1. 28th WORKING GROUP GROUNDWATER PLENARY MEETING Groundwater Watch List
Dr. Rüdiger Wolter
Federal Environment Agency
(Umweltbundesamt)
BRUSSELS, APRIL 2015

2. 28th Working Group Groundwater Plenary Meeting – Brussels 14. /15
28th Working Group Groundwater Plenary Meeting – Brussels 14./15. April 2015
Background of the activity is addressed in recital (4) of the groundwater directive:
(4) The need to obtain and respond to new information on other substances posing a potential risk should be acknowledged. Therefore, a watch list for pollutants of groundwater should be established ……………. to increase the availability of monitoring data on substances posing a risk or potential risk to bodies of groundwater, and thereby facilitate the identification of substances, including emerging pollutants, for which groundwater quality standards or threshold values should be set.
This is a voluntary activity of the Member States .
Rüdiger Wolter – Groundwater Watch List

3. Rüdiger Wolter – Groundwater Watch List
28th Working Group Groundwater Plenary Meeting – Brussels 14./15. April 2015
Results of the meeting in ROM and next steps:
Groundwater Watch List:
Agreement upon step by step approach
Starting with pilot data collection (pharmaceuticals) ü
Discussion about findings and elaboration of a procedure for the next steps at the next meeting (this meeting)
Revised paper on CIRCABC ü
Comments to revised paper + template by 7th Nov to Rüdiger ü
Data provision at the latest mid Feb 2015 ü
Group of volunteers
Rob Ward, Ian Davy, Laurence Gourcy, Sarah Bonneville, Wilko Verwij, Ralph Eppinger, Robert Loos, Elisabetta Preziosi, Jonathan Smith, Dennis Lemke
Rüdiger Wolter – Groundwater Watch List

4. Rüdiger Wolter – Groundwater Watch List
28th Working Group Groundwater Plenary Meeting – Brussels 14./15. April 2015
Data on pharmaceuticals in groundwater:
Until the 10th April 2015 we got an answer from eight countries. Six (five EU MS) delivered data on pharmaceuticals in groundwater. For 2 countries no data were available. It was announced that a monitoring campaign will start in 2015 in one of these countries.
Comments to revised paper + template:
From 8 organisations/stakeholders (16 persons) we received about 82 comments or remarks
Thank you to all for your comments!!
Several comments indirectly referred to the “Surface Water Watch List”. To be clear, a preselection of substances by modelling is not planned for the “Groundwater Watch List”.
As discussed and agreed in Rom the procedure to derive a “Ground Water Watch List” should not be mixed up with the procedure applied for the “Surface Water Watch List”.
BUT: We should discuss what we can learn from the “Surface Water Watch List”.
Rüdiger Wolter – Groundwater Watch List

5. First results of the pilot data collection:
28th Working Group Groundwater Plenary Meeting – Brussels 14./15. April 2015
First results of the pilot data collection:
Substance or metabolite
Total number of sites
Member States
Carbamazepine
2662 6
Sulfamethoxazole
1335
Bezafibrate
922 5
Diclofenac
2125
Gemfibrozil
284
Ketoprofene
321
Trimethoprime
603
Clarithromycin
415 4
Erythromycin
446
Ibuprofen
1039
Iopromide
522
Metoprolol
957
Naproxene
573
Paracetamol
227
Propranolol
536
Sulfadiazine
515
Six countries reported the monitoring results of 171 different pharmaceuticals (human, veterinary, degradation products, X-ray contrast agents).
76 substances were analysed in two or more countries.
16 substances were analysed in four or more countries.
Tab. 1 gives a first overview of pharmaceuticals which are expected to be “of interest” for most of the countries.
Tab. 1: Pharmaceuticals in groundwater - analyzed in four or more countries
Rüdiger Wolter – Groundwater Watch List

6. Tab 2. shows the pharmaceuticals most frequently found in groundwater
28th Working Group Groundwater Plenary Meeting – Brussels 14./15. April 2015
Tab. 2: Pharmaceuticals most frequently found in groundwater
Substance or metabolite
Total number of sites
Member State
sites detection > LOQ
in %
Carbamazepine
2662 6
218
8,2
Amidotrizoic acid
648 3 64
9,9
Sulfamethoxazole
1335 55
4,1
Diclofenac
2125 5 26
1,2
Iopamidol
711 2 24
3,4
Primidon
479 21
4,4
Clofibrinsäure
1570
1,3
Phenazon
726
2,9
Tramadol
183 10
5,5
Paracetamol
227 4 9
4,0
Pentox(i)yfyllin
605
1,5
Ibuprofen
1039 8
0,8
4-Formylaminoantipyrin
137 7
5,1
Sulfadimidine
191
3,1
Propyphenazon
805
0,7
Epoxycarbamazepine 32 1
18,8
Amidotrizoate
20,8
N-Acetyl-4-aminoantipyrin
129
3,9
Oxcarbazepin
425
Sotalol
728
0,5
We assume that countries have used the maximum concentration observed for the assignment if a site is analysed more than once a year. 
48 from 171 substances analysed could be found at one or more sites in a concentration above the limit of quantification (LOQ).
Tab 2. shows the pharmaceuticals most frequently found in groundwater
Rüdiger Wolter – Groundwater Watch List

7. Substance or metabolite Rüdiger Wolter – Groundwater Watch List
28th Working Group Groundwater Plenary Meeting – Brussels 14./15. April 2015
Tab. 3: Pharmaceutical exceeding a concentration level of 0.1 µg/l in groundwater.
Substance or metabolite
Total number of sites
Member State
sites detection > LOQ
sites detection > 0.1 µg/l
Carbamazepine
2662 6
218 49
Amidotrizoic acid
648 3 64 15
Diclofenac
2125 5 26 11
Primidon
479 21 10
Clofibrinsäure
1570 2
Pentox(i)yfyllin
605 9
Sulfamethoxazole
1335 55 4
Iopamidol
711 24
Phenazon
726
Metformin
190 1
Gabapentin
151
Ibuprofen
1039 8
Propyphenazon
805
Amidotrizoate
N-Acetyl-4-aminoantipyrin
129
Sulfadiazine
515
Several comments stated to refer findings to existing health, ecological or other quality criteria. For pharmaceuticals in the “Revised guideline on environmental impact assessment for veterinary medicine products” a limit concentration of 0.1 μg/l for groundwater is mentioned.
16 pharmaceuticals exceed this criterion at one or more groundwater monitoring sites.
Is this already a watch list??
Rüdiger Wolter – Groundwater Watch List

8. Rüdiger Wolter – Groundwater Watch List
28th Working Group Groundwater Plenary Meeting – Brussels 14./15. April 2015
The list is based on data from 6 countries only, additional results should be added to the summary to get a (more) representative overview and
criteria for selection and identification of substances have to be discussed and agreed upon within WG GW.
The discussion will refer to the comments, received so far. Different topics will have to be discussed, because in some cases there are different opinions or understandings or open questions. Topics for discussion will be:
Structure of the template (referring to other substances than pharmaceuticals),
Additional data on LOD/LOQ,
Details on monitoring programs or sites,
Quality of monitoring data,
Criteria for an (additional) selection of substances ??
Rüdiger Wolter – Groundwater Watch List

9. Rüdiger Wolter – Groundwater Watch List
28th Working Group Groundwater Plenary Meeting – Brussels 14./15. April 2015
Some comments and replies:
In some comments it was stressed to reduce the substances taken into account. E.g. only substances that pose a risk for receptors as defined in WFD and GWD should be looked at.
Other comments did not agree and stated that there could be other reasons to identify a substance or group of substance as relevant for groundwater. Therefore we should collect and summarize all the monitoring data available in the first step of the process.
Comment:
Are the intervals (e.g. <LOQ, >LOQ – 0.05 µg/l ……..) used in the questionnaire suitable for all substances?
Reply:
It could be better to adapt the classes with respect to different groups of substances. Which intervals should be chosen has to be discussed according to the group of substances requested.
Rüdiger Wolter – Groundwater Watch List

10. Substance or metabolite Rüdiger Wolter – Groundwater Watch List
28th Working Group Groundwater Plenary Meeting – Brussels 14./15. April 2015
Comment:
Classes/Classification of findings should not refer to concentration classes in the questionnaire but refer to LOQmax, percentage of quality criteria (1, 10, 100, 1000, %) or percentage of LOQmax.
Reply:
LOQs for the same substance may be different for different analytical methods, differ between different laboratories and may change over time. QS often not available. LOQ for Carbamazepin between and 0.02 µg/l
Substance or metabolite
Total number of sites
below limit of quantification (LOQ)
detection > LOQ to 0,05 µg/l
detection > 0,05 to 0,1 µg/l
detection > 0,1 bis 1,0 µg/l
detection > 1,0 bis 3,0 µg/l
detection > 3,0 bis 10,0 µg/l
detection > 10,0 µg/l
Carbamazepine
2662
2444
147 22 28 13 4
Quality Standard =
0.1 µg/l
Total number of sites
up to 1 % of QS
1 to 10 % of QS
10 to100% of QS
100 to 1000 % 0f QS
1000 to 10000% of QS
> 10000% of QS
New classes in µg/l
2662
0 – µg/l
>0,001-0,01 µg/l
0, µg/l
µg/l
1.0-10µg/l
>10 µg/l
Rüdiger Wolter – Groundwater Watch List

11. Rüdiger Wolter – Groundwater Watch List
28th Working Group Groundwater Plenary Meeting – Brussels 14./15. April 2015
Comment:
Classification of individual sites should not refer to the maximum concentration at a site but to the median concentration over a large geographic area. Local point source impacts with high concentrations are pretty irrelevant if we are assessing the EU-wide impact on groundwater.
Reply:
Local high concentrations are very important in groundwater. They are a first indication of “emerging contaminations” under comparable situations.
Many groundwater monitoring sites are analyzed only once per year and thus the calculation of a mean value is not possible in these cases.
Rüdiger Wolter – Groundwater Watch List

12. Rüdiger Wolter – Groundwater Watch List
28th Working Group Groundwater Plenary Meeting – Brussels 14./15. April 2015
Comment:
How frequently should data be collected? Once a year?
Reply:
The collection, summary and assessment of monitoring data as well as the revision of monitoring programs is a time consuming process. It has to be discussed how we can organize this process and who will do the work in the future? The interval of data collection could be every two or three years for specific groups of substances.
Comments:
Only data from representative monitoring programs or representative sites should be taken into account.
What means representative? Many substances – in particular emerging substances – are analysed at only very few sites. All data available should be taken into account. Due to the long residence time in groundwater it has to be expected that emerging substances can be found in the beginning at only very view sites with specific conditions (e.g. short residence time, poorly protected aquifers, conditions in the catchment area). It is important to consider data from these “specific sites” as well.
Rüdiger Wolter – Groundwater Watch List

13. Rüdiger Wolter – Groundwater Watch List
28th Working Group Groundwater Plenary Meeting – Brussels 14./15. April 2015
Comment:
What additional data are necessary (red/ox conditions at (each) site, depth of sampling, land use and thickness of the unsaturated zone)? At what step of the process do we need this information?
Reply:
At the very first step (collection an summary of monitoring data) there seems to be no need to collect additional data. In a later stage additional data are helpful/necessary. They might help to select specific substances or groups of substances for the final watch list.
How can we integrate data on semi quantitative analysis (e.g. GC-MS and LC-MS analysis)??
Reply: ???
Rüdiger Wolter – Groundwater Watch List

14. Rüdiger Wolter – Groundwater Watch List
28th Working Group Groundwater Plenary Meeting – Brussels 14./15. April 2015
Next steps:
Organisation of a meeting of the group of Volunteers?
Discussion of findings of the pilot data collection and comments received Adaptation of data collection template,
Issues to be discussed:
Feedback from MS (list of substances - monitoring campaign).
Development of criteria for assessing the relevance of substances concerning groundwater (e.g. concentration level, spatial extent of occurrence, temporal scale, ….)
How to classify substances that cannot be analysed (missing analytical methods) or substance specific data (e.g. ecotox, persistence …. ) are not available.
Selection criteria for groups of substances for data collection ? (which – PFOS?).
How to deal with substances which are not analysed in ground water up to now?
Additional results should be added to the summary list and presented at the next meeting.
……..
Rüdiger Wolter – Groundwater Watch List