31st Plenary Meeting of WG ‘Groundwater’, Bratislava, 25th-26th October 2016
24th November 2016
31stMeeting of the Groundwater Working Groupfor the WFD Common Implementation Strategy
25thOctober 2016 from 10.30–1740hrs
26th October 2016 from 0900–1520hrs
Bratislava
Draft Minutes
The Commission, DG EnvironmentUnit C.1 (hereafterreferred as DG ENV) invitedmembers of Working Groupon Groundwater (WGGW)to the 31stmeeting of the Working Group inBratislavaheld under the umbrella of theSlovakEU Presidency.
The meeting aimed to exchange experiences about implementation issues related to the Groundwater Directive 2006/118/EC (GWD) linked to activities under the WGGW work programme. This meeting also aimed at sharing information and knowledge on groundwater (gw) issues within the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) of the Water Framework Directive (WFD).
Co-Chairs:Johannes Grath (JG);Umweltbundesamt, Austria; Joaquim Capitão(JC) DG ENV;and Tim Besien (TB), Environment Agency of England, United Kingdom.
Participants: A full list of meeting participants is provided in Annex 1.
Agenda: Attached in Annex 2.
Access to presentations: All documents are available for download at[1]CIRCABC (via following path - Browse Categories/European Commission/Environment/Public Access-WFD CIRCA/Library/F-Working groups/b – WG Groundwater). The presentations are numbered below, as they appear on CIRCABC.
Day 1 – 25th October 2016
Session 1 welcome address by SK presidency (SK Representatives and WGGW Co-Chairs)
ZdenkaKelnarovawelcomed delegates to the 31st WGGW meeting, and apologised for the absence of Vladimir Novak, SK Water Director. She provided a summary of the water situation in SK and an introduction to the main topics to be covered in the meeting.
1.1 introduction to meeting
TB asked for agreement on agenda and approval of minutes of last meeting. No objections were raised.
Session 2 (chair TB)
2.1 Information from DG ENV – Joaquim CapitÃo (Details in Slides A1)
Updates on the activities under theCIS work programme for 2016-18 wereprovided by Joaquim Capitão (JC).
The fitness check on environmental monitoring and reporting provisionally identified the WFDreporting system as beinggenerally adequate.It was agreedin detail with relevant stakeholders, and therefore should not change significantly in the next cycles. There will be more work required for the Floods Directive reporting. An update on the work of WGGW was given at the preparatory SCG meeting. The peer review exerciseis beingreported and MS are to provide feedback on whether it is worth repeating it in the next years.
The Water Directors (WDs) meeting in June discussed the circular economy package, which includes the water re-use initiative. Guidelines for water re-use were endorsed by the WD. Minimum quality requirements for two of the main uses of recycled waste water i.e. irrigation and aquifer recharge will be put into a legislation proposal by mid-2017, after the final impact assessment is completed. BREFs are being developed for industrial water re-use. The water and agriculture task force work and the process of reviewing the WFD were also covered, with the launch of a discussion around Article 4.4 and the use of extensions after 2021.
So far 15 MS have uploaded RBMPs to WISE and full electronic reporting in line with the Reporting Guidance that was endorsed by Water Directors is proceeding. Annex 0s[2](which identify parts of the electronic reporting that will not be done for different reasons) will be reviewed systematically.
The WD have endorsed guidelines on indicators of progress, such that “hidden” progress (i.e. no change in status but with measures put in place) does not go unreported. These guidelines will need to be reviewed once there is sufficient data reported in electronic format, to assess the possibility of using them to show progress in implementation of the WFD.
Assessment of the plans reported by Member States by late spring / early summer 2017 will be completed, for each MS and international basins, by the end of 2017 / early 2018, in time to feed into the review of the WFD.
WG Chemicals will discuss priority substances and the surface waters (sw)watchlistand its monitoring at their meeting in December 2016. The water and agriculture group met on 24th October to identify priorities for future joint work. Overlapping areas with WGGW include pollution of gw through soils and abstraction for irrigation. One of the CIS ad hoc task groups will focus on developing guidance for Article 4.7. The refit of the DWD has been evaluated and there will be aCommission Staff Working Document summarizing this study, with more information available at
Discussion
Ronal Kozel (CH) - Chemicals Group work overlaps with gwwatchlist group, so we should share information from this work.
JC (COM) Chemicals Group knows of gwwatchlist group work, but there will be policy outcomes from the WD meeting this week which will feed into the subsequent December Chemicals Group meeting.
Tom Schaul (LU) - There is a link between DWD reviewand gwwatchlist to be kept in mind.
JC (COM) DWD is more complex as it has its owncommitteewith different forums, but the outcomes of WFD discussions are passed to the DWD groups. Each side is aware of the overlaps in work.
Ana Rita Lopes (PT) - Is the agricultural work being linked to the Nitrates Directive?
JC (COM) -The links to the NitratesDirective (for diffuse pollution) are being covered in the agricultural work (along with abstraction).
Manuel Sapiano (MT) – The agriculture and water workshop this week focused on: quantitative status, nutrients and pesticides and was a scoping meeting. The minutes of the meeting will be released and will be discussed by WD and AgriculturalDirectors early in 2017.
Kris Van denBelt (BE) – Timeline for minimum water quality standards seems too short?
JC (COM) - In line with the Commission's Communication on circular economy,the legislative proposal will cover minimum requirements for irrigation and aquifer re-chargeand should be adopted by mid-2017. It will go through impact assessment early 2017, proposal adoption, formal legislative process will start in 2017.
Barry van de Glind(NL) There has been a lot of work on swprogressindicators, but not gw.
JC (COM) – The indicators were endorsed by the WDs under the understanding that small adjustments may be needed depending on the data available from the Member States reporting. More substantial changes would need to be endorsed by Water Directors again.
Benjamin Lopez (FR) – Are metabolites included in the discussion about the DWD revision?
JC (COM) - Will pass this question to colleagues for their response.
Session 3 –WGGW Activities (Chair: TB)
3.1Voluntary GW Watch list (Rüdiger Wolter and Ronald Kozel) (Slides A2)
The gwwatchlist (WL) identifies emerging pollutants with potential to cause failure of WFD objectives for groundwater. The gw WL of substances will feed into Annex I (Europe wide TVs) and II (MS based), and enable MS to better design their monitoring networks.
There have been two meetings since the last plenary in Amersfoort: one in Vienna,where there was a reviewof procedure, and a meeting with NORMAN project in Paris. The procedure update to remove bypass for hazardous substances and ranking was developed with NORMAN experience. ColumnI was developed further (based on monitoring data and number of detections). Column II allows ranking with GUS approach based on leaching potential and half-life. Method to be tested with actual data, to be designed by the group, and finalised by the end 2016. The pharmaceuticals pilot studywas completed, and a second study in to PerfluorinatedCompounds (PFCs) will be designed by the end of this year.
Discussion
Volker Laabs (ECPA)–1 – When can we comment on the revised draft? 2 What are the deselection criteria for detected substances that don’t pose a problem?
JG(AT) – Immediate comments today and written comments by the 15th November.
Rüdiger Wolter(DE) – Substances are not excluded as there may be future changes in knowledge of behaviour. Substance deselection, where no issue, not yet considered.
RuxandraBalaet (RO) – Do you need more information and who will do the PFC study?
Rüdiger Wolter(DE) – Looking for support with the PFC study, Commission have been asked for support.
Ana Rita Lopes (PL) - Should you use the Chemicals WG experience for risk assessment?
Rüdiger Wolter (DE) – We want to develop our approach first and test it before looking at other substances. Agree we should work with other groups (and already are e.g. NORMAN).
Klaus Vangsgaard (DK) –In practice persistence is a more useful measure than mobility.
Ronald Kozel (CH) Both persistence and mobility are included by using monitoring data and the exposure assessment which is based on mobility and decay.
Rüdiger Wolter(DE) – These points are to be tested, so please provide experience in preferential flow areas and we can discuss in context of the work.
Manuel Sapiano (MT) – Can youdemonstrate the proposals through case studies?
JG (AT) – Case studies are already listed to be included at the next WG meeting.
Rüdiger Wolter(DE) –The pharmaceutical datacan be used as a test case.
Barry van de Glind (NL) In terms of data collection what and when will you request?
Rüdiger Wolter(DE) –Focus on known problem substances, including swwatchlist.
JG (AT) – A stepwise approach to design and test was agreed with the Commission.
Kris Van den Belt (BE) –Similar approachesare used by drinking water companies. In Column III can you prioritise when you have no data?
Rüdiger Wolter (DE) – Where there are no data on toxicity / mobility / persistence then further work / research needs to be done to agree a way forward.
Rob Ward (BGS UK) – Before we share this concept phase paper with other groups WGGW should sign it off. The gw WL is iterative: there will always be new data to fill gaps. We need to identify where we have gaps and plan the data gathering.
Benjamin Lopez (FR) –Uncertainty is high, especially for emerging substances, so this is not the final answer and expert judgement at MS level is also required.
AlexandraLequien (FR). This work is also important for good chemical status, and we must not forget this main objective of the work.
Ronald Kozel (CH) – We can check Column I and II (for pharmaceuticals) but will have to see what is possible for Column III. More volunteers would be helpful.
Rob Ward (BGS UK) – Demonstrate the process selected substances with adequate data for Columns I, II and III. Analyse gaps where there is less information to plan work.
Rüdiger Wolter (DE) – Will start with pharmaceuticals, then look at other substancesto see what data is available from for example NORMAN.
Barry van de Glind (NL) Will you complete the work in time for the WFD review?
Rüdiger Wolter (DE) – As volunteers we are limited, extending the timescale will not help completion.
3.2GWThreshold Values (draft ToR) (CHAIR JC) (Johannes Grath) (Slides A3)
The proposal by the co-chairs on WGGW on how to proceed with TVs is available.
Recommended basic measures to reduce variability included: reporting TVs by test; dealing with the natural background level use; clarifying the objectives for TVs setting.
The ToR for the current activity distinguishes between reporting (minor work) and procedural issues (checking existing methods use all relevant information for the status tests). The draft ToR proposes to:
- Establish a clear line of sightbetween characterisation, pressures and impacts and classification.
- Improve the comparability of TVs.
- Improve consistency and clarity in reporting of TVs.
- Ensure a common purpose for setting TVs.
Timetable for work: Update the ToR after today’s sessions; progress by end of 2016 including 2nd RBMP reporting. Present interim results at Malta.
Discussion
JC (COM) – Not sure how much information from RBMPs will be available for this work, due to the current delays in reporting.
Balazs Horvath (European Environmental Bureau (EEB)– Transparency is important for stakeholders.It is important to be able to understand the reason for different statusacross national borders, especially in transboundary RBs.
Klaus Hinsby (Eurogeosurveys) –MS still to establish GWAAEs TVs which bring much more variability.
HanaPrchalová(CZ) – Natural background is reported by GWB, but TVs reported only by RBD, this should be harmonised in the future.
JC (COM) –We should request minimal changes to reporting to WDs.
JG (AT) – Variation large in the 2015 report, based on information from WG GW so it isn’t just the reporting that is at fault.
Tom Schaul (LU)–As some MS consider metabolites for poor chemical status this will cloud the picture. Until there is a common position from the Commission then this will always be a problem.
Parallel Sessions Discussions on TVs
Questions for the parallel sessions:
- Do you agree with the general contents of the document?
- Do you have specific suggestions to amend it?
- Other suggestions to progress on this topic?
- Do you volunteer to participate in this task group?
- Would you agree to contribute in other ways (e.g. present case study in workshop)?
Outcomes of the two sessions as summarised by the rapporteurs:
Group 1 (Jacqueline Classens NL)
The terms of reference are logical and a good starting point.
The most important objective is to define the common purpose behind TVs:
- scale to which TVs are applied (GWB versus local)
- should TVs be set at good/poor boundary or should TVs determine good/poor status?
Update of guidance may be necessary, but should be based on previous guidance documents.
General comments:
Comparability of status assessment is more important than comparability of TV methodologies. Improving the comparability at EU level may lead to difficulties at the national level between cycles. Focus on real deterioration and not on artificial deterioration due to changes in TVs. Is the common value for nitrate sufficient to protect DWP? Or is the question whether 50 mg/l is sufficient to protect ecosystems?
Specific suggestions:
Status assessment should be determined by risk (of failing objectives). Identify substances as naturally occurring or not. Identify and separate human impact and NBL.
Harmonisation shouldn’t restrict the ability to take into account local conditions. It is better to streamline NBL methods rather than restricting them. Can the GWWL methodology be used to assess TVs? Within one hydrogeological system different (lower) TVs can be used to protect sw. Use case studies to demonstrate outcomes.
Carry out an equivalence check (comparison) of the:
- -range of TVs
- -which receptors are protected
Volunteers: Italy, UK, Netherlands
Case studies: Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania
Group 2 (Katarina Pilatova SK)
Agreement with the ToRprovided
Objective 1:
- The objective shall include that a common understanding between WG GW members should be achieved
- Add in a method by receptor for selected substances causing poor status in the latest planning cycle.
- Need a better defined goal for the workshop e.g. case study on how to define TVs for one test (preferably General Quality Assessment GQA) for a limited number of selected pollutants. The TVs methodology for different receptors for these selected substancesshall be analysed to identify whether for that particular test the development of TVs using different methods provides comparable results. The main emphasis shall be put on GQA test.
Objective 3: Specific reference made to tests
Objective 4: Delete wording “restricting the number of methods”
Overall, there is a need for new guidance (an amendment / supplement to current guidance). Visualisations / indicators for GW reporting (i.e. not just using maps) are needed.
Discussion
Barry van de Glind (NL) – Why isn’t the term“intercalibration” used?
TB (UK) – Intercalibration is not the correct term,it is a comparison exercise between MS.
JG (AT) & JC (COM) - Propose not to use this term, the intercalibration exercise for ecological status of surface waters is more complex than what is aimed at in this case.
Kris van der Belt (BL) - Is equivalence check the correct wording?
TB (UK) Group 1 learning point was the need for a common purpose for TVs. Varying interpretations could be combatted by a stronger demonstration of the guidance.
JG (AT) – Summary: the draftToR, including the timeline, are available on CIRCABC, including today’s changes. Common understanding of TVs to be incorporated to draft ToR. Provide further written comments by 15th November.
3.3 WFD and GWD Annexes review – Chair JC (COM) (Slides A3)
The Commission hasclarified that Article 4.4 can be used in the 2021 plans, for extensions to achievement of status objectives, and Article 4.5 is not an escape route for not achieving objectives. The conditions for the use of Article 4.4 in the 2021 plans will be discussed further in the WD meeting in November. Natural conditions in Article 4.4 include lag time for the results of measures. Before any discussions on the review can start the 2nd cycle RBMPsneed to be assessed, which is why we are aiming to report on this earlier than the 2018 date required in the Directive. Studies on economics and governance to support WFD review are ongoing.
Discussion
Barry Van de Glind (NL) – In the Annex review in 2013 there was not enough monitoring data and the watchlist was developed. In 2018-19 we need the WL outcomes, will it be ready in time without more support?
JC (COM) -The more immediate watchlist results could be pushed forward to middle of next year, early 2018 for use in review.
Rüdiger Wolter (DE) – We do have data forpharmaceuticals and PFCs, so we could propose substances for TVs to the Commission. The challenge is to summarise data for decision making.
JC (COM) - Some information could be included without completing the whole process. Chemical pollutants issue to be covered in WD meeting so will have more views then.
Manuel Sapiano (MT) WGGW is better placed to do technical review and gap analysis on the directive’s effectiveness. Scope out the review and present to group in Malta.
JC (COM) Want the widest review basis. Need to wait for all of the RBMPs. Not all technical recommendations will survive the political process. Please ensure consistency with the discussion that is starting at the level of WDs.
Co-chairs agree to start scoping exercise in the group. Need to include the conclusions of the discussions that will take place in the November WD meeting. Will inform SCG of the work of the group this week, including this proposed activity.
Day 2 –26th october 2016
Recap from previous day
JG (AT) – Watchlist concept paper agreed in principle. Comments received by 15th Nov. 2016 will be integrated.The procedure will be tested. The findings of the test will be presented at the next plenary meeting of the WG. In case needed, the procedure will be amended.