DRAFT 16/9/14
WG Groundwater
Questionnaire on MS Threshold Value (TV)methodologies
Introduction
The Blueprint to Safeguard Europe’s Water Resources concluded that the information provided in the first River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) on chemical status was not sufficiently clear to set a baseline. In the supporting information on groundwater it was noted that the methodologies for establishing Threshold Values (TVs) were not sufficiently transparent; the substances for which TVs were set and the TVs themselves varied widely, making it difficult to compare the classification results for the chemical status of groundwater bodies.
In the report“Groundwater Threshold Values – In-depth assessment of the differences in groundwater threshold values established by Member States” (Andreas Scheidleder, 2012),the key findings were that significant differences in reported TVs used in classification during the first cycle of RBMP were likely to be caused by:
- Variation in methodology for deriving Natural Background Levels(NBLs);
- Variation in EQS values used;
- Variation in safety margins applied to Drinking Water Standard (DWS) values, and in the DWS values used for parameters not covered by the DWD;
- Differences in the aggregation of monitoring results for reporting;
- Differences in the “acceptable extent of exceedance”;
- Differences in the typical areal extent of groundwater bodies (GWBs).
The report recommended that:
- There was transparency in reporting of methods used to create TVs; and
- A certain degree of harmonization of TVs (through the methods used to create them)should be applied to allow better comparability of results.
The purpose of this questionnaire:
- To gain a clearer understanding of why the TVs used in the first RBMPs vary so much;
- To understand the associated compliance regimes and the implications for monitoring;
- To understand if and how MS are revising their approach for the second cycle; and
- To gather evidence on which to base any proposals for rationalising the methods by which TVs are derived.
The approach adopted in this questionnaire is to focus on the methods used and request that MS representatives illustrate these methods with representative examples from identified groundwater bodies.
What do you need to do now?
Please fill in the form and associated spreadsheets and return these by the XXXXX by email to XXXX@XXXX.
How do you find out about the conclusions?
A summary of the information provided will be collated and further discussed in WG GW.
How to complete the form
The intention is to make the form as easy to fill out as possible whilst focusing in on relevant information. This Word document should be filled out electronically, pages can be added for additional text. There is an associated Excel spreadsheetfor recording the TV values used for each of the component classification tests for groundwater for one or more example GWBs in the first RBMP cycle and for any changes to TVs to be used in the next cycle for the same GWBs. Please do not use example groundwater bodies where there has been a change to the boundaries of the groundwater body between the first and second cycles. It should be clear how the TVs reported for the first cycle in the RBMPs link to the values you report here, for example, through describing any process of selection of final TVs for the groundwater body from those TVs derived from the component classification tests.
The questionnaire is structured so that the responses to sections 2-6 refer to the first RBMP cycle only. Any proposed changes for the second RBMP cycle should be captured in Section 7 of this form.
There are drop-down boxes for many of the columns in the spreadsheet to aid completion.
Where there are direct links to the 2016 Reporting Guidance (as of July 2014) these are indicated in square brackets e.g. : [2016 schema element : ProportionExceedenceAllowed].
Note: in all references to TVs/standards/background levels we have requested that you please indicate both the numeric value and the way this is used (associated compliance statistic such as a mean, maximum, 95%ile etc. and the timescale over which this applies e.g. instantaneous, daily, annual etc). Without such data it will not be possible to make valid comparisons.
1 Generic Information
Member State / XXXXXName of representative / YYYYY
Organisation / ZZZZZ ZZZZZZZ
Contact details (email/telephone number) / QQQQQQQ
Date of Completion/version number / sssssssssss
2 - Groundwater Chemical Classification
[2016 Schema elements: ClassificationMatrix + ThresholdValueElements]2.1aIn your Member State classification scheme did you make use of all 5 classification tests as noted in CIS Guidance Note No.18 ? Yes / No
Note: it is acknowledged that not all tests will be relevant to all groundwater bodies.
If yes, please answer 2.1b, if no please answer 2.1c
If yes, please complete Tabs 2 – 6 in the accompanying spreadsheet,
If no, please complete Tab 7 of the spreadsheet (please copy Tab 7 if you need more than one sheet to illustrate your classification scheme)
2.1b Did you apply the 5 tests as described in CIS Guidance Note No.18 Yes / No
If yes, please give details of how TVs are used in your responses to sections 5 and 6.
If no, please describe in general terms any variations on the 5 tests from what is set out in CIS GN18, including any variations for different substances/groups of substances, and provide details in your responses to sections 5 and 6.
2.1c Please describe belowwhat alternative method you used for GW chemical classification including the individual tests you used to assess statusat a water body level and give further details in your responses to sections 5 and 6.
Your MS response from the 2008 TV questionnaire is reproduced below (where available): please check/edit.
Test 1 – General chemical assessment (GCA)
Test 2 – Drinking Water Protected Areas (DWPA)
Test 3 – Surface Waters (Groundwater Dependent Aquatic Ecosystems - GWDAE)
Test 4 - Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTE)
Test 5 – Saline or other intrusions
Alternative classification procedure (if used)
3 – Natural Background Levels
3.1 How did you develop your Natural Background Levels as reported in the final RBMP? Please describe in sufficient detail to explain how this may affect the derivation of TVs.Your MS response from the 2008 TV questionnaire is reproduced below (where available): please check/edit.
3.2 What is the relationship between NBLs and the standards you have used in deriving TVs ? How did you consider NBLs in the overall compliance regime? Please describe in general terms here and indicate in the spreadsheet for the groundwater body examples.[2016 schema element – ThresholdValuesBackgroundLevels].
3.3 At what scale were the NBLs for individual substances or indicators developed? GWB level or nationally? In defining NBLsdid you use any assumptions about the variation in NBL over a groundwater body orany variation with groundwater type?
3.4How did you determine the substances for which NBLs were needed? Have you made any assumptions about specific substances? For example, have you assumed a NBL for naturally occurring substances only or have you defined any background levels for other substances?
3.5 For what substances have NBLs been set ? [2016 schema elements – BackgroundNaturalSubstancesIndicators + BackgroundOtherNaturalSubstances]. Please list in Tab 1 of the spreadsheet.
4 – Relevant Standards
Your MS response from 2008 TV questionnaire reproduced below (where available): please check/edit4.1What Environmental Quality Standardsfor surface water did you use? (Indicate whether you used recognised EC standards or if other standards were used, the source of these – please list them in the spreadsheet)
4.2 What directives and/or local legislation are the values used linked to?
4.3 Have you applied a safety margin (i.e. a reduction in the TV)? Yes / No
If Yes – what margin have you applied? Please specify reductions for different determinands, if necessary.
4.4 How did you derive your Environmental Quality Standards for GWDTEs? (Indicate whether you used recognised EC standards or if other standards were used, the source of these – please list them in the spreadsheet)
4.5 What directives and/or local legislation are the values used linked to?
4.6 Have you applied a safety margin (i.e. a reduction in the TV)? Yes / No
If Yes – what margin have you applied? Please specify reductions for different determinands, if necessary.
4.7 How did you derive your Drinking Water Standards?(Did you use Drinking Water Directive standards, more stringent standards or additional local standards?Please list them in the spreadsheet)
4.8 What directives and/or local legislation are the values used linked to?
4.9 Have you applied a safety margin (i.e. a reduction in the TV)? Yes / No
If Yes – what margin have you applied? Please specify reductions for different determinands, if necessary.
4.10 How did you derive your Receptor Based Standards? Which receptors did you consider and for which substances? (Indicate whether you used recognised EC standards or if other standards were used, the source of these – please list them in the spreadsheet)
4.11 What directives and/or local legislation are the values used linked to?
4.12 Have you applied a safety margin (i.e. a reduction in the TV)? Yes / No
If Yes – what margin have you applied? Please specify reductions for different determinands, if necessary.
1
DRAFT 16/9/14
5 – Threshold Value Derivation and Reporting
5.1 Describe the method used to calculate TVs for each classification test. To support this description please complete the attached spreadsheet to show what you mean in the context of one or more actual GWBs (whatever is necessary to illustrate all the methods used). If there are variations in approach for different substances or groups of substances, these should be noted and examples given in the spreadsheet.Use Tabs 2-6 if you have followed the classification tests noted in CIS guidance. If you have used an alternative method please use Tab 7. You may have used an approach which gives a blanket value across all groundwater bodies or associated surface water bodies/ GWDTE impacted by groundwater.[2016 schema element : LevelTVEstablished]. Or you may have applied a methodology which provided site specific values for each test. For example, this might be a percentage of the DWS for the GCA and DWPA tests, but for GWDTE systems TVs might be adjusted for each site depending on condition, altitude, or wetland category.
5.2 When reporting TVs how have you aggregated the individual TVs across a water body? How did you deal with different TVs for different tests? Have you used maximum and minimum values, reported a mean or median or a range etc.?
5.3 Record the TVs you have used in the first cycle of classification and supporting information for each test using the spreadsheet attached, for at least one GWB.
5.4 Are you proposing to make any changes to the classification tests and how you create and useTVs in the next RBMP? If so,describe your proposed changes in the table (section 7) below, making reference to the question numbers noted above.
Please complete the second set of columns in the attached spreadsheet to illustrate what values you may use and how these will differ from the first cycle, but only give the changes – do not repeat RBMP1 data if this has not changed.
6 – Compliance : TVs and status
6.1 : On what basis have groundwater bodies been delineated (e.g. hydraulic boundaries, administrative boundaries) ?6.2 : Is a uniform procedure for delineation applied for all GWBs or did you apply different approaches across your country? Please describethe approaches used.
6.3 For each classification test used in a groundwater body please describe:
- how TVs are used to assess status;
- the method of data aggregation;
- the length of time series data (from <year> to <year>) used in the aggregation;
- where relevant to the test, the acceptable extent of exceedance[2016 schema element : ProportionExceedenceAllowed].;
- how the extent of exceedance is calculated (if this varies between GWBs and substances please describe these variations and the underlying rationale for them) – [2016 schema element : Method/CriterionExtentExceedence].
7 Proposed second cycle changes
Question no. / Proposed change
1