Transcript 08, 02FEB2010, W van Tongeren, TNO.ppt

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
ScorePP International Workshop 2-3 February 2010,
Lyngby, 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
WFD planning cycle
Achieve Objectives
Update RBMP
Implement
Programme of
Measures
Characterisation
2004
2015
Plan of Action
2012
2006
Public
Participation
Monitoring Programme
Significant Water Issues
Environmental Objectives
Programme of Measures
2008
2009
Now, we are already here…
Final RBMP
Draft RBMP
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 SOCOPSE
DSS 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 project
WP 2
Coordination
WP 3
WP 4
Management,
Technologies
Decision Support
System
WP 5
Case Studies
Final evaluation
and report
WP 6
WP 1
Analyses
Dissemination and stakeholder
interactions
Material Flow
Approach
•
•
•
•
•
Based on socio economic evaluation methods
Structured, Step by step
Additional methods and tools
Strong Stakeholder involvement
Gives support, does not make decisions
The steps
Step 0:
System definition
Step 1:
Problem definition
Step 2:
Inventory of sources
Step 3:
Definition of a baseline scenario
Step 4:
Inventory of possible measures
Step 5:
Assessment of the effects of the measures
Step 6:
Selection of the best solutions
Update plans
(2015)
Step 0:
System definition
Step 1:
Problem definition
Step 2:
Inventory of sources
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 3:
Definition of a baseline scenario
Step 4:
Inventory of possible measures
Step 5:
Assessment of the effects of the measures
Step 6:
Selection of the best solutions
Step 0:
System definition
Step 1:
Problem definition
Step 2:
Inventory of sources
Step 3:
Definition of a baseline scenario
Step 4:
Inventory of possible measures
Step 5:
Assessment of the effects of the measures
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
Step 6:
Selection of the best solutions
Input from Step 0
Step 0:
System definition
Step 1:
Problem definition
#1
look at EAQC-WISE
outcome
define data needed
Step 2:
Inventory of sources
Step 3:
Definition of a baseline scenario
Step 4:
Inventory of possible measures
monitoring
data
available?
#2
no
Step 5:
Assessment of the effects of the measures
Step 6:
Selection of the best solutions
yes
#3
other
information
available?
no
#4
yes
harmonized
protocols
available?
no
harmonize #10
protocols RB wide
yes / not
relevant
guidelines
for data
quality (input
EAQC-WISE)
#9
get advise
from EU CMA (*
set up #5
monitoring plan
#8
look at
EAQC-WISE outcome
data
#7
quality OK?
#6
measure actual
concentrations
no
yes
EQS or other
target values
#11
"sufficient
data?”
guidelines
for
monitoring
and
analysis
report lack #12
of data to
national level
no
yes
#13
concentrations
exceeding EQS or
increasing?
#14
continue
monitoring
according to WFD
no
yes
table/map of actual areas of exceedance
Input for Step 2
#15
*EU Chemical Monitoring Activity Group
(or future bodies) on how to handle data quality
Overview result problem definition
Locations
1
Substances
1
No problem
2
Increasing
concentra
tions
3
Decreasing
concentra
tions
…
X% higher
than EQS
2
3
…
?
?
Step 0:
System definition
Step 1:
Problem definition
Step 2:
Inventory of sources
Step 3:
Definition of a baseline scenario
Step 4:
Inventory of possible measures
Step 5:
Assessment of the effects of the measures
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 6:
Selection of the best solutions
Step 0:
System definition
Step 1:
Problem definition
Step 2:
Inventory of sources
Step 3:
Definition of a baseline scenario
Step 4:
Inventory of possible measures
Step 5:
Assessment of the effects of the measures
Step 6:
Selection of the best solutions
Step 0:
System definition
Step 1:
Problem definition
Step 2:
Inventory of sources
Step 3:
Definition of a baseline scenario
Step 4:
Inventory of possible measures
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 5:
Assessment of the effects of the measures
Step 6:
Selection of the best solutions
Step 0:
System definition
Step 1:
Problem definition
Step 2:
Inventory of sources
Step 3:
Definition of a baseline scenario
Step 4:
Inventory of possible measures
Step 5:
Assessment of the effects of the measures
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
Step 6:
Selection of the best solutions
Step 0:
System definition
Input from Step 3
Step 1:
Problem definition
Step 2:
Inventory of sources
measures
database
future areas of exceedance
and possible sources
Step 3:
Definition of a baseline scenario
Step 4:
Inventory of possible measures
Step 5:
Assessment of the effects of the measures
Step 6:
Selection of the best solutions
measure
relevant for
source?
no
skip measure
yes
table of possible (single) measures
per source-substance combination
does measure
apply to more than 1 source
or substance?
no
table of possible measures
per substance-source combination
Input for Step 5
yes
consider to apply measure for
more than 1 source or substance
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.)
Database of “triplets”: measure-substance-emission source
Source categories
Industry and craft industry
Industry and craft industry
Industry and craft industry
Industry and craft industry
Industry and craft industry
Emission sources
Large Combustion Plant
Large Combustion Plant
Large Combustion Plant
Large Combustion Plant
Iron & Steel Production
Industry and craft industry Iron & Steel Production
Industry and craft industry Iron & Steel Production
Industry and craft industry
Industry and craft industry
Industry and craft industry
Industry and craft industry
Community WT
Community WT
Community WT
Iron & Steel Production
Iron & Steel Production
Iron & Steel Production
Iron & Steel Production
Waste water treatment plants
Waste water treatment plants
Waste water treatment plants
Community WT
Waste water treatment plants
Hydromorphology
Hydromorphology
Hydromorphology
Hydromorphology
Pesticides applications
Pesticides applications
Pesticides applications
Pesticides applications
Excerpt from the database
Measures
Optimization WWTP
Ion exchange
Membrane filtration
Run-off management
Recycling and reuse
Pre-treatment of waste water from
technological process
Run-off management
Optimization WWTP
Ion exchange
Membrane filtration
Activated carbon adsorption
Electrochemical oxidation
Biological drying of sludge
Incineration of sludge
Alternative uses of sludge than
agriculture: secondary fuel
Grass strips, hedges
Riparian zones
Constructed wetlands
Run-off storage facilities
Substances
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Triplet_nr
59
60
61
65
67
Mercury
69
Mercury
71
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
NPE
NPE
NPE
73
75
76
77
182
190
192
NPE
193
NPE
NPE
NPE
NPE
225
232
235
236
Step 0:
System definition
Step 1:
Problem definition
Step 2:
Inventory of sources
Step 3:
Definition of a baseline scenario
Step 4:
Inventory of possible measures
Step 5:
Assessment of the effects of the measures
Fact Sheet for Mercury (Hg)
Measure/source combination
Dental wastewater treatment
EoP-8
Technical Feasibility
Type of pollution
Matrix
Application range
Limits and restrictions
Complexity of implementation
Impact on the process / factory
Remarks
Total score:
point source
waste water from dental facilities
simple
Performance / Env. impact
Concentration reduction
>99%
Removal of other substances
Cross-media effects
Energy consumption
Production of waste
No
No
low
low
Costs
Investment costs
Operational costs
low?
low
State of the art
BAT
Existing technology
Emerging technology
Applications
References
Table last updated on
Step 6:
Selection of the best solutions
Total
score
Total score:
Calculated removal efficiencies for
chairside filtration systems ranged
from 93 to >99%. Currently marketed
commercial amalgam separation
units can remove >99% of particulate
Hg.
Total score:
requires minimal maintenance
Total score:
Yes
amalgam separators
Yes
Yes
Substance Report (revision no. 2, 1 February 2008)
11-feb-08
Step 0:
System definition
Step 1:
Problem definition
Step 2:
Inventory of sources
Step 3:
Definition of a baseline scenario
Step 4:
Inventory of possible measures
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?
Step 5:
Assessment of the effects of the measures
Step 6:
Selection of the best solutions
Qualitative assessment:
• For each substance, we gathered and synthesized information
(Substance = DEHP)
Triplet_nb
154
145
Measure
Oxidative technique:
ozone
Activated carbon
adsorption
Type of pollution (Pol)
Complexity of implementation (Cmp)
Impact on the process of the factory (Imp)
Limits and restrictions (Lim)
Technical
feasibility
Env.
Performances
Costs
State of the art
Pol: Point source
Cmp: Average
Imp: No
Lim: High (depends on
water quality)
Eff: Average
Oth: Yes
En: ?
CE: ?
W: Yes
IC: Average
St: Emergent
OC: Average
App: Some
(depends on water
organic load)
SCORE = 0
Pol: Point source
Cmp: Low
Imp: No
Lim: Low
SCORE = Eff: Average
Oth: Yes
En: ?
CE: No
W: Yes
SCORE = 0
IC: Average
(depends on the
existing treatment
system)
OC: Average
SCORE = +
St: BAT
App: Several
SCORE = ++
SCORE = +
SCORE = +
SCORE = ++
Efficiency of emission reduction (Eff)
Removal of other pollutants than
SOCOPSE ones (Oth)
Consumption of energy (En)
Cross-effects (CE),
Production of waste (W)
Excerpt from Substance Report on DEHP
Investment costs (IC)
Status of the technique (St)
Operational costs (OC) Number of applications (App)
Step 0:
System definition
Step 1:
Problem definition
Step 2:
Inventory of sources
Step 3:
Definition of a baseline scenario
Step 4:
Inventory of possible measures
Step 5:
Assessment of the effects of the measures
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
Step 6:
Selection of the best solutions
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
Total environmental benefits = 1/2
Total costs = 1/2
• Weights are allocated in order to get the same
weighting between total costs and total benefits
Quantitative assessment:
• For each substance, we asked experts to fill-in a data table:
(Substance = DEHP)
Triplet_nb
29
98
Sources
Measures
Production of
polymers/plastics
Substitution of PVC
Production of DEHP
Substitution of DEHP
Subst
Share Eff
Costs Avail Co-ben Scale
(%) (0-10) (0-10) (0-10) (0-10) (0-10)
DEHP
4
7
5
6
10
1
DEHP
1
6
4
8
10
1
140
Waste water treatment Optimization WWTP
plants
DEHP
3
6
10
7
4
1
145
Waste water treatment Activated carbon
plants
adsorption
DEHP
3
8
8
9
8
1
154
Waste water treatment Oxidative techniques :
plants
ozone
DEHP
3
5
6
7
6
1
158
Waste water treatment Oxidative techniques:
plants
UV
DEHP
3
7
7
9
5
1
163
Waste water treatment Membrane filtration:
plants
Ultra filtration
DEHP
3
8
6
9
4
1
Excerpt from the datatable
Application at the European level for all substances:
(Best measure by substance)
Rank
Triplet
_nb
11
245
1
78
34
36
213
223
8
229
5
120
21
160
3
206
29
30
4
102
Source
Surface water
treatment
Non-ferrous metals
industry
Uses of (non) polymers
Rural run-off
Farm point-source
Battery and cell
production
Waste water treatment
plants
Domestic coal
combustion
Production of
polymers/plastics
Chemical industry
Measures
Activated carbon adsorption
Recycling and reuse
Legislation on disposals
Grass strips, hedges
Sharing equipment or
spraying by contractors
Mercury substitution
Oxidative techniques:
chemical
Combustion control and
optimization
Improving raw material
handling
Substitution of TBT in
fungicides
Subs
Share Eff Costs Avail Co-ben Scale
Atrazine
50
8
8
9
1
4
Cd
26.5
10
7
10
4
8
DEHP
HCB
90
32
5
7
10
6
6
10
1
4
1
1
Isoprot
35
9
8
9
1
1
Hg
16
10
8
8
10
1
NPE
80
9
3
8
1
1
PAH
25
9
9
10
1
1
PBDE
18
7
9
9
1
1
TBT
25
9
9
9
10
1
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]
www.socopse.eu
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
Input from Step 0
Step 1: Problem definition
Step 0:
System definition
Step 1:
Problem definition
#1
look at EAQC-WISE
outcome
define data needed
Step 2:
Inventory of sources
Step 3:
Definition of a baseline scenario
Step 4:
Inventory of possible measures
monitoring
data
available?
#2
no
Step 5:
Assessment of the effects of the measures
Step 6:
Selection of the best solutions
yes
#3
other
information
available?
no
#4
yes
harmonized
protocols
available?
no
harmonize #10
protocols RB wide
yes / not
relevant
guidelines
for data
quality (input
EAQC-WISE)
#9
get advise
from EU CMA (*
set up #5
monitoring plan
#8
look at
EAQC-WISE outcome
data
#7
quality OK?
#6
measure actual
concentrations
no
yes
EQS or other
target values
#11
"sufficient
data?”
guidelines
for
monitoring
and
analysis
report lack #12
of data to
national level
no
yes
#13
concentrations
exceeding EQS or
increasing?
#14
continue
monitoring
according to WFD
no
yes
table/map of actual areas of exceedance
Input for Step 2
#15
*EU Chemical Monitoring Activity Group
(or future bodies) on how to handle data quality
Step 2: Inventory of sources
Step 0:
System definition
Step 1:
Problem definition
Step 2:
Inventory of sources
Step 3:
Definition of a baseline scenario
Input from Step 1
Step 4:
Inventory of possible measures
Step 5:
Assessment of the effects of the measures
Step 6:
Selection of the best solutions
table/map of actual problem areas
emission
database
with EU
inventories
what are the possible sources?
which are relevant in the area of interest?
MFA
compile emission factors and
site-specific activities
calculate emissions
table with sector/source specific emissions
Input for Step 3
location
specific
information
general
guidelines
to MFA
Step 3: Definition of baseline scenario
Step 0:
System definition
Input from Step 2
Step 1:
Problem definition
Step 2:
Inventory of sources
Step 3:
Definition of a baseline scenario
Checklist of
possible
drivers
of change
Step 4:
Inventory of possible measures
Is there reason
to assume that the future water
quality will be different from
the current status?
no
Step 5:
Assessment of the effects of the measures
Step 6:
Selection of the best solutions
yes
Decide upon the time frame:
WHEN is the change happening?
What key-drivers are
affecting water quality?
Local data:
emission
factors
Make environmental trends
Make emission trends
Environmental
Fate Models
CALCULATE concentration trends
Concentrations
exceeding EQS
or increasing ?
no
yes
table/map of future areas of exceedance
and possible sources
Input for Step 4
no problem
Step 4: Inventory
of possible measures
Input from Step 3
Step 0:
System definition
Step 1:
Problem definition
Step 2:
Inventory of sources
measures
database
future areas of exceedance
and possible sources
Step 3:
Definition of a baseline scenario
Step 4:
Inventory of possible measures
Step 5:
Assessment of the effects of the measures
Step 6:
Selection of the best solutions
measure
relevant for
source?
no
skip measure
yes
table of possible (single) measures
per source-substance combination
does measure
apply to more than 1 source
or substance?
no
table of possible measures
per substance-source combination
Input for Step 5
yes
consider to apply measure for
more than 1 source or substance
Step 5: Assessment of the
effects of the measures
Input from Step 4
Step 0:
System definition
Step 1:
Problem definition
Step 2:
Inventory of sources
information
on use
of fate
models
table of possible measures per
source-substance combination
Step 3:
Definition of a baseline scenario
Step 4:
Inventory of possible measures
Step 5:
Assessment of the effects of the measures
Step 6:
Selection of the best solutions
calculate/estimate concentration reduction
calculate/estimate
Cost of Reduction
Are there other
effects besides Cost of Reduction
and concentration reduction
to be considered?
no
table of effects of measures, costs,
reduction, other effects
Input for Step 6
yes
depict these
other effects
Step 6: Selection of the best options
Step 0:
System definition
Step 1:
Problem definition
Step 2:
Inventory of sources
Input from Step 5
Step 3:
Definition of a baseline scenario
Step 4:
Inventory of possible measures
table of effects of measures
Step 5:
Assessment of the effects of the measures
Step 6:
Selection of the best solutions
Stakeholder involvement
Select the criteria to
evaluate the measures, either:
In case of:
Cost of Reduction
AND
Concentration Reduction
Perform CEA
In case of:
Cost of Reduction
AND
Concentration Reduction
AND
other criteria/effects
Perform quick scan
SCBA or MCA
Selection/ranking of
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:
(Results by order of ranking)
Rank
Triplet_
nb
1
78
2
111
3
206
4
102
5
120
6
46
6
119
7
55
8
229
9
86
10
224
Source
Measures
Non-ferrous metals
industry
Electroplating industry
Recycling and reuse
Domestic coal
combustion
Chemical industry
Combustion control and
optimization
Substitution of TBT in
fungicides
Mercury substitution
Battery and cell
production
Chemical Industry
Recycling and reuse
Recycling and reuse
Battery and cell
production
Large Combustion Plant
Recycling and reuse
Farm point-source
Sharing equipment or
spraying by contractors
Ion exchange
Non-ferrous metals
industry
Rural run-off
Recycling and reuse
Grass strips and hedges
Subs
Share Eff Costs Avail Co-ben Scale
Cd
26.5
10
7
10
4
8
Cd
7.9
10
8
10
1
8
PAH
25
9
9
10
1
1
TBT
25
9
9
9
10
1
Hg
16
10
8
8
10
1
Cd
5.3
10
8
10
1
8
Cd
5.3
10
8
10
1
8
Hg
24
10
7
10
1
5
Isoprot
35
9
8
9
1
1
Cd
26.5
10
6
10
4
7
Isoprot
40
7
6
10
4
1
Conclusion
2 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)