Source control of priority substances in Europe EU-project within the sixth framework program

Transcription

1 Source control of priority substances in Europe EU-project within the sixth framework program John Munthe IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute 05, 02FEB2010, J Munthe, Swedish Environmental Research Institute 1

2 Project objective To provide guidelines and decision support system tools for the implementation of the WFD with regard to selected priority substances 11 Priority Substances Mercury Cadmium Hexachlorobenzene Tributyltin DEHP (Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate) Atrazine Isoproturon Nonylphenol Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Anthracene Polybrominated diphenyl ethers 05, 02FEB2010, J Munthe, Swedish Environmental Research Institute 2

3 perspectives Water district management preparation of RBMPs European Scale, European Policy development Sources Material flow analysis European scale WFD Guidebook + tools Draft Decision Support System Emission control Substance reports Control technologies Case studies Five areas of Europe Final Decision Support System Final Reports and Synthesis Web site DSS, synthesis 05, 02FEB2010, J Munthe, Swedish Environmental Research Institute 3

4 Material flow analysis (MFA) for selected priority substances Describe the main flow paths of selected PSs on a European scale Identify main source categories for European waters - for use in case studies Necessary information to assess effectiveness and impacts of various measures MFA diagram for HCB in Europe in , 02FEB2010, J Munthe, Swedish Environmental Research Institute 4

5 Experiences - emissions MFA useful for providing overview of use, emissions and source categories guidance to source control Lack of information on emissions - and production, import, export, use, fate of PS in industrial waste, household products and municipal waste water Diffuse sources important in many locations - Atmospheric deposition - Contaminated sites -Agriculture - Households and small industries: waste water (more or less treatment) Inventory and assessment of mitigation options Information from MFA on sources, source categories Compile information on possible measures by substance Based on: A bibliographic review : about 450 references ; A survey questionnaire : about 200 contacts ; Exchanges with stakeholders during 3 workshops: Paris, Katowice, Nieuwegein. 05, 02FEB2010, J Munthe, Swedish Environmental Research Institute 5

6 Summary of results 2 products from WP3 (and available for the DSS): Limitations Substance Reports (inventory + qualitative assessment) Non homogeneous data on substance flux and measure costs Most data are old data (2000) Weak industry involvement in questionnaire and workshop Limitations ERSR (quantitative assessment + ERS - Multicriteria Analysis ) Dependent on Substance Report information quality and expert judgements Control options Technical information on end of pipe control technologies and substitution partly available but information on cost of emission control options are scarce and unreliable Control options and strategies for diffuse pollution (contaminated sites) difficult to define and evaluate Control options for atmospheric deposition outside responsibility of Water District 05, 02FEB2010, J Munthe, Swedish Environmental Research Institute 6

7 Step 0: System definition A decision support system for management of priority substances in river basin management plans Step 1: Problem definition Step 2: Inventory of sources Step by step guidance to support the development of RBMP for PS Step 3: Definition of a baseline scenario Step 4: Inventory of possible measures Update plans (2015) Step 5: Assessment Assessment of the effects of the of effects the measures of the measures Step 6: Selection of the best solutions Case studies Test and evaluate the decision support system by applying it to 5 case studies in different geographical regions and to integrate results and experiences to European scale 05, 02FEB2010, J Munthe, Swedish Environmental Research Institute 7

8 Case study areas The five case studies which represent different geographical regions of Europe as well as different scales The five cases have different characteristics in terms of pollution sources and degree of contamination of priority substances. Case study: Kłodnica Catchment area 1125,8 km², flow rate 20 m 3 /s, 1 mln. inhabitants Agriculture 50 %, Urban and Industrial 30%, forest 20%. Industry (coal mining, energy sector, metallurgy, metal production, mechanical sector, chemical industry) Impact: WWTP, industry, contaminated land, wastes, air deposition PAH, Hg, Cd as relevant contaminants (representative of coal and heavy industries) Highly Modified Water Body Monitoring system under national revision to be improved Priorities for water management defined (priority pollutants not explicitly indicated) 05, 02FEB2010, J Munthe, Swedish Environmental Research Institute 8

9 River Vantaa Catchment area km2, 1 milj. inhabitants, Agriculture (24 % cultivated) Industry (dairy, food, metal, paint, detergent, plastics) Drinking water source (secondary) to Helsinki, Irrigation, recreation object, cultural scenery and objects PAH, PBDE, Nonylphenol, DEHP, TBT (TPhT) 250 potential plants/sources - Connected to MWT plants Atmospheric sources (PAH), Harbor activity (TBT), diffuse sources (DEHP, PAH, PBDE)/urban run off Occasional exceedances of EQS: PAH, DEHP, TBT TBT concentrations high in sediments Introduction LLOBREGAT Length: 156 Km Basin Area: 4957 Km 2 Source Altitude: 1259 m Rainfall: 672 mm/year Mean Flow: 22.2 m 3 /s Llobregat River Ter River TER Length: 208 Km Basin Area: 2955 Km 2 Source Altitude: 2480 m Rainfall: 879 mm/year Mean Flow: 26.8 m 3 /year Substances: atrazine, isoproturon, polybrominated biphenyl ethers (PBDEs), nonylphenol and di(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate 05, 02FEB2010, J Munthe, Swedish Environmental Research Institute 9

10 Meuse River Basin Length: 905 km; Catchment area: 35,000 km2, 8.8 million International river basin: five countries/six regions (FR, LU, WL, FL, GE, NL) Rain river; large differences between summer and winter discharge (< 10 3,000 m 3 /s) Source of water for drinking water production, agriculture, industry Important for navigation Focus on diffuse emissions reduction, cadmium, PAH, pesticides, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals Focus on emerging substances Danube river 05, 02FEB2010, J Munthe, Swedish Environmental Research Institute 10

11 The Danube The second longest river in Europe, the most international river in the world, shared by 19 countries. Danube is a resource to 81 million people. Chemical, food and pulp and paper industries, municipal waste water main polluters Bilateral agreements (examples) MK RO MD BG AL CS UA DE AT CH RBM ICPDR EG - coordination - information exchange - develop strategy for RBM Plan - develop DRB roof report for EC - harmonisation of methods and mechanisms BA HR SI IT CZ SK HU PL Bilateral agreements (examples) Danube risk classification by risk categories pressures / SK/ impacts from DE AT * HU HU HR - CS CS/RO hydromorph. BG/RO RO haz.subst.p. nutrient p. organic p. rkm at risk possibly at risk not at risk 05, 02FEB2010, J Munthe, Swedish Environmental Research Institute 11

12 2 % of the DRB Catchment: km 2, 2.5 million inhabitants Diversified landscape (mountains, lowlands): 52.2 % agricultural land 40.7 % forests 6.6 % artificial area 0.5 % inland waters main use - hydropower production highest input of pollution load (nutrients, hazardous substances) 05, 02FEB2010, J Munthe, Swedish Environmental Research Institute 12

13 Project conclusions user perspective The DSS and associated reports and tools (MFA; ER Fact Sheets etc) to five case studies with very different charactersistics (size, compounds in focus, administrative structure, availability of information). All case studies were performed in close collaboration with local stakeholders (authorities). DSS was modified and improved based on experiences from case studies The DSS was found to provide useful guidance in the case studies, although all steps were not fully evaluated in all case studies. A different approach was taken in the Meuse case. Project conclusions user perspective Lack of information on contaminant levels makes evaluation of chemical and ecological status difficult in many cases. Compilation and analysis of control options as well as method for muliticritera analysis of different control options has provided useful guidance for decision makers, but lack of complete information makes development of cost-efficient strategies to reduce contamination difficult. Modeling combined with available emission and monitoring data can be used to check consistency (mass balance) and identify missing sources and/or potential sites where EQS are exceeded. Fugacity based models e.g. have successfully been used in two of the case studies, Vantaa River and VAH 05, 02FEB2010, J Munthe, Swedish Environmental Research Institute 13

14 Project conclusions user perspective The WFD is a new management level. Existing and complex structures of water management, monitoring and responsibility for sources makes efficient planning and decision making difficult Conclusions and recommendations on European scale The implementation of the WFD will benefit from a continued development of decision support tools. The WFD is a strong legislation aimed at improving water quality in Europe. A continued development and adaptation of decision support tools are necessary for a successful implementation of the WFD. More transparency and openness of information is required. A a larger degree of transparency and openness of information concerning production, use and emissions of chemicals is needed. This lack of information prevents the assessment of the main flow paths and emission sources, and thus the assessment of risks and the development of cost efficient emission control strategies. 05, 02FEB2010, J Munthe, Swedish Environmental Research Institute 14

15 Conclusions and recommendations on European scale An integrated approach for chemicals is needed for future protection of the environment. To efficiently manage all emission sources an integrated approach involving other directives (REACH, directives on products, electronics and waste, etc.) and international conventions (CLRTAP, Stockholm Convention, HELCOM, OSPAR) is needed. Model development to support WFD implementation (fate models, DSS, effect based) may be used in situations where complete information on sources and environmental concentrations is absent to identify potential sources and define suitable locations for monitoring. Research priorities with a WFD User perspective Interdisciplinary: Socio-economics, technology, chemistry, hydrology, ecotoxicology... Integrated management Consider multiple pressures on ecological status (PS, Emerging substances, Nutrients, Hydromorphology, climate...) Basic approach: ecosystem services, effects based Models, models, models... from Effects (QSAR); Material Flow Analysis; Fate (fugacity); Socioeconomics, Management options Transparency, information exchange User perspective! 05, 02FEB2010, J Munthe, Swedish Environmental Research Institute 15

16 Production, use and emissions Modelling Integration Harmonization Control options, economic instruments Fate and transport Occurence, exposure Impacts Ecological status Multi Pressure Decision Support and Evaluation System Simplification Tools and indicators Synthesis Socio economic impacts Management Scenarios 05, 02FEB2010, J Munthe, Swedish Environmental Research Institute 16