A Decision Support System for management of priority substances in river basin management plans

A Decision Support System for management of priority substances in river basin management plans

Willy van Tongeren, Ruud Baartmans

ScorePP International Workshop 2-3 February 2010, Lyngby, Denmark

ScorePP Workshop 2-3 February 2010, Denmark

A Decision Support System for management of priority substances

in river basin management plans

Willy van Tongeren, Ruud Baartmans, Jaap van der Vlies, Anna Jöborn, Anna Palm-Cousins, Mohammed

Belhaj, John Munthe, Tuomas Mattila, Susanne Ullrich, Jozef Pacyna, Kyrre Sundseth, Geraldine Ducos

Outline

• Introduction: – Aim/background– Water Framework Directive/ RBMP’s

• Decision Support System– Step by step plan– Tools– Web based application

• Conclusions

http://www.tno.nl/

WFD planning cycle

Now, we are already here…

Characterisation

Plan of Action

Monitoring Programme

Significant Water Issues

Environmental Objectives

Programme of Measures

Draft RBMP

Final RBMP

ImplementProgramme of

Measures

Achieve ObjectivesUpdate RBMP

2009

2008

2006

2004

20152012

PublicParticipation

Characterisation

Plan of Action

Monitoring Programme

Significant Water Issues

Environmental Objectives

Programme of Measures

Draft RBMP

Final RBMP

ImplementProgramme of

Measures

Achieve ObjectivesUpdate RBMP

2009

2008

2006

2004

20152012

PublicParticipation

RBMP’s: Some key questions (for PS’s)

• Actual and future status of waters?• Possible sources?• Possible measures?• Effects of measures:

… concentration reduction?… costs? … other effects?

• Who to consult, who to decide with?• Etc.

At some time, not far from now…

Mr. Jones, Some-Where Water• Working at Some-Where Water• Is responsible for drafting a

chapter on priority substances in the RBMP

• Is neither a scientist nor an economist

Fortunately, he has the SOCOPSEDSS Handbook which provides him guidance and an approach…

Aim• Support water authorities and other stakeholders to

make plans and take decisions for the control of PSs– Identify current and future environmental problems– Asses effectiveness and impacts of various measures– Help to select the measures

• At local, national and European level, and/or at river basin level (RBMP’s)

• Transparent decision making• Make optimal use of local knowledge, experiences, etc.

Decision Support System

Step by Step Plan Supporting Tools / Data bases, etc.

Place in the projectW

P 1

Coo

rdin

atio

n

WP 2

Material Flow

Analyses

WP 3

Management, Technologies

WP 4


WP 5

Case Studies

Final evaluation and report

WP

6

Dissem

ination an

d stakehold

er interactio

ns

WP

1

Coo

rdin

atio

n

WP 2

Material Flow

Analyses

WP 3

Management, Technologies

WP 4


WP 5

Case Studies

Final evaluation and report

WP

6

Dissem

ination an

d stakehold

er interactio

ns

Approach

• Based on socio economic evaluation methods • Structured, Step by step• Additional methods and tools• Strong Stakeholder involvement • Gives support, does not make decisions

http://www.tno.nl/

The steps

Step 1:Problem definition

Step 2:Inventory of sources

Step 3:Definition of a baseline scenario

Step 5:Assessment of the effects of the measures

Step 4:Inventory of possible measures

Step 6:Selection of the best solutions

Step 0:System definition








Update plans(2015)















Step 0: System definition=(WFD requirement)

• Define physical boundaries• Characterize geographical, physical, chemical,

biological and societal conditions• Identify key stakeholders *tool

in decision-making process

Step 1: Problem definition

• To indicate:– Areas of EQS exceedance– Areas where PS concentrations increase in time

• Result: table/map of indicating the areas where EQS’s are exceeded and/or where concentrations increase in time








table/map of actual areas of exceedance

concentrations exceeding EQS or

increasing?

no

yes

continue monitoring

according to WFD

set upmonitoring plan

noyes

"sufficientdata?”

yes

measure actualconcentrations

no

harmonized protocols available?

yes / not relevant

no

harmonize protocols RB wide

Input for Step 2

Input from Step 0

no

yes

guidelinesfor

monitoringand

analysis

EQS or other target values

define data needed

monitoringdata

available?

report lack of data to

national level

data quality OK?

yes

look at EAQC-WISE outcome

other informationavailable?

get advise from EU CMA (*

*EU Chemical Monitoring Activity Group (or future bodies) on how to handle data quality

no

look at EAQC-WISEoutcome

guidelines for data

quality (input EAQC-WISE)

#1

#2

#3

#4

#10

#5

#6

#12

#14

#8

#9

#7

#11

#13

#15table/map of actual areas of exceedance


increasing?

no

yes

continue monitoring

according to WFD


noyes

"sufficientdata?”

yes


no


yes / not relevant

no


Input for Step 2

Input from Step 0

no

yes

guidelinesfor

monitoringand

analysis


define data needed

monitoringdata

available?


national level

data quality OK?

yes





no


guidelines for data


#1

#2

#3

#4

#10

#5

#6

#12

#14

#8

#9

#7

#11

#13

#15








Overview result problem definitionLocations

1 2 3 …

Substances 1 No problem

2 Increasing concentrations

?

3 Decreasing concentrations

… X% higher than EQS ?

Step 2: Inventory of sources

Where is the pollution coming from and what is the level ?

• EU wide inventory of major sources of emissions to air, water and soil which affect PS in various aquatic ecosystems (SFA, WP 2)

• Which sources are relevant for areas of exceedance?• Calculate emissions from emission factors• Use of models















Step 3: Definition of baseline scenario(=Fine tuning the problem definition)

• To what extend additional measures are necessary to improve water quality taking into account the measures already taken?

• Is there a reason to assume that the present situation of water quality will change or will be different in future?– If so: why?– Will problem change?








Step 4: Inventory of possible measures

Envisage relevant and possible management options for actual and future areas of exceeding (WP 4)

• Measures for polluters– Process-oriented options – End-of-pipe techniques

• Policy instruments– Substitution of product/substance– Community level options








http://www.tno.nl/








measures database

table of possible measures per substance-source combination

Input for Step 5

future areas of exceedance and possible sources

Input from Step 3

table of possible (single) measures per source-substance combination

does measureapply to more than 1 source

or substance?

no

yes

consider to apply measure for more than 1 source or substance

measure relevant for

source?

no

yes

skip measure

measures database


Input for Step 5


Input from Step 3



or substance?

no

yes



source?

no

yes

skip measure

Data base of abatement measures

• Census of all possible abatement and substitution measures by substance;

• It was constituted on the basis of:– A bibliographic review : about 450 references ; – A survey questionnaire : about 200 contacts ; – Exchanges with stakeholders during 3 workshops:

(Paris, Katowice, Nieuwegein.)

http://www.tno.nl/

Database of “triplets”: measure-substance-emission source

Source categories Emission sources Measures Substances Triplet_nrIndustry and craft industry Large Combustion Plant Optimization WWTP Mercury 59Industry and craft industry Large Combustion Plant Ion exchange Mercury 60Industry and craft industry Large Combustion Plant Membrane filtration Mercury 61Industry and craft industry Large Combustion Plant Run-off management Mercury 65Industry and craft industry Iron & Steel Production Recycling and reuse Mercury 67

Industry and craft industry Iron & Steel ProductionPre-treatment of waste water from technological process

Mercury 69

Industry and craft industry Iron & Steel Production Run-off management Mercury 71

Industry and craft industry Iron & Steel Production Optimization WWTP Mercury 73Industry and craft industry Iron & Steel Production Ion exchange Mercury 75Industry and craft industry Iron & Steel Production Membrane filtration Mercury 76Industry and craft industry Iron & Steel Production Activated carbon adsorption Mercury 77Community WT Waste water treatment plants Electrochemical oxidation NPE 182Community WT Waste water treatment plants Biological drying of sludge NPE 190Community WT Waste water treatment plants Incineration of sludge NPE 192

Community WT Waste water treatment plantsAlternative uses of sludge than agriculture: secondary fuel

NPE 193

Hydromorphology Pesticides applications Grass strips, hedges NPE 225Hydromorphology Pesticides applications Riparian zones NPE 232Hydromorphology Pesticides applications Constructed wetlands NPE 235Hydromorphology Pesticides applications Run-off storage facilities NPE 236

Excerpt from the database

Technical Feasibility Total score:Type of pollution point sourceMatrix waste water from dental facilitiesApplication rangeLimits and restrictionsComplexity of implementation simpleImpact on the process / factory

Performance / Env. impact Total score:Concentration reduction >99% Calculated removal efficiencies for

chairside filtration systems ranged from 93 to >99%. Currently marketed commercial amalgam separation units can remove >99% of particulate Hg.

Removal of other substances NoCross-media effects NoEnergy consumption lowProduction of waste low

Costs Total score:Investment costs low?Operational costs low requires minimal maintenance

State of the art Total score:BATExisting technology Yes amalgam separatorsEmerging technology YesApplications YesReferences Substance Report (revision no. 2, 1 February 2008)Table last updated on 11-feb-08

Fact Sheet for Mercury (Hg)Measure/source combination EoP-8

Dental wastewater treatmentTotal score

Remarks















Step 5: Assessment of the effects of the measures

• What are the effects of measures?– Depict reduction of concentration– Costs of concentration reduction– Other relevant effects? Which?

http://www.tno.nl/

• For each substance, we gathered and synthesized information

Qualitative assessment:

Triplet_nb Measure Technical feasibility

Env. Performances

Costs State of the art

154Oxidative technique: ozone

Pol: Point source Cmp: AverageImp: NoLim: High (depends on water quality)

SCORE = 0

Eff: AverageOth: YesEn: ?CE: ?W: Yes

SCORE = -

IC: AverageOC: Average (depends on water organic load)

SCORE = 0

St: Emergent App: Some

SCORE = +

145Activated carbon adsorption

Pol: Point sourceCmp: LowImp: NoLim: Low

SCORE = ++

Eff: Average Oth: YesEn: ?CE: NoW: Yes

SCORE = +

IC: Average (depends on the existing treatment system)OC: Average

SCORE = +

St: BATApp: Several

SCORE = ++

Type of pollution (Pol)Complexity of implementation (Cmp)Impact on the process of the factory (Imp)Limits and restrictions (Lim)

Efficiency of emission reduction (Eff)Removal of other pollutants than SOCOPSE ones (Oth)Consumption of energy (En)Cross-effects (CE),Production of waste (W)

Investment costs (IC)Operational costs (OC)

Status of the technique (St)Number of applications (App)

(Substance = DEHP)

Excerpt from Substance Report on DEHP

Step 6: Selection of the best options

• In dialogue with main stakeholder groups• Method:

… Costs and concentration reduction: CEA… If also ‘other effects’: (quick scan) SCBA or MCA

• No force to require means, only targets (EQSs):selection is advice to apply by the polluters








The MultiCriteria Analysis (ELECTRE Model INERIS):• Ranking of triplets according to criteria and weights:

– Efficiency = 1/3 – Share = 1/6

– Costs = 1/6– Availability = 1/6 – Co-benefits = 1/12– Scale = 1/12

• Weights are allocated in order to get the same weighting between total costs and total benefits

Total environmental benefits = 1/2

Total costs = 1/2

Quantitative assessment:• For each substance, we asked experts to fill-in a data table:

Triplet_nb Sources Measures Subst Share(%)

Eff(0-10)

Costs(0-10)

Avail(0-10)

Co-ben(0-10)

Scale(0-10)

29Production of polymers/plastics

Substitution of PVCDEHP 4 7 5 6 10 1

98 Production of DEHP Substitution of DEHP DEHP 1 6 4 8 10 1

140Waste water treatment plants

Optimization WWTPDEHP 3 6 10 7 4 1


Activated carbon adsorption DEHP 3 8 8 9 8 1


Oxidative techniques : ozone DEHP 3 5 6 7 6 1


Oxidative techniques: UV DEHP 3 7 7 9 5 1


Membrane filtration: Ultra filtration DEHP 3 8 6 9 4 1

(Substance = DEHP)

Excerpt from the datatable

Rank Triplet_nb Source Measures Subs Share Eff Costs Avail Co-ben Scale

11 245 Surface water treatment

Activated carbon adsorption Atrazine 50 8 8 9 1 4

1 78 Non-ferrous metals industry

Recycling and reuse Cd 26.5 10 7 10 4 8

34 213 Uses of (non) polymers Legislation on disposals DEHP 90 5 10 6 1 136 223 Rural run-off Grass strips, hedges HCB 32 7 6 10 4 1

8 229 Farm point-source Sharing equipment or spraying by contractors Isoprot 35 9 8 9 1 1

5 120 Battery and cell production

Mercury substitution Hg 16 10 8 8 10 1

21 160 Waste water treatment plants

Oxidative techniques: chemical NPE 80 9 3 8 1 1

3 206 Domestic coal combustion

Combustion control and optimization PAH 25 9 9 10 1 1

29 30 Production of polymers/plastics

Improving raw material handling PBDE 18 7 9 9 1 1

4 102 Chemical industry Substitution of TBT in fungicides TBT 25 9 9 9 10 1

(Best measure by substance)

Application at the European level for all substances:

Tools

• Models• Substance Flow Analyses• Substance reports

• Fact Sheets• Additional tools

• MCA,• SCBA, • Stakeholder analyses • ….

Conclusions• DSS can help different stakeholders with plan updates

– Current RBMP– Future RBMP

• Handbook and web based DSS user friendly: … Step by step plan… Measures for source-substance combinations… Environmental fate modelling… Economic evaluation methods

• DSS developed & successfully tested in cases– Large differences in management structure– Large differences in data availability– Large difference in Data quality

Possible improvements / recommendations

How to deal with uncertainties Data on sources Effect of Measures: Costs !!

Matrix effects measures Disturbance Co-benefits

Other substances Non-Technological measures Links with other directives (REACH, ….) Cooperation between countries (Emission Registration) Update and maintenance !!??

www.socopse.eu

Also this story has a happy end,

So Mr Jones Changes to …

A Happy Water Prince ?

Thank you

ScorePP Workshop:2-3 February 2010

[email protected]

http://www.tno.nl/

Water Framework Directive• A legal framework for achieving good ecological

and chemical status in waters across Europe• Management by river basin• Limits in concentration of 33 priority substances

(PSs) • Result obligation in 2015 (2027 ultimately)

River basin management plans:First plan: 2009, updated plan: 2015

Decision Schemes

table/map of actual areas of exceedance


increasing?

no

yes

continue monitoring

according to WFD


noyes

"sufficientdata?”

yes


no


yes / not relevant

no


Input for Step 2

Input from Step 0

no

yes

guidelinesfor

monitoringand

analysis


define data needed

monitoringdata

available?


national level

data quality OK?

yes





no


guidelines for data


#1

#2

#3

#4

#10

#5

#6

#12

#14

#8

#9

#7

#11

#13

#15table/map of actual areas of exceedance


increasing?

no

yes

continue monitoring

according to WFD


noyes

"sufficientdata?”

yes


no


yes / not relevant

no


Input for Step 2

Input from Step 0

no

yes

guidelinesfor

monitoringand

analysis


define data needed

monitoringdata

available?


national level

data quality OK?

yes





no


guidelines for data


#1

#2

#3

#4

#10

#5

#6

#12

#14

#8

#9

#7

#11

#13

#15







Step 0:System definitionStep 1: Problem definition

table/map of actual problem areas emissiondatabasewith EU

inventories

Input from Step 1

table with sector/source specific emissions

Input for Step 3

what are the possible sources?

which are relevant in the area of interest?

compile emission factors and site-specific activities

calculate emissions

MFA

generalguidelines

to MFA

locationspecific

information

table/map of actual problem areas emissiondatabasewith EU

inventories

emissiondatabasewith EU

inventories

Input from Step 1

table with sector/source specific emissions

Input for Step 3

what are the possible sources?

which are relevant in the area of interest?

compile emission factors and site-specific activities

calculate emissions

MFA

generalguidelines

to MFA

generalguidelines

to MFA

locationspecific

information

locationspecific

information







Step 0:System definitionStep 2: Inventory of sources

Decide upon the time frame: WHEN is the change happening?

What key-drivers are affecting water quality?

CALCULATE concentration trends

table/map of future areas of exceedance and possible sources

Input for Step 4

Checklist of possible drivers

of change

Is there reason to assume that the future water

quality will be different from the current status?

Local data: emission

factors

EnvironmentalFate Models

Input from Step 2

no

yes

Concentrationsexceeding EQS or increasing ?

no

Make emission trends

Make environmental trends

yes

no problem

Decide upon the time frame: WHEN is the change happening?

What key-drivers are affecting water quality?

CALCULATE concentration trends

table/map of future areas of exceedance and possible sources

Input for Step 4

Checklist of possible drivers

of change

Is there reason to assume that the future water

quality will be different from the current status?

Local data: emission

factors

EnvironmentalFate Models

Input from Step 2

no

yes

Concentrationsexceeding EQS or increasing ?

no

Make emission trends

Make environmental trends

yes

no problem







Step 0:System definitionStep 3: Definition of baseline scenario

measures database


Input for Step 5


Input from Step 3



or substance?

no

yes



source?

no

yes

skip measure







Step 0:System definitionStep 4: Inventory

of possible measures

table of possible measures per source-substance combination

Input from Step 4

calculate/estimate concentration reduction

Are there other effects besides Cost of Reduction

and concentration reduction to be considered?

yes

depict these other effects

no

table of effects of measures, costs, reduction, other effects

Input for Step 6

informationon use of fate models

calculate/estimate Cost of Reduction







Step 0:System definitionStep 5: Assessment of the

effects of the measures

table of effects of measures

Input from Step 5

Select the criteria to evaluate the measures, either:

Selection/ranking of best options

Perform quick scan SCBA or MCA

Perform CEA

In case of:Cost of Reduction

AND Concentration Reduction



ANDother criteria/effects

Stakeholder involvement

table of effects of measures

Input from Step 5

Select the criteria to evaluate the measures, either:

Selection/ranking of best options

Perform quick scan SCBA or MCA

Perform CEA





ANDother criteria/effects

Stakeholder involvement







Step 0:System definitionStep 6: Selection of the best options

Emission reduction strategy of priority and emerging chemicals in European waters

G.DUCOS, JM. BRIGNON, F. OESTERHOLT, S.M. ULLRICH, J. KRUPANEK, W. Van TONGEREN, J. MUNTHE

General aim:Support the implementation of the WFD with regards to Priority Substances

Background:• SOCOPSE: focus on the development of tools to support the WFD implementation• 11 PSs: Hg, Cd, PBDE, TBT, Atrazine, Isoproturon, PAH, Anthracene, DEHP, HCB, NP

In this presentation:Tools = 1) Inventory of abatement measures

2) Assessment of abatement measures 3) Emission Reduction Strategy with MCA

3) Emission Reduction Strategy

• The ERS regarding all SOCOPSE substances is built from the best measures by substance;

• The ranking of measures is processed with an outranking MultiCriteria Analysis model (ELECTRE);

• Database = Quantitative assessment table

Application at the European level for all substances:

Rank Triplet_nb Source Measures Subs Share Eff Costs Avail Co-ben Scale



2 111 Electroplating industry Recycling and reuse Cd 7.9 10 8 10 1 8

3 206 Domestic coal combustion

Combustion control and optimization PAH 25 9 9 10 1 1

4 102 Chemical industry Substitution of TBT in fungicides TBT 25 9 9 9 10 1


Mercury substitution Hg 16 10 8 8 10 1

6 46 Chemical Industry Recycling and reuse Cd 5.3 10 8 10 1 8



7 55 Large Combustion Plant Recycling and reuse Hg 24 10 7 10 1 5

8 229 Farm point-source Sharing equipment or spraying by contractors Isoprot 35 9 8 9 1 1


Ion exchange Cd 26.5 10 6 10 4 7

10 224 Rural run-off Grass strips and hedges Isoprot 40 7 6 10 4 1

(Results by order of ranking)

Conclusion2 products available for the DSS:

– Substance Reports , where you will find:

-inventory of measures by substance

-qualitative assessment of abatement measures ON LINE

– ERSR , where you will find:

-quantitative assessment of abatement measures

-ERS methodology and applications

ON LINE (soon, the ERS ranking calculation program too)

Documents

A Decision Support System for management of priority substances in river basin management plans