Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission

Transcription

1 Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission 16 th Meeting of the Sixth Baltic Sea Pollution Load Compilation Project (PLC-6) Tallinn, Estonia, September 2017 PLC Document title Status of the 2015 annual PLC data reporting Code 10-1 Category INF Agenda Item 10 PLC-7 relevant issues: update of the PLC Guidelines, intercalibration of chemical analysis and PLC annual reporting 2015 Submission date Submitted by PLC Data Manager Reference Background The document contains information on the status of annual reporting of PLC data 2015 and major data gaps. The information is provided by the PLC data manager. Action requested The Meeting is invited to take note of the information on the current status of 2015 annual PLC data reporting and discuss the update of the HELCOM core indicator on input of nutrients by the end of 2017 in order to make it of use for the updated HOLAS II report. Page 1 of 9

2 STATUS OF THE 2015 DATA REPORTING ON DIRECT SOURCES DIRECT SOURCES of 2015 to be reported The following direct sources should have been reported on 2015 data: - Discharges and flow of monitored rivers and unmonitored areas (parameters listed in the PLC Guidelines) - Transboundary discharges (Ntot, Ptot), flow and retention (Ntot, Ptot) - Discharges and flows of direct point sources (parameters listed in the PLC Guidelines) Deadline for reporting the discharges of direct sources of 2015 has been postponed several times due to the delayes in perioidic data reporting. The deadline for the annual reporting was Spring 2017 Reporting procedure Reporting templates with background information were provided to the CPs for data entry. The updated templates were uploaded in the HELCOM Pollution Load User System (PLUS) Application. At the first stage the CPs uploaded the data but not inserted. Insertion of the data was partly carried out by the Data Manager. Later on, updates and insertion have more and more been carried out by the CPs. Data verification and approval When data are inserted in the database, the PLUS (HELCOM Pollution Load User System) Application conducts automatically a preliminary (QA1: format, data type, etc.) and a statistical check (QA2: statistical testing of the data with the existing data) of the data. After the insertion, data can be retrieved in the Application for further verification. This enables a reporter or a data quality assurer to correct, reject or approve the retrieved data in the Application. The QA level 3 is for the data reporter and the QA level 4 for the national data assurer/data manager. Quality assurance procedure and the status of data approval have been described in more details at the end of the document. The state of the annual reporting of 2015 data by CP on direct sources, including upload, insertion and verification final approval of the data, has been presented in Table 1. Table 1. The state of the 2015 annual data reporting by Contracting Party (by 15 Sept 2017) COUNTRY UPLOADED INSERT FINAL APPROVAL (QA) DE X X TO BE CONDUCTED DK X X TO BE CONDUCTED EE X X IN PROCESS (1 FI X X TO BE CONDUCTED LT X X IN PROCESS (1 LV X X IN PROCESS (1 PL X X APPROVED( 2 RU X X TO BE CONDUCTED SE X X TO BE CONDUCTED (1 Partly approved (2 Most of the data approved TO BE CONDUCTED (=final approval to be started) IN PROCESS (=final approval already started) None of the CPs has COMPLETED the final approval of the 2015 annual data. Recently an added feature in the application also allows 0.0 values to be approved (ref. Poland) Page 2 of 9

3 Inserted direct data and the reporting status by country The 2015 data of all 9 countries have been inserted in the data base. The quality assurance of the reported data has been carried out as in the Application, and manual verification has been started. In the tables (tables 2-10) below have been indicated the number of sources to be reported and the mandatory parameters which have been reported. Value 0 indicates that nothing has been reported. Success of reporting by CP and by source have been compiled in tables 2-10, but more detailed information on reported sources can be downloaded at: Table 2. Reported Danish data of 2015 DENMARK SUBCATCHMENTS TO BE REPORTED DIR MWWTP TOTAL TO BE REPORTED DIR INDUSTRY TOTAL TO BE REPORTED BOD5 BOD7 FLOW NTOT PTOT DIR AQUACULTURE TOTAL TO BE REPORTED TRANSBOUNDARY TOTAL Heavy metal loads of monitored rivers and unmonitored areas - Heavy metal loads and nutrient fractions of MWWTPs - Heavy metal loads of Industrial plants Table 3. Reported Estonian data of 2015 ESTONIA SUBCATCHMENT TOTAL DIR MWWTP TOTAL DIR INDUSTRY TOTAL DIR AQUACULTURE TOTAL TRANSBOUNDARY TOTAL Some heavy metal loads of sub-catchments -Some MWWTP loads of Ntot, Ptot and Flow and all nutrient fractions and most of the heavy metals -Only Industrial plant has been reported (Ntot, Ptot and Flow) Estonian Cell AS and only flow of Tallinna sadam AS -Gauja and Salaca as transboundary rivers (minor parts) Page 3 of 9

4 Table 4. Reported Finnish data of 2015 FINLAND SUBCATCHMENTS TOTAL DIR MWWTP TOTAL DIR INDUSTRY TOTAL DIR AQUACULTURE TOTAL TRANSBOUNDARY TOTAL Some heavy metal loads of sub catchments are missing -NO23-N loads are missing on MMWTPs and a few Ntot, Ptot and flow data -Incomplete reporting of Industrial plants -Transboundary load of Seleznevka Table 5. Reported German data of 2015 COUNTRY SOURCE TO BE REPO GERMANY SUBCATCHMENT TOTAL DIR MWWTP TOTAL DIR INDUSTRY TOTAL DIR AQUACULTURE TOTAL 0 NO DATA - heavy metals of unmonitored areas, BAPDELAND, WEBDELAND -River Oder reported by Poland, German flow missing TRANSBOUNDARY TOTAL REPORTED BY POLAND Table 6. Reported Latvian data of 2015 LATVIA SUBCATCHMENT TOTAL DIR MWWTP TOTAL DIR INDUSTRY TOTAL DIR AQUACULTURE TOTAL NO DATA TRANSBOUNDARY TOTAL Latvian part of the flows of Barta, Venta, Gauja, Lielupe and Daugava are missing (totals have been reported) Page 4 of 9

5 -Some fractions of nutrients of MWWTPs -Some Ntot, Pot loads and all heavy metal loads Table 7. Reported Lithuanian data of 2015 LITHUANIA SUBCATCHMENT TOTAL DIR MWWTP TOTAL DIR INDUSTRY TOTAL DIR AQUACULTURE TOTAL NO DATA TRANSBOUNDARY TOTAL Some of the MWWTP data on nutrient fractions, all PO 4 P data and most of the heavy metals -Most of the data on Industrial plants are missing apart from the flow values Table 8. Reported Polish data of 2015 COUNTRY SOURCE TO BE REPO POLAND SUBCATCHMENT TOTAL DIR MWWTP TOTAL DIR INDUSTRY TOTAL DIR AQUACULTURE TOTAL NO DATA TRANSBOUNDARY TOTAL Polish parts of Vistula and Oder should be clarified -several MWWTP data and some nutreint fraction and heavy metal loads of MWWTPs -Number of INDUSTRIAL PLANTS, to be reported is based on assumption that the same sources will be reported as in previous years Page 5 of 9

6 Table 9. Reported Russian data of 2015 RUSSIA SUBCATCHMENT TOTAL DIR MWWTP TOTAL DIR INDUSTRY TOTAL DIR AQUACULTURE TOTAL NO DATA BOD5 BOD7 Flow Ntot Ptot SOURCE TO BE REPORTED TRANSBOUNDARY TOTAL Cd and Pb loads of the Pregolya river -Most of the Hg loads -All data on unmonitored area of Gulf of Finland (GUFRULAND) -Russian part of the transboundary rivers (Narva, Neva, Pregolya and Seleznevka) -MWWTPs reported partly as individually and partly as aggregated by basin (but unknown nr_of_plants missing) -Industrial plants reported as aggregated by basin (but unknown nr_of_plants) Table 10. Reported Swedish data of 2015 SWEDEN SUBCATCHMENT TOTAL DIR MWWTP TOTAL DIR INDUSTRY TOTAL DIR AQUACULTURE TOTAL TRANSBOUNDARY TOTAL All fractions of nutrients and some heavy metal loads on MWWTPs - some flow and heavy metal loads of Industrial plants Discharges of the Swedish transboundary rivers Dalälven, Enningdalsälven, Götä älv, Indalsälven, Lule älv, Pite älv, Skellefte älv, Torne älv, Ume älv and Ångerman älv discharges are considered to be completely for Sweden. The Torne älv Tornionjoki flow and loads will be divided in between Sweden and Finland. Earlier reported rivers and unmonitored area of the Skagerak basin have been excluded here. Page 6 of 9

7 About the Quality control of the 2015 annual data The Quality control of the data has 4 QA levels (1-4) and each inserted dataset (flow, concentration or load value) will get a FLAG. The QA level 1 (automated verification), level 2 (statistical test), level 3 (manual verification of data reporter) and level 4 (manual verification of data assurer / data manager) are all active at present (Table 21). Preliminary quality assurance, at QA level 1 and 2, of the data is carried out automatically during the Application s upload/insert procedure. At the QA level 1 all basic information as data type, format, length of the string and other constraints are checked. The automated quality assurance at QA level 2 is based statistical verification of the data. A minimum requirement of 5 years of data of the same source is needed to conduct the statistical quality assurance, otherwise inserted data have been considered as unchecked, i.e., not verified. Therefore, many of the values cannot be evaluated automatically and manual verification of the data is needed (QA 3). Annual data can be retrieved in the Application s menu, Data and Request data for year. When data have been listed in the Application, each value can be clicked and rejected (R3), corrected (C3) or approved (A3) (Figure 1). Even if the data have been accepted (AC) at level 2 and approved at level 3 (QA 3), still a final approval of the data is needed (QA 4). This can be carried out also by listing the data in the Application and then by approving (A4) the data. Any rejections of the data will be flagged as R3 or R4 (Table 21). This final approval of the reported data on direct sources (monitored rivers, unmonitored areas and direct point sources) is going on. The status of the QA process of 2015 data have been compiled in the tables Table 21. Flagging, Quality Assurance (QA) levels and description. FLAG QA LEVEL Description Active NQ 1 No Quality Y QU 2 Questionable Y AC 2 Accepted Y A3 3 Approved by data reporter Y C3 3 Corrected by data reporter Y R3 3 Rejected by data reporter Y A4 4 Approved by quality assurer/data Manager Y C4 4 Corrected by quality assurer/data Manager Y R4 4 Rejected by quality assurer/data Manager Y Table 22. Number of QA flags per category of the reported subcatchment loads in 2015 by Country. SUBCATCHMENT_LOAD BY CZ DE DK EE FI LT LV PL RU SE SL UA Page 7 of 9

8 Table 23. Number of QA flags per category of the reported station flows in 2015 by Country. STATION_FLOW DE DK EE FI LT LV PL RU SE Table 24. Number of QA flags per category of the reported direct MWWTP flows and loads in 2015 by Country. MWWTP DE DK EE FI LT LV PL RU SE Table 25. Number of QA flags per category of the reported direct Industrial flows and loads in 2015 by Country. INDUSTRY DE DK EE FI LT LV PL RU SE Table 26. Number of QA flags per category of the reported direct Fish farm loads in 2015 by Country. FISH FARM DK FI LT SE Most of the 2015 data needs to be approved. The reason for high number of NQ is too low number of data of the same source. A minimum requirement for a statistical test in the Application and consequential acceptance of a value is of 5 years data. Page 8 of 9

9 Flow, concentration and load values of the annual data of 2015 have been included in the QA procedure. There are most of the data reported earlier in , as well as the periodic data, which should be approved. Page 9 of 9