1. Some concepts for quantifying emissions of Priority Substances
WFD WG E Drafting Group on Emissions meeting 9 September 209
Some concepts for quantifying emissions of Priority Substances
Bo N. Jacobsen
Project manager – Water
European Environment Agency

2. of Hazardous Substances
Some elements in the assessment and control of hazardous substances in water
Monitoring
Detection
methods
Assesment and Control
of Hazardous Substances
in Water
Fate
Regulation
Pollution control
Risk
assessment
(Jacobsen, 2003)

3. Emissions:only a fraction
Toxicity
testing
Emissions:only a fraction
Chemical
analyses
Drinking
water
Wastewater
Receiving
water
Sludge
Environment
Monitoring
Detection
methods
Contaminated soils
and sediments
Emissions
Assesment and Control
of Hazardous Substances
in Water
Process
kinetics
Fate
Regulation
Industrial
products
Modelling
Pollution control
Risk
assessment
Cleaner
industrial
production
Consumers’
awareness
Harzard
assessment
Treatment
technology
Exposure
assessment

4. Concepts for quantifying emissions to water
Direct reporting from MS
Via e-PRTR per facility
Via WFD per RBD / sub-unit (Guidance 21, p.47)
Via ESTAT / OECD JQ-IW per country (Table 7)
Estimation from specific studies
EU granted studies (NORMAN, KNAPPE, NEPTUNE,...)
National monitoring programmes
Own data from utilities
To be extrapolated via UWWTD reporting database (WISE)
Estimation from production, consumptions and uses (detergents, pharmaceuticals, EUSES approach)
Aggregated data on emissions can be compared with river monitoring data from flux stations

5. Urban waste water treatment
WISE MapViewer, ref. 2005/2006
Urban waste water treatment
Live zoom
Urban Waste Water Treatment
Tertiary treatment (nutrient removal)
Secondary treatment (removal of oxygen consuming substances)
Primary treatment
No treatment
Zoom

6. Detailed knowledge is available on UWWTP locations, type, size, etc.

7. Currently, relatively few data are displayed on WISE MapViewer

8. Monitoring data sources to shortlist emerging pollutants
”global monitoring” e.g. in the arctics identifying trends in occurrence of bio-magnifying substances (AMAP Programme,..)
River or Sea Convention priorities from own monitoring programmes (water, sediment, biota,..)
National priorities from own monitoring programmes (water, sediment, biota,..)
Local or regional investigative monitoring, see following examples linking with biomonitoring

9. Algae toxicity - Avedoere WWTP, DK – presented at NORMAN workshop 17-18.03.2008, see website
Toxic Units for EC10,72h
(DHI, 2006;)
Year n
Influent *
Effluent 4 21
< 3,3 28
< 2
/ 2 **
Arithmetric average of flowproportionale week composite samples
Algae: Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata ; ISO Standard 8692
* incl. Reject water ** 4 influent- og 2 effluent samples

10. Contributions to calculated Toxic Units for algae EC50
Avedoere WWTP (DK) – presented at NORMAN workshop , see website

11. bioaccumulation in mussels – Avedoere WWTP exposed to undiluted treated effluents for 6-7 weeks

12. Selected results for bioaccumulation in mussels exposed to Avedoere WWTP effluent in – presented at NORMAN workshop , see website

13. bioaccumulation in mussels, Avedoere WWTP, DK (2005) Bromated flame retardants – presented at NORMAN workshop , see website

14. Tiered risk assessment approach
Basic ecotoxicity and exposure data no
No environmental hazard to be expected
PEC / PNEC ≥ 1 ?
yes
Refined ecotoxicity and exposure data no
PEC / PNEC still ≥ 1 ?
yes
(Knacker and Duis, 2003)
Risk management

15. Summary
Emission of hazardous substances may be quantified by different strategies
Comparisons of independent estimations give an impression of data coverage and accuracy
Coupling of monitoring by chemical analyses and bioassays give added value for monitoring efficiency and assessment of emerging pollutants

16. Thank you for your attention
What do you think ?