Nr. 7 March First Interim Results in the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive

Transcription

1 Nr. 7 March 2014 First Interim Results in the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive By Carsten Schaffors, GBA Laboratory Group After deploying the management plans, at "halftime" in the first implementation cycle for the European Water Framework Directive (WFD), the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB) issued an interim report on the state of implementation in Germany to the European commission in December [1] Since the European Directive 2000/60/EC was put into national law in December 2000, a survey was conducted, the legal implementation was checked, monitoring programs were developed, and finally, provisional programs and regulation plans for its implementation in the ten river basin regions in Germany (Danube, Rhine, Meuse, Elbe, Weser, Ems, Oder, Warnow-Peene, Schlei-Trave, and Eider) were submitted by December [2] One river basin region is not just considered one body of water, but all bodies of water within a river's drainage basin. The goal of the EU-WFD is to achieve a "good status" for rivers, lakes, coastal waters, and groundwater bodies, which can be viewed here either in their entirety or to some extent also as expanding beyond borders, (which applies to eight of the ten river basin regions). The definition of "good status" is when the ecological and chemical condition of a natural surface water is rated as "good." In groundwater, "good status" is achieved when the amount and the chemical condition is classified as "good." [2] For that purpose, the EU has provided a clear and ambitious timeline in a 6-year cycle ( , , and ). As long as no deadline extension is applied for, these environmental goals must be achieved by If an extension is granted, then these measures must be implemented by 2027 at the latest. In Germany, the survey was carried out and the monitoring programs were deployed by the deadline. The latter confirms a significant improvement in the water supply over the past few decades. Due to the WFD's orientation towards aquatic biology, however, new challenges are posed. With the implementation of the environmental quality standards in Directive 2008/105/EC (16/12/2008), which are binding for all EU member states as of July 2010, and with the Directive 2013/39/EU (12/08/2013), which will make the standards even more ambitious as of September 2015, (as reported in the GBA Newsletter No. 4 in December 2013,) presumably more than 90% of the current bodies of surface water will not reach these targets. This is due, among other things, to a poor water structure caused by trench lining and straightening rivers and streams, to the impassability for fish caused by lateral structures such as dams, and to the high amount of contaminants arising from agriculture, settlements, or mining. It would be impossible to implement comprehensive measures in all bodies of water nationwide simultaneously. In addition to the time required for planning the implementation measures, additional land may be necessary, as well as the financial means to acquire this land. Furthermore, not only does the actual implementation itself require a certain amount of time, but it may also take time for the measures to take effect. In Germany, the EU-WFD goals should be reached for 18% of the surface water bodies and 64% of the groundwater bodies by In the management planning for the year 2009, 9.5% of the surface water and 62 % of the groundwater was already certified as being in "good status." Whether or not that will still be the case when the stricter environmental standards in the Directive 2013/39/EU take effect is yet to be seen. An extension has already been granted for 80% of all surface water bodies and 32% of all groundwater bodies.

2 The measures submitted in 2009 were based on a catalogue compiled by LAWA (the German working group on water issues) with a total of 107 types of measures. 53 of those were assigned to six key measures: 1. Improving the hydromorphological condition of the water 2. Improving the longitudinal continuity 3. Reducing eutrophication due to agriculture 4. Consultation for the agricultural industry 5. Constructing and upgrading wastewater treatment facilities 6. Improvement of the knowledge base Four steps have been defined to assess the implementation process: "not yet begun," "in planning/execution," "in construction," and "completed." According to the BMUB interim results, 24% of the six key measures have been delayed. The most common reasons provided were lack of financial resources or personnel, no available land, or resistance to the implementation of the measures. Hydromorphology is considered to be the main burden on surface waters. The construction of waterways in the previous century (straightening, canalization, damming, etc.) for cities, businesses, agriculture, hydroelectric power, and the shipping industry has wide-ranging effects on the bodies of water themselves, on the adjacent habitats of the meadows, as well as on the water supply and material balance. The most common plans in these key measures include: Modifying/optimizing water maintenance Improving the habitats on the shorelines Improving the habitats in the bodies of water by redirection, or structuring the shores and/or riverbeds Initiating/allowing bodies of water to develop their own dynamic Improving the habitats in the corridors for waterbody development Revitalizing the bodies of water within their existing contours Many of these measures require construction work, or the body of water can be left to itself when there is enough space available and if neither people nor assets are in danger of being affected by any potential flooding. Only about 5% of these key measures have already been completed, about 11% are currently being implemented. In order to ensure an improvement in longitudinal continuity, construction measures and hydraulic engineering facilities are usually required (e.g. dams, weirs, etc.). Only about 10% of these key measures have already been completed, 40% have not yet begun, and about a third of them have had delays in the implementation due to problems with acceptance, as well as a lack of financial resources, personnel, and land. In order to reduce the amount of nutrient contamination (eutrophication) from agriculture, the application of mineral fertilizers is being limited. Due to the increase in winter greening (the cultivation of catch crops and nurse crops), there is some variation in the extent to which the certain measures are implemented in river basins regions, such as agricultural expansion, increased soil cover, measures to preserve and conserve the soil, application of manure to save water, the expansion of organic farming, and the establishment of buffer zones. They generally go together with agricultural consulting, which must take place continually. To some extent, the transformation in the agricultural industry makes it more difficult to achieve the goals set by the WFD. The use of biogas promotes extensive corn cultivation, and thus more land is used for this purpose due to its profitability. Measures to reduce the nutrients in the water are therefore unappealing to farmers. The construction or upgrading of wastewater treatment facilities is meant to further reduce pollution and nutrient contamination from urban areas even beyond the values defined by the European Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. Municipal wastewater treatment facilities, as well as facilities for the collection and treatment of rainwater, should be constructed or redesigned so that nitrogen, phosphorus, and other pollutants can be further reduced. Efficiency should be increased by merging smaller local units and through process optimization. Small wastewater treatment facilities should be brought up to the state of the art and rebuilt. Areas that were not previously connected to the sewer network should be developed. Finally, the sewer system should be renovated, since about 20% of the external water that enters the system comes through leaks. The status of the implementation of this key measure in the river basin regions varies greatly, ranging from "not yet begun" to "completed." The last key measure, research and improve the knowledge base, comprises about 20% of all of the measures. That includes generating concepts, conducting studies, appraisals, in-depth investigations, and regular checks. R&D proposals and pilot projects should reveal interdependencies that have not yet been explored. About 20% of these key measures have not yet begun and about as many have already been completed.

3 By 2015, the action programs and regulation plans should be updated and the second regulation cycle will begin. The results of the current monitoring programs will reveal whether or not we have come closer to achieving the goal of bringing our waters up to "good status." For the future, the BMUB also recommends utilizing synergies with other European guidelines (e.g. the flood risk management directive, HWRM-RL, or the sea strategy framework directive, MW- RL) during implementation in order to become even more effective. For the GBA Laboratory Group, providing our customers with this kind of information is part of our service. We will keep you up to date on this topic as well. Contact us about this topic: GBA Gesellschaft fuer Bioanalytik mbh Mr. Ralf Murzen Flensburger Straße 15 D Pinneberg, Germany Tel: +49 (0) 4101 / Fax: +49 (0) 4101 / pinneberg@gba-laborgruppe.de Literature: [1] Die Wasserrahmenrichtlinie Eine Zwischenbilanz zur Umsetzung der Maßnahmenprogramme 2012 und Reaktorsicherheit, [German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety] July 2013, Naturschutz [2] Die Wasserrahmenrichtlinie Auf dem Weg zu guten Gewässern, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit, [German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety] 15 May 2010 By Dr. Sven Steinhauer, GBA Laboratory Group Drinking Water in Food Production Drinking water is, and will always remain, the most important form of sustenance for mankind. It must be available for food production in both high quantity and quality. That can be gathered from the regulation 852/2004/EC about food hygiene. But where exactly is potable water made available and used in the food industry? In order to answer that, the business owner and other stakeholders have to know their installation and be able to fully describe it. There is a transfer point between the utility companies and the on-site installation. The on-site installation contains both potable water cold (PWC) as well as potable water hot (PWH). Processing machines and production equipment are connected to the cold water lines, yet according to EN 1717, these must be separated by a safety device. After going through the safety device, the water is no longer potable as defined by the Drinking Water Ordinance (TrinkwV 2001, 2 par. 1, pt. 4b). However, it is precisely such water that is used in a wide variety of ways in the production process, either as an ingredient or in order to clean the facilities.

4 Since the owners and stakeholders are responsible for maintaining the drinking water quality after this transfer point, there are essentially three areas that must be checked: Cold water according to the Drinking Water Ordinance Hot water from the central hot water tank Cold water after the safety device In order to define the extraction points from which the water should be taken, comprehensive knowledge of the installation is necessary. In practice, this is often a big problem when the construction plans are no longer available or renovations were not fully documented. According to the Drinking Water Ordinance of 2001, the analysis of cold drinking water is the responsibility of the local health agencies. Due to geogenic peculiarities in the drinking water sources, the scope of the testing varies slightly, however, they are based on the routine examinations defined by the 2001 Drinking Water Ordinance. The frequency and the scope of testing can be adjusted based on the preliminary results. The testing itself can be carried out by a laboratory that is state authorized according to 15, par. 4. The various state lists can be found at the following link: According to the 2001 Drinking Water Ordinance, the testing of the central hot water is handled by the health authorities differently in the commercial sector. In the 2001 Drinking Water Ordinance, the owners and stakeholders are held responsible for conducting the testing "as long as the potable water is emitted in the context of commercial or public activities." This also applies to "systems that include showers or other facilities which can result in the misting of drinking water." It is currently being discussed whether hot water for the "social spaces" in companies (i.e. showers) is a commercial activity and whether this contributes to the company's profit. Furthermore, there are different concepts of what constitutes a public business. For small companies with clear access restrictions, this is surely not the case. Yet how should one interpret the term public, when the employees at larger production sites work through subcontractors or on temporary basis and use the showers there? Basically, a risk assessment should be conducted and work-safety issues should be taken into consideration in addition to the requirements of the 2001 Drinking Water Ordinance. One example for this is the use of hot water in high-pressure cleaning systems for production facilities. These are usually operated at high enough temperatures that legionella contamination is impossible. However, when the circulation does not extend to the extraction point, or the temperature is not kept stable, then legionella may grow in the certain parts of the pipes due to water stagnation and/or low temperatures. In any case, an individual assessment of the installation system and consultation with the health agency are necessary in order to achieve total clarity. But what about the water after the safety device? This comes in direct contact with the product or is contained within it. What does the food inspection agency say about the scope and frequency of monitoring? The topic of potable water does not come up in the guideline 89/397/EEC or in the directive 882/2004/EC. However, in the directive 178/2002/EC, at that point the water quality is required to comply with article 6 of the guideline 98/83/EC.

5 If one approaches the topic from the perspective of food product hygiene, the quality of the water is also defined according to the guideline 98/83/EC in the directive 852/2004/EC. In the national food product hygiene directive (LMHV 2007), water from potable water is discussed according to the 2001 Drinking Water Directive. Since the 2001 Drinking Water Ordinance is the implementation of the guideline 98/83/EC, the limit values provided there can serve as quality criteria for fulfilling the listed requirements. This therefore takes into account the requirements stated in the Infection Protection Act, that "water for human use must be constituted in such a way that its use or enjoyment does not provide any harm to human health, especially via pathogens." Once the indicators of quality have been agreed upon, the question of scope and frequency remains. Since there are no legal guidelines for this, the phrase "according to the Drinking Water Ordinance" is often used by the authorities. In certain fields, this is interpreted as a reference to table II, concerning frequency, in appendix 4 of the 2001 Drinking Water Ordinance. The intervals required there, however, apply to the water company when checking the water quality coming out of their waterworks or in their pipelines. The drinking water used by the food industry thus already went through this quality control process and should only be checked for the parameters which are variable within the water pipe network. Based on this premise, the testing scope essentially should be based on the routine scope according to appendix 4, part 1. Nevertheless, one must consider the whole pipe system in this case as well. For example, if the pipes were installed before the mid-1970s, then they should also be checked for lead. If a softening system is in operation, then one has to make sure that the sodium values are not elevated. If new pipes have been built, the water must be checked for particles emitted from the metals used for the pipes. The individual monitoring plan resulting from these considerations will become a component of the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points Concept (HACCP-Concept) and must be continually adjusted along with any changes to the pipelines. The national and international regulations described here, some of which are not clearly defined, should be taken into account in the coming years. The Water Quality and Health Strategy from the World Health Organization (WHO) could give new impetus for this and may be implemented on a national level. Some topics that could also be included and would promote progress are, for example, a review of the generally recognized codes of practice and compliance therewith, as well as determining the sites of compliance and the potential hazard points within your pipe system and in your HACCP-Concept. Contact us about this topic: GBA Gesellschaft fuer Bioanalytik mbh Dr. Sven Steinhauer Brekelbaumstraße 1 D Hameln, Germany Tel: +49 (0) 5151 / Fax: +49 (0) 5151 / hameln@gba-laborgruppe.de

6 On Our Own Account Dear readers of the GBA Newsletter, we are very pleased with the large amount of interest in our newsletter. The enormous growth in readers in the previous months has shown us that we have chosen the right topics and that we are achieving our goal of offering you brief and qualified summaries of current topics. We will keep our eye on the market and continue to report. Meanwhile, when possible, we will also look ahead and make forecasts about developing trends. Similarly, we would like to encourage you to contact us if you would like to have some specific information about content such as sampling, analysis, methods, requirements, ordinances, and changes that affect your field of business. Perhaps there are also some "classic" topics that you would like to learn more about. Your interest is our priority and it inspires us at GBA Laboratory Group if we are able to supply you with an extraordinary service also in this area. We look forward to many following exciting editions of our newsletter for you. Feel free to contact us if you have questions, suggestions, and requirements: GBA Gesellschaft fuer Bioanalytik mbh Carsten Schaffors Goldtschmidtstraße 5 D Hamburg, Germany Tel.: +49 (0) 40 / Fax: +49 (0) 40 / newsletter@gba-laborgruppe.de Inquiries or orders can be directly placed at this or any other of our locations: GBA Gesellschaft für Bioanalytik mbh Hamburg: Pinneberg: Hameln: Goldtschmidtstraße 5 Flensburger Straße 15 Brekelbaumstraße Hamburg Pinneberg Hameln Tel.: +49 (0) 40 / Tel.: +49 (0) 4101 / Tel.: +49 (0) 5151 / Fax: +49 (0) 40 / Fax: +49 (0) 4101 / Fax: +49 (0) 5151 / service@gba-laborgruppe.de pinneberg@gba-laborgruppe.de hameln@gba-laborgruppe.de Gelsenkirchen: Hildesheim: Freiberg: Wiedehopfstraße 30 Daimlerring 37 Meißner Ring Gelsenkirchen Hildesheim Freiberg Tel.: +49 (0) 209 / Tel.: +49 (0) 5121 / Tel.: +49 (0) 3731 / Fax: +49 (0) 209 / Fax: +49 (0) 5121 / Fax: +49 (0) 3731 / gelsenkirchen@gba-laborgruppe.de hildesheim@gba-laborgruppe.de freiberg@gba-laborgruppe.de Publisher of this Newsletter: GBA Laboratory Group. All rights reserved. Please send questions and comments to newsletter@gba-laborgruppe.de. We try to research the content of our newsletters without errors and as thoroughly as possible for your benefit. If the statements contained within are nevertheless incomplete or contain errors, then we bear no liability.