4th Expert Group on Analysis and Monitoring of Priority Substances

1. 4th Expert Group on Analysis and Monitoring of Priority Substances Brussels, 22-23 January 2004

2. Objective • Consultative exercise in preparations for a new legal instrument in accordance with Article 16 (WFD) • Expert recommendations on A&M related issues to the Expert Advisory Forum on PS • Current practices and costs • Final product a report to EAF PS (including interim report for EAF(7))

3. Articles Definitions Establishing EQS = good chemical status Compliance checking (Annual averages, Maximum allowable concentrations) Monitoring requirements water/SPM Monitoring requirements for sediment and biota, with annex Annexes EQS (AA) values for whole water and possibly SPM for “Annex X” substances and other current “Annex VIII” substances. EQS (MAC) values Water/SPM monitoring Analytical methods DQR QO/QC Sediment and biota monitoring Substances Methodological issues Background concentrations Reporting Content draft legal act

4. Explanatory Memorandum • Accompany a legal act • Explain choices made in the legal act • Explain respective articles • Impact assessment – cost • Expert advise from EAF and its Expert Group will be the main input !

5. Working methodology • Meeting report – record of the meeting • Discussion document – revised • Drafting groups ? • Next meeting 31 March – 1 April • Identify key issues on each topic

6. SCALE • Health and Environment • Monitoring Technical working group • Pilot projects – Endocrine disruptors, heavy metals, PCB/dioxins • Harmonisation/Integration

7. Agenda point 3

8. 2. Generic issues for all stages of monitoring and analysis 2.1. Definitions of compartments and sample types 2.2. Appropriate matrix for monitoring - Annex 1 2.2.1. Whole water, dissolved phase vs. SPM options for legislation 2.2.2. Feasibility from analytical perspective of compliance checking of SPM EQS as an alternative 2.2.3. Waters with high SPM contents

9. 2.1 Definitions • “whole water” Proposed definition: “Whole water is defined as the water sample which is not subjected to phase separation. ie when solid matter and the liquid phase have not been separated”. • Dissolved phase Proposed definition; “ The dissolved phase is an operationally defined fraction of whole water which is addressed by analysis of a sample of whole water that has been subjected to phase separation (filtration, centrifugation etc) by an appropriate methodology.”

10. 2.1 Definitions • Suspended particulate matter (SPM) Proposed definition; “ SPM is the particulate matter derived from a whole water sample that is separated from the dissolved phase. • Sediment Proposed definition; “sediment is the consolidated solid material underlying a water body that can be sampled and handled as a solid material” • Biota Proposed definition; “ Any living plant or animal”

11. 2.2 Choice of matrix to analyse • Water/SPM - afternoon • Sediment and biota – under agenda point 3.D

12. 2.2 Choice of matrix to analyse • Option 1 : The choice of how to generate the required data and the proof of its fitness for purpose is the responsibility of Member States. Thus whole water data may be generated by analysis of the whole water sample, or by separate determinations on dissolved and solid phases. • Option 2 : If it can be justified – for example by considerations of expected contaminant partitioning – it may be argued that there is not a need to analyse a particular phase. If a sampling strategy is selected involving only SPM, then the MS shall justify the choice with measurements, calculations, etc.

13. 2.2 Choice of matrix to analyse Feasibility of compliance checking of SPM EQS • Emphasis - wherever possible - on reporting of analysed values rather than estimation via partitioning theory • Where this is not feasible, can use partitioning theory for estimation of whole water contaminant levels, provided the constants used can be shown to be relevant at a local level? • Feasibility monitoring compliance with spm EQS?

14. 2.2 Choice of matrix to analyseWaters with high SPM contents • In waters of high spm concentration the environmental effects of pollution can be mitigated by adsorption of dissolved contaminant to spm. • This could be taken into account in waters of high spm by reporting data as dissolved determinand concentration – for waters in which the spm concentration is greater than some stated threshold eg twice the 15 mg/l TGD standard water ie 30 mg/l.

15. 3. Monitoring 3.1. Selection of monitoring points 3.2. Frequency of operational monitoring. 3.3. Monitoring of seasonally variable substances 3.4. Design of monitoring programmes for sediments and biota 3.5. Reduced operational monitoring requirements 3.6. Increased monitoring requirements re an exceedence of a MAC 3.7. Monitoring of diffuse sources 3.8. Monitoring in relation to point sources of pollution

16. Item 3.1 Main questions on selection of sampling points • are the criteria of the WFD for sampling points adequate for selection of monitoring points for Priority substances? • Is further specification required re number of sampling points? • What needs to be specified re representativeness of the sample in relation to pollution sources be ensured (e.g. mixing zones)? • Shall further criteria be considered? • Shall the same monitoring points be required for other main pollutants?

17. Item 3.2 frequency of sampling WFD - “Frequencies shall be chosen so as to achieve an acceptable level of confidence and precision.” • default is 12 / year for PS • level of confidence depends on true variance and no. of samples - eg if Coeff of Var is 0.5, conf is such that a 50% annual change would be significant from one year to the next • Is there a need for further specification of frequency?

18. Item 3.3 source-based seasonal variation • What is the mechanism to ensure reliable design of the monitoring programme to address substances with intermittent or seasonal uses? • eg in addition to the 12 monthly samples per year, increased frequency is required during periods where use might lead to seasonal differences. The number of additional samples could be at least one per month (ie raising the frequency to 2-weekly) for at least three months. Member States shall identify and notify the Commission of the relevant use period that they have selected. • Identify for which substances this should apply

19. Item 3.4 Sediment and biota • Specifications? • Frequency? • Sampling requirements? • Details of sample handling? • Organisms? • Use of pre-exisiting resources? OSPAR JAMP specs?

20. Item 3.5 Proposals for reduced frequency • Consider criteria for reduced monitoring frequency • eg For PS determinands in whole water, for a given determinand, provided all the results of the previous years monitoring (carried out at the frequency specified in the Directive Annex V 1.3.4), are shown to be less than one tenth of the EQS, no further monitoring is required for three years or until the next round of surveillance monitoring, whichever is the sooner. Indications of increased pressure shall prompt immediate return to monitoring at the specified standard frequency. • MAC exceedence shall also be a requirement to maintain or to revert to the 12/year frequency, even if the annual average is low.

21. Item 3.6 Increased monitoring requirements and MAC exceedance • Aims of investigative monitoring are set out in WFD above – design according to circumstances (with respect to sample locations and frequencies) to meet these objectives. • is further specification is required in the legal act to be proposed where MAC has been exceeded?

22. Item 3.7/8 Monitoring of diffuse sources and point sources • consider the suggested way forward • advise on the practical implications for sampling and analysis (problems of meeting DQRs in sewage sludge, effluent or influent matrix)

23. Item 3.7/8 Monitoring of diffuse sources and point sources - Some options • to require monitoring of all priority substance of major sewage effluent discharges as part of surveillance monitoring as a way of addressing design of future monitoring programmes and the assessment of long-term changes in quality status. • to require monitoring of major sewage effluent discharges (on greater than a stated population equivalent basis) and sludge wherever water Quality Standards are found to have been breached – as part of investigative monitoring. Also for operational monitoring to assess the effectiveness of the programme of measures

24. Analytical methods for operational and surveillance monitoring 4.1. Data Quality Requirements and QA/QC approaches on European level for compliance checking 4.1.1. Data Quality Requirements - Annex II 4.1.2. Data Quality Assurance and Quality Control 4.2. Existing and new methods 4.2.1. Existing methods for whole water (incl. SPM) 4.2.2. New methods for whole water 4.3. Methodological Aspects Requiring Specification 4.3.1. Sediment sample preparations 4.3.2. Sampling Methodology.

25. 4.1 QA/QC • Are QA/QC documents the relevant and suitable references? • To which level should QA/QC requirements be harmonised? • Shall other issues be considered in this context?

26. 4.2 Existing and new methods • If standard methods shall be referred to in the legal act • to review “research methods” as well as Standard Methods. • to continue to submit information about methods used for whole water (including SPM). • continuing to contribute to the development of new methods • submitting information about standardised methods for sediment and biota sampling

27. 4.3 Methodological Aspects Requiring Specification With respect to legislation the emphasis should be on laboratories choosing and implementing methods that they can show meet the data quality requirements. However, certain aspects of analysis are operationally critical are require specification if comparable data are to be obtained. This could be envisaged for sample preparation for sediment and biota and sampling methodologies. The way forward? Use of pre-exisiting resources? OSPAR?

28. 5. Metal BRCs • Option 1 – not to adopt the ARA (this would mean that the proposed MPA becomes an EQS) • Option 2 – to adopt the default BRC to which the MPA may be added • Option 3 – to adopt a different background concentration in accordance with a methodology to be specified in an annex to the legal act. The Member State should then notify this to the Commission, for acceptance in accordance with the Comitology procedure.

29. Default BRCs? • Consider the suggestion made above • Contribute to a drafting group to develop an annex to the legal act on the methodology to be used to justify higher BRC.

30. 6. Data treatment and evaluation • How to deal with “less than” reports in deriving summary statistics? • Specification of data reporting requirements?

31. 6.1 “less than” reports • It is anticipated that less than reports could be common this poses difficulty of treatment in calculation of summary statistics such as annual mean. • Proposed double substitution method - Annex V • calculate statistic twice by substituting zero and the quoted less than value and report upper and lower estimates to provide an indication of uncertainty.

32. 6.2 Data reporting - proposed required fields • sample point co-ordinates (in a format to be specified) • scheduled sampling dates - as a check that reported samples are not selected from wider pool • actual sampling date • concentration measured, in reporting units that are specified and common to all • uncertainty of determination, in the same units • reporting limit, in the same units • data used to interpret measured result -, hardness for Cd, SPM concentration, lipid for biota, TOC and particle size characteristics (fraction <63mm) for sediments plus uncertainty of determination for these values

33. Action points

34. Next Meeting • Date : 31 March to 1 April 2004 • Venue: JRC . Ispra(Italy)