Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
DRAFT TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON EMISSION
Version 0
21/01/2011
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 use of the guidance
I 4 Baseline + minimum expectations
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.7. Pathways
II.8. Retention (removal and intermediate storage processes)
III. GENERAL COMPONENTS OF AN INVENTORY
III.1. General working scheme
III.3. Temporal scope of the inventory (Author: JH/MD)
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.1.3. Pathway oriented approaches including hydrology driven transfer processes
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.3.2 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
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. 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), as products or as unintended by-products, they may be of historical nature or used daily in household products. Once they are in the aquatic ecosystem (fish, plants, food chain, etc.) it may cause harm to it or it may affect human health through the exposure route (e.g. drinking, bathing, seafood, etc.). Furthermore, these pollutants may be 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 --
I.1. Legal requirements (EQS reporting obligations, etc)
Article 5 of Environmental Quality Standard (EQS) Directive 105/2008/EC 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. In a further step 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).
(Article 16 of the WFD). A further objective of the WFD is the “no deterioration” requirement.
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. (include Table with the main issues from Art. 5 and the recitals).
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 the priority substances causing problems. 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],
- 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.
The efforts should be directed mainly to the relevant substances for the Member State of concern, but the level of sophistication is expected to improve with the different cycles of the River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs).
I.2. Practical uses of the inventory (who will use it and for what purposes)
This guidance applies to the substances contained in Annex 1, Part A of the EQS Directive. 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 terms, an emission inventory should be seen as a tool meant 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 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 use 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 + minimum expectations
Author: Rob Collins EEA, Joost van den Roovaart Nl, Esp.
In the text an effort is made to make relevant connections with other parts of the Draft Guidance and with the contributions of other members of the Drafting Group.
Link with existing reporting requirements
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
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).
Also these four approaches can be illustrated pointing at different parts of the scheme, so you can see the area of information covered by the inventory growing from 0 to 3 (scheme 2).
Maybe we have to add another part, namely the quantification of the processes like degradation and sedimentation, that also have a place in the scheme. It seems not really “an approach”, but adds sure a lot of important knowlegde to the inventory. We can discuss this.
Tiered approach
In the last meeting we discussed the term “tiered approach”. This definition is also used in air emission inventories (EMEP/EEA Emission Inventory Guidebook) and we distinguish three levels or “Tiers” of emission estimation methods:
Tier 1: method using readily available statistical data on the intensity of processes.
Tier 2: similar to Tier 1, but uses more specific emission factors developed on the basis of knowledge of the types of processes and specific process conditions that apply in the country for which the inventory is being developed.
Tier 3: is defined as any methodology that is more detailed than Tier 2.
Applying this concept on the 4 approaches mentioned above, it can help us to differ the level of detail and completeness within each approach. This will show on one hand the differences within one approach (and make it more realistic to compare with real methods used in the different counties) and on the other hand make it possible to “grow in quality” within one approach from less detailed to high detailed. If we use 3 levels of detail for each approach, the result is a matrix.
This matrix can be used to describe in more details the different approaches and the possibilities to enlarge the level of detail and the quality of the estimation methods. It seems possible to make a link with specific parts of the existing Draft Document and with contributions of members on specific items (such as emission factors, Life Cycle Asessment (LCA), etc).
In The Art of Emission Inventorying (TNO) four dimensions are mentioned that define the environmental pressure of an emission:
- what (which pollutant or substance),
- why (what economic activity or sector causes the emission),
- when (the time dependance of the emission),
- where (the location of the emission).
For all four of the items (in fact not really for the first one, because we mostly define separate substances), an increase of level of detail will be possible. I think it is not necessary to split each box in the matrix below in four separate boxes, that might make it too complex, but it seems useful to keep these 4 dimensions in mind filling the boxes. In general, for all approaches, an increase of detail is possible by reporting more substances, reporting also below thresholds, more geographical detail (basin, sub-basin, waterbody), more details on the sources (traffic > road traffic > vans > brake wear) and more details in time (once in a few years, yearly, summer-winter, decade) and the use of location-specific emission factors, production data (and LCA information) and detailed statistical data.
It should be possible to pinpoint existing inventories by the different countries (as we describe in chapter 4 Working methodologies) in the matrix if this helps us in the Guidance Document.
We should discus if this method really helps us in the Guidance Document, maybe it goes too much in detail. On the other hand, it might help us in the discussion (that will come up in the drafting group) how to define the different approaches in more details.
Level of detail->approach / simple / medium / high
0: existing reports
1: river loads
2: pathways
3: sources
Other important items
Beside the items mentioned above, we should also discuss some additional items at the meeting – for example, what are our (DG ENV’s) minimum expectations:
● Transparency including details of methods, causes of and estimates of uncertainty
● A need for consistency and comparability
● Minimum Expectations
● Avoidance of Double Counting
● Allowance for re-calculation of previously reported data in subsequent submissions
● Testing and benchmarking?
II. TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
II.1. Process schematic
(Author for this plus II.5 and II.6. Greet Vos, Georg Windhofer, Michaela, Joost, and Klaas)
The need for a general working scheme is also expressed under chapter III.1.
The General overview of the HARP-HAZ PROTOTYPE ( p 34) can be discussed on the 2the meeting as the basis for the document, adapted to the terms and definitions used.
Other schemes of this type are:
- Emission sources and pathways to be considerd (Fuchs et al., 2010) (p 38)
- The WEISS scheme, with adapted terminology to this guidance ( p 40)
Complimentary to the functional scheme of the emissions inventory, a general flow scheme can help to define approaches, terms and definitions.
See an example of a general flow scheme on p 41. Such a flow scheme applied to the results in the inventory contribute to the transparency of the method(s) used.
The domain of the different approaches ( source, pathway, riverine load) is indicated in the schemes on p 42-43. Correspondences/divergency with the terms used in other parts of the guidance ( chapter IV) has to be discussed.