Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
DRAFT TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON THE PREPARATION OF AN INVENTORY OF EMISSIONS, DISCHARGES AND LOSSES OF PRIORITY AND PRIORITY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Version 45
087/04/2011
CONTENTS
Table of content
I. PURPOSE OF THE GUIDANCE
I.1. Legal requirements (EQS reporting obligations, etc)
I.2. Practical uses of the inventory (who will use it and for what purposes)
I.3. Potential foreseeable users of the guidance
I.4. Baseline and minimum expectations
Minimum Requirements
Link with existing reporting requirements
Different approaches
Tiered approach
Other important items
II. TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
II.1. Process schematic
II.2. Discharges, emissions and losses
II.3. Emission factor
II.4. Riverine Load
II.5. Characteristics of point and diffuse sources
II.6. Sources
II.7. Pathways
II.8. Retention (removal and intermediate storage processes)
III. GENERAL COMPONENTS OF AN INVENTORY
III.1. General working scheme
III.2. Spatial resolution of the inventory
III.3. Temporal scope of the inventory
IV. WORKING METHODOLOGIES
IV.1. General description of existing methodologies
IV.1.1. Riverine load oriented approaches including Transport, sedimentation and remobilisation
Estimation of riverine load
Flow normalisation
IV.1.2. Pathway oriented approaches including hydrology driven transfer processes
IV.1.3. Source oriented approaches (SFA, SOCOPSE project)
IV.2. Input data needs for the different approaches - Building Blocks - how existing EU schemes can inform the process PRTR, UWWTD etc.
IV.2.1. European dataflows available
IV.2.2. Additional (national?) dataflows
IV.3. Proposed procedure. Adopting an approach based upon the availability of data and other limitations (tiered approach)
IV.3.1 Selection criteria for the different approaches - Understanding the dynamics of the system
Quality, variability and resolution of input data
Quality and resolution of outputs, identification and resolution of data gaps
Reality/validity checks (against observed loads...)
Regional resolution of the different model outputs
IV.3.2 Comparison of the model results with observed river loads
IV.4. Interpretation of the different approach results
IV.4.1 Interpretation
IV.4.2 Comparison
IV.4.3 Use of results in water management processes
References
Terms of reference
Section Tables
Section images
Glossary
Annexes:
Country case studies
TABLES
list of tables with page
FIGURES
list of figures with page
Executive summary
This part will be developed later based on an advanced draft of the document
I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE GUIDANCE
Certain chemicals (priority substances, specific pollutants) may be released to the aquatic environment from various point and diffuse sources (e.g. agriculture, industry, municipal waste water, incineration, domestic use, public use and misuse), as products or as unintended by-products, they these may be of historical nature or used daily in household products. Once they these are in the aquatic environment ecosystem (fish, plants, food chain, etc.) it may cause harm to aquatic ecosystem (fish, plants, food chain, etc.) it or it may affecthas the potential to impact human health through the direct and indirect exposure routes (e.g. drinking, bathing, seafood, etc.). Furthermore, several of these pollutants substances may bestill are found in the environment many years after being banned; some may be transported long distances and can be found in remote areas.
- -- purpose of the guidance --
The efforts should be directed mainly to the relevant substances for the Member State of concern. The level of sophistication is expected to improve with the different cycles of the River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs).
Alternative text
According to the obligations that are included in Directive 2008/105/EC, Member States must establish an inventory of emissions, discharges and losses of all priority substances and pollutants listed in Part A of Annex I to this Directive. This inventory should give information on the significance and on the loads discharged to the aquatic environment In the future, this inventory will be used for the compliance checking with the environmental objectives of the Water Framework Directive (WFD, Article 4) on reduction of discharges, emissions and losses for Priority Substances (PSs) and cessation or phase out of discharges, emissions and losses for Priority Hazardous Substances (PHSs).
This document provides the technical guidelines that are mentioned in this Directive on how these inventories are to be established and the minimum requirements that are to be fulfilled to enable the use of these for the intended purpose.
I.1. Legal requirements (EQS reporting obligations, etc)
Article 5 of Environmental Quality Standard (EQS) Directive 105/2008/EC lays down stipulates, that Member States (MS) shall establish an inventory of emissions, discharges and losses of all priority substances and pollutants listed in Part A of Annex I to this Directive.
This inventory should give information on the significance and on the the loads discharged into the aquatic environment In a further stepthe future this inventory will be used for the compliance checking with the environmental objectives of the Water Framework Directive (WFD, Article 4) on reduction of discharges, emissions and losses for Priority Substances (PSs) and cessation or phase out of discharges, emissions and losses for Priority Hazardous Substances (PHSs), if achievable taking into account recital 31 of the preamble of the WFD.
Furthermore, the preamble of the EQS Directive (recital 20) foresees the need to have an appropriate tool for quantification of losses of substances occurring naturally, or produced through natural processes, in which case complete cessation or phase out from all potential sources is impossible.
These inventories shall be compiled for every River Basin District (RBD) or the national part of International RBDs and give not only yearly inputs but also comprise, as appropriate, concentrations in sediment and biota. (e.g. in helping to substantiate the significance of the presence of a substance) This will be discussed in more details in chapter I 4
MSs will establish the first inventories under EQS Directive as part of the review of WFD Article 5 analysis on pressures that is scheduled for December 2013. Both point and diffuse sources should be addressed for all the priority substances causing problems. If the particular PS is not present in the RB under consideration, as established in agreement with the analytical requirements of Directive 2009/90/EC on chemical analysis and monitoring and publicly reported as required by article 8 of the WFD, this can be noted as the rationale for no longer pursuing this substance.
When establishing the inventory, MSs will use all the relevant information in the area of surface water protection such as:
- the WFD Article 5 and 8 Reports,
- European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR) data[1],
- Urban Waste Water Treatment (UWWT) Directive Report[2],
- Reports to local competent authorities on emission permit compliance;
- or other available relevant data[3].
It should, however, be completed with additional elements in order to have the most precise evaluation of the situation for all relevant substances.
I.2. Practical uses of the inventory (who will use it and for what purposes)
This guidance applies to the development of emission inventories for all substances contained in Annex 1, Part A of the EQS Directive and subsequent updates of this, as laid down in article 16(4) of the WFD. However, it is recommended to be used when MSs establish the inventory for the national, regional or local specific pollutants (Annex VIII of the WFD).
In practical termsWhen set up adequately, an these mandatory emission inventory inventories should develop into the basis for information thatbe seen as a tool which may can be used to:
● assist in establishing and implementing targeted reduction and phasing out measures regarding priority and priority hazardous substances (e.g. by identifying the main sources or pathways of the emissions, relative share of significant sources of water pollutants);
● estimate the efficiency of RBMP Programme of Measures (PoM);
● assess if or to what extent monitored concentrations are caused by natural sources (e.g. geogenic background) or long range transport processes;
● assist in checking the compliance of the emission , discharge and loss reduction and phasing out measures with the provisions of the WFD.
● allow the establishment of the emission trends over time and other indicators;
● identify gaps in knowledge, thus the need to develop strategies/policies.
Consequently the inventory will be used on all levels involved in the implementation of the WFD.
I.3. Potential foreseeable users of the guidance
The guidance document is targeted to those experts who are directly or indirectly involved in the establishment at the national level of the inventories of emissions, discharges and losses. Also, it will help the decision makers to support their decisions. The structure, presentation and terminology are therefore adapted to the needs of this category of experts and formal, legalistic language is avoided wherever possible.
I.4. Baseline and minimum expectations
Author: Rob Collins EEA, Joost van den Roovaart Nl, Esp.
Minimum Requirements
An inventory of annual emissions, discharges and losses of priority substances is required at national RBD scale (see section III.2 on spatial scale). Design of the inventory should account for the guidance provided in this document, for example, with respect to methodological approaches adopted which will influence the data organisation required (no data base required). Common nomenclature should be used wherever possible.
All priority substances should be addressed by the inventory. However, certain steps should be followed:
1) As a first step, an assessment of relevance/significance/important should be undertaken.
This will help identify relevant from non relevant priority substances at the district level for which only a basic estimation of loads will be necessary.
This significance assessment should draw not only upon results of monitoring programmes, including concentrations in water, sediment and biota, . but However, also all the information associated with the water bodies body under consideration and known to be at risk of not achieving good chemical status should be incorporate. and Especially, whenif the a substance is banned or no longer produced/ or used/banned.
The inventory should focus upon those substances found to be of significance.
It should be noted that evidence of non-significance is also required and needs to be provided via the inventory.
2) For the relevant substances selected in the first step, a more thorough analysis based on higher tier methodologies is recommended if data availability allows for such an approach.
It should be based on emission data: total load (kg/y), quantity discharged/production capacity (g/t), concentration (mg/l) reported for instance trough E-PRTR, UWWTD and emissions factors (especially for estimation of emissions coming from diffuse sources).
As a minimum requirement for the first inventory, point discharges of priority substances from industrial facilities and municipal wastewater plants (e.g. as required to be reported under E-PRTR) should be incorporated into the inventory.
Also as a minimum, a basic or approximate estimation of diffuse emissions, via, for example, the calculation of riverine loads should be provided. Double counting must always be avoided.
For the first inventory, one year’s worth of data is required between 2008 and 2010 (see section III.3 on temporal scale). Since diffuse emissions are strongly and positively correlated with rainfall/river flow (diffuse emissions can increase markedly in wet years) a 5-year average can be used to determine the single year diffuse emission. In this way, the influence of inter-annual hydrological variation can be significantly reduced. In the case of the riverine load method, flow normalisation techniques can be applied. The occurrence of extreme hydrological years should be noted.
Details of all calculation methods should be provided, including a description of uncertainty (see section IV.3.1). Methods should be harmonised as far as possible within international RBD’s whilst a consistency of method over time is desirable for all RBD’s (national and international) to ensure that temporal trends are not masked by variation arising from a change in calculation method. Requirements under the QA/QC Directive should be addressed (Ref needed).
It is anticipated that methodologies will generally become more sophisticated with later reporting cycles. Where such ‘higher tier’ methods are introduced re-calculation of emissions for earlier reporting dates should be undertaken and provided. In this way, not only will the quality of the original estimate be improved but consistency in methodology over time is maintained.
Link with existing reporting requirements (probaleyprobably later when the scheme is introduced)
The scheme can be used to point out the (most important) existing reporting requirements, for example:
● UWWTP-Directive: route S9
● Nitrate Directive: route S3 (I’m not sure about this one)
● E-PRTR (present situation): industry to UWWTP, route S13 (only a limited number of facilities), route S9 (UWWTP’s above the threshold)
● E-PRTR (future situation including reporting on diffuse sources): S1-S14 (is this correct?)
● SoE: PM (check which routes)
● OSPAR INPUT reports: M1, M3, M4, M5
● International reports for atmospheric deposition on marine area’s (EMEP inventory[4]): M6
● other?
● ..
It is quite easy to mark these reporting requirements in the scheme (we didn’t do it now).
The specific existing reporting requirements are further worked out in chapter 4 Working methodologies.
Different approaches (editorial redrafting)
It seemed the discussion during the last meeting in September resulted in a number of different posssible approaches, in which way a Emission Inventory can be worked out (please correct me if I am wrong). If we rank the methods (without judging what is the best or what is acceptable, because that is maybe a discussion which is not very useful?) from low to high level of detail and information, we see:
1. River load orientated approach.
In this approach the focus lies on quantifying the river loads to the sea, based on calculations using concentrations and water flows (route M1 in the scheme).
2. Pathway orientated approach.
In this approach the focus lies on the quantification of the relevant routes to the surface water (routes S1-S14 in the scheme).
3. Source orientated approach.
In this approach we are focusing besides the routes, also on the principal sources. In an ideal situation, this results in a complete coverage of the system.
The definitions of the different approaches are explained in the contribution of Stephan Fuchs on chapter 4 Working methodologies. We have to take care the scheme and the definitions represent the same content.
Discussion point: should we also add a “zero-option”, which is fully based on existing reporting requirements and no extra information is produced (of course we don’t want to stimulate this approach, but it makes the overview of the different approaches more complete and gives us a feeling of “a natural grow model”, adding more information and system knowledge raising the stairs from approach 0 to approach 3).