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

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

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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. Drafting Groups under WG C

8. 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

9. Groundwater Quality & Status Significant Impacts

10. (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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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’

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

16. 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)

17. 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

18. 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’

19. 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

20. 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)

21. Thank you !

22. Aquatic Ecosystems Env. Quality Standards
Proposal EQS [COM(2006) 397 f, ]
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)]

23. 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