1 Workshop on Metal bioavailability under the Water Framework Directive Jorge Rodriquez Romero & Madalina David DG Environment D2 Gerrit Niebeek – NL Graham Merrington – wca John Batty – UK

2  Setting meaningful metals standards has long been recognised as a key consideration in the implementation of WFD  Historically standards were based upon hardness banding even though this provides only a partial solution  Annex 1 Part B of 2008/105/EC enables Member States when assessing the monitoring results against the EQS to take into account:  Natural background concentrations if they prevent compliance with the EQS value and  Hardness, pH or other water quality parameters that affect the bio-availability of metals Introduction

Introduction 2  A great deal of research and development has been undertaken in recent years to identify a means to assess and quantify the bio-availability of metals  The development of biotic ligand models has been pivotal in this process  Experts from a number of member states have been working together to provide a practical mechanism to enable these technical models to be used in a regulatory process  A workshop was held yesterday to consider the progress made and set out the way forward 3

Workshop Objectives To share experiences of implementing bioavailability- based approaches for metals. To identify steps that need to be taken to meet the requirements of the Directive and to deliver a practical and transparent methodology to account for bioavailability. Take these agreed steps and convert into a clear guidance prepared by a drafting group drawn from participants. Provide clarity on how bioavailability may be implemented and an outline for the writing of practical guidance.

The Coverage 58 delegates representing 18 European administrations registered for the workshop In addition the Canadian EPA expressed interest in the workshop A number of Industry sector representatives also attended the event 5

6  All delegates received a comprehensive pack that included copies of the User Friendly Assessment Tools together with the training material used in the workshops  The organising committee are now compiling a question and answer battery which will form part of the planned guidance document  The presentations and documentation will also be mounted on CIRCA Further Information

Summing up and next steps

Metal bioavailability in regulatory context? Bioavailability needs to be taken into account in the regulatory context – this reflects latest science! The risk of not doing this is being over protective (taking measures where not needed) or under protective (not taking measures where needed) It helps improving identification of real problems We are dealing with complex models because they reflect complex realities – but keeping old approaches that are not backed by sound science is not an option Simplified models and tiered approaches seem to be promising tools to implement bioavailability correction in practice For classification and communication purposes a single EQS seems more practical: site specific EQS can have a role in vulnerability assessment

What to monitor where? We need to extend widely the monitoring of dissolved concentrations of metals in the aquatic environment – Total concentrations may still be needed for other purposes (e.g. estimation of loads), but dissolved is needed for compliance checking of chemical status – Analytical issues may need careful attention (filtering, etc) We need to monitor at least the most important parameters that influence bioavailability: Ca, DOC and pH – Additional costs seem to be in the range of € per sample Recommendation to monitor together metal and supporting parameters In some cases it might be possible to use of default values for Ca, DOC and pH – only if sufficiently develop datasets are available to ensure the variability in the water body is well known

Models? Very significant progress in past decade! Simple models are needed to be implemented in tiered approaches Simple models need to match the full models Simplified tool is much appreciated, but important to document properly what is behind and how it relates with the full models What if outside the boundaries of the model? Recommended a case by case approach – need clear documentation of possibilities EU validation/endorsement of models and tools? How?

Tiered approach? The main advantage of any tiered approach is that it is simple Any tiered approach needs to be based on simplified models that are protective enough so that we have high confidence we do not overlook problems The use of default values for Ca, DOC, pH in tiered approach is possible if they are protective enough to account for variability – needs to be base on a thorough knowledge of variability at water body level Clear documentation on decision making is important Flexibility in implementation steps of tiered approaches

Implementation? Cu: quite substantial reduction in the number of EQS failures Zn: some declines of EQS failures but less dramatic Location of failures may change Best practice needs to be promoted in sampling and analytical work Basin wide interactions need to be carefully considered, e.g. –Insufficient waste water treatment may lead to higher DOC hence lower toxicity –A situation where high level of DOC results in compliance at local level may still create problems downstream (e.g. because of dilution with a tributary with low organic content or natural self-purification of DOC)

Permitting? Bioavailability models are implemented to assess compliance with chemical standards in water bodies Permits need to be based on BAT Efficiency of waste water treatment usually involves measuring total concentrations, hence permits should keep total concentrations However, it may be merit in including as well dissolved concentrations as it can be related to the compliance checking Should permits be based on upstream DOC values in order to avoid allowing artificially high concentrations of metals in the effluents?

Next steps? Pilot exercise to allow MS testing the user- friendly tool with their own data Possibly a session prior to next WGE meeting in October to discuss findings Document summarising the discussions will be produced and distributed Presentation of the outcome of the discussions at the WGE today Discussion on potential follow-up

Any Questions? 15 Thanks for your attention