduction, cadmium, PAH, pesticides, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals

Focus on emerging substances


Danube river


The Danube

The second longest riverin Europe, the most international river in the world, shared by 19 countries.

Danube is a resource to 81 million people.

Chemical, food and pulp and paper industries, municipal waste water main polluters

IT

CH

PL

MK

AL

ICPDR

DE

AT

CZ

UA

MD

HU

SICS

BG

ROSK

HRBA

- coordination- information exchange- develop strategy for RBM Plan - develop DRB roof report for EC- harmonisation of methods and

mechanisms

Bilateral agreements (examples)

RBM EG

Bilateral agreements (examples)


Danube risk classification by risk categories

organic p.

nutrient p.

haz.subst.p.

hydromorph.

rkm 2780 2600 2400 2200 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

at risk possibly at risk not at risk

pressures / impacts from DE AT

SK/ HU HR - CS BG/ROHU ROCS/RO*

Danube risk classification by risk categories

organic p.

nutrient p.

haz.subst.p.

hydromorph.

rkm 2780 2600 2400 2200 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0




rkm 2780 2600 2400 2200 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0



SK/ HU HR - CS BG/ROHU ROCS/RO

2780 2600 2400 2200 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

at risk possibly at risk not at riskat risk possibly at risk not at risk




2 % of the DRB


Catchment: 18 769 km2, 2.5 million inhabitants

Diversified landscape (mountains, lowlands):– 52.2 % agricultural land– 40.7 % forests– 6.6 % artificial area– 0.5 % inland waters

main use - hydropower production

highest input of pollution load (nutrients, hazardous substances)


Project conclusions – user perspective

The SOCOPSE DSS and associated reports and tools (MFA; ER Fact Sheets etc) to five case studies with very different charactersistics (size, compounds in focus, administrative structure, availability of information).

All case studies were performed in close collaboration with local stakeholders (authorities). DSS was modified and improved based on experiences from case studies

The SOCOPSE DSS was found to provide useful guidance in the case studies, although all steps were not fully evaluated in all case studies. A different approach was taken in the Meuse case.


Project conclusions – user perspective Lack of information on contaminant levels makes

evaluation of chemical and ecological status difficult in many cases.

Compilation and analysis of control options as well as method for muliticritera analysis of different control options has provided useful guidance for decision makers, but lack of complete information makes development of cost-efficient strategies to reduce contamination difficult.

Modeling combined with available emission and monitoring data can be used to check consistency (mass balance) and identify missing sources and/or potential sites where EQS are exceeded. Fugacity based models e.g. have successfully been used in two of the case studies, Vantaa River and VAH


Project conclusions – user perspective

The WFD is a new management level. Existing and complex structures of water management, monitoring and responsibility for sources makes efficient planning and decision making difficult


Conclusions and recommendations on European scale The implementation of the WFD will benefit from a

continued development of decision support tools. The WFD is a strong legislation aimed at improving water quality in Europe. A continued development and adaptation of decision support tools are necessary for a successful implementation of the WFD.

More transparency and openness of information is required. A a larger degree of transparency and openness of information concerning production, use and emissions of chemicals is needed. This lack of information prevents the assessment of the main flow paths and emission sources, and thus the assessment of risks and the development of cost efficient emission control strategies.


Conclusions and recommendations on European scale

An integrated approach for chemicals is needed for future protection of the environment. To efficiently manage all emission sources an integrated approach involving other directives (REACH, directives on products, electronics and waste, etc.) and international conventions (CLRTAP, Stockholm Convention, HELCOM, OSPAR) is needed.

Model development to support WFD implementation (fate models, DSS, effect based) may be used in situations where complete information on sources and environmental concentrations is absent to identify potential sources and define suitable locations for monitoring.


Research priorities with a WFD User perspective

Interdisciplinary: Socio-economics, technology, chemistry, hydrology, ecotoxicology.......

Integrated management – Consider multiple pressures on ecological status (PS,

Emerging substances, Nutrients, Hydromorphology, climate.....)

– Basic approach: ecosystem services, effects based– Models, models, models ... from Effects (QSAR);

Material Flow Analysis; Fate (fugacity); Socio- economics, Management options

Transparency, information exchange

User perspective!


Multi Pressure Decision Support and Evaluation

System

Production, use and emissions

ImpactsEcological status

Fate and transport

Occurence, exposure

Control options, economic instruments

Socio economicimpacts

IntegrationHarmonization

SimplificationTools and indicators

Management Scenarios

Modelling

Synthesis


www.socopse.eu

Source control of priority substances in Europe EU-project within the sixth framework program John...

Documents

Transcript of Source control of priority substances in Europe EU-project within the sixth framework program John...