BRIDGE - Background CRiteria for the IDentification of Groundwater ThrEsholds METHODOLOGY FOR GROUNDWATER THRESHOLD VALUES REFINEMENTS & FINAL PROPOSAL

Determination of NBL’s Aquatic ecosystems (GWDTE) ‘groundwater’ Content Concepts Determination of NBL’s Aquatic ecosystems (GWDTE) ‘groundwater’

Preparatory discussions (30.10–15.11.2006) Draft D18 (15.11.2006) Discussion Process Lisbon Workshop (29 & 30.09.2006) Preparatory discussions (30.10–15.11.2006) Draft D18 (15.11.2006) Comments – WP3 partners & WP-leaders (23.11.2006) Final discussions & adaptations D18 – Final Proposal (5.12.2006)

Methodology Final Proposal CONTENT OF THE REPORT (D18) Introduction Prerequisites of the WFD and GWDD Method development process Underlying concepts Pollutants, GW bodies & receptors Procedure for status determination and threshold setting ANNEXE: Procedure for the Determination of NBLs TV for groundwater itself (Tier 2a) Reference Values: EQS & DWS Pollutant dilution (Surface Water) Pollutant attenuation (Surface Water) The links between the objectives prevent or limit, and 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

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

Drafting Groups under WG C

Methodology Underlying Concepts CONCEPTUAL MODEL pressures, processes, pathways & receptors SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO RECEPTORS orientation to a risk-based-approach RECEPTORS Aquatic ecosystems, (GWDTE) Groundwater TIERED APPROACH linking thresholds and status assessment

Groundwater Quality & Status Significant Impacts

(according to Annex II) MONITORED DATA Establishing TVs Flow Chart Derive NBL (according to Annex I) Tier 1 Is [pollutant] > NBL? OR Set threshold = NBL Check for trends No Status = GOOD Tier 2 Is [pollutant] > QS? Tier 2a Yes No Set threshold = QS (or NBL if exceeding QS) Check for trends Derive TV (according to Annex II) Tier 3 Is [pollutant] > (QS/DF)? Status = GOOD No Yes Set threshold = QS/DF Check for trends Set threshold = (QS/DF)*AF Status = GOOD Is [pollutant] > TV? rev. Fig. 5 ! Rules 1. Use the appropriate quality standard, QS. If ecological risk use EQS. 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 Tier 4 Is [pollutant] > (QS/DF)*AF? Yes No Status = GOOD Does appropriate Investigation show that conditions for good chemical status are not met? No Check for trends Yes Define Objectives and Measures Status = POOR

Natural Background Levels Refinements NBLBRIDGE = BLGWDD separate data sets according to salt water impact separate data sets for aerobic (e.g. ≥ 1 mg O2/l) and anaerobic (< 1 mg O2/l) aquifer Advice when to select the 90% or 97.7% as the NBL

TIERED APPROACH Aquatic Ecosystems matching risk characterisation for surface water vs. groundwater or other evidence for a substantial transfer of pollutants Proposal EQS [COM(2006) 397 final! AA-EQS (annual average) [DF vs. Multiple discharges] T4: Attenuation T3: Dilution T2: EQS T1: NBL

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

Groundwater as a Receptor Groundwater should be protected in its own rights No agreed common understanding of the WFD and the GWDD and the role of threshold values Possible approaches: Groundwater as a resource Groundwater ‘itself’ Groundwater as an ecosystem Policy discussions/decisions: WG C & Drafting group ‘status and compliance’

X Groundwater ‘itself’ Thresholds at Tier 2a Relation NBL to Ref-QS (NBL + MPA) (Confidence Interval Comparison) X

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 other uses DWS use related Groundwater saline intrusion widespread pollutants significant impairment NBL QS (see WFD)

may be GW-body specific (GWDD) Threshold Values PREREQUISITES: may be GW-body specific (GWDD) 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! Receptor ‘Groundwater’: management decision relevant TV: according to sensitive receptor

Environmental thresholds Towards a common approach Final proposal: December, 5th Final BRIDGE Meeting: December, 15th HANDING OVER TO WG C & Drafting group ‘status and compliance’

Status assessment Thresholds & Compliance regime GWDD: single monitoring stations GW-body (aggregated data) BRIDGE was not to work on compliance, but: Reports: D16: Sampling, Measuring, Quality Assurance D17: Integrated Data Aggregation regarding ecological receptors (and saline intrusion): limiting to ‘compliance areas’ in interaction with surface water

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 GmbH (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) University of Tartu (EE) Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL) Umweltbundesamt GmbH (AT)

Thank you !

Aquatic Ecosystems Env. Quality Standards Proposal EQS [COM(2006) 397 f, 17.07.06] AA-EQS (annual average) MAC-EQS (max. allowable concentration) ANNEX I, PART C: Compliance NBL > EQS or hardness, pH or other water quality parameters affect bioavailability of metals, MS may take this into account when assessing monitoring results Art. 2(5): EC may set up a compulsory calculation methods National EQS for additional pollutants [PNEC (Predicted No Effect Concentration)]

Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems no EQS available hardly any existing data on impacts by chemical pollution groundwater chemical status to be assessed separately, if significant damage evident evidence, that damage is not caused by quantitative problems