Developing a strategy for identifyingp g gy y g
and controlling priority pollutants
D Ni k C t i ht
g p y p
Dr Nick CartwrightManager Water Quality (Chemicals)
November 2016
T dToday
How we assess chemical water qualitySetting priorities for actiong pDeveloping different management strategies
UK SPECIFIC POLLUTANTS EU PRIORITY SUBSTANCES
• Annex VIII of WFD• Support assessment of ‘ecological
status’
• Annex X of WFD• Determines ‘chemical status’
C d h tstatus• 35 identified and EQSs derived
• Cease and phase-out• Currently 45 identified and EU-
wide EQSs derived
EU process to select new tranche of Priority S b tSubstances
‘Watch List’ of substances which will be monitored in all MSs to gauge how widespread they are across EU
Changes in how we assess chemical water C a ges o e assess c e ca atequality
Th EQS Di i i d i 2013The EQS Directive was revised in 20136 substances with tighter standards10 b t th t d t t t EC i 201810 new substances, that we need to report to EC on in 2018new standards - bioavailable metals & more biota standards set on human health end points.p
To inform future prioritisationWatch list (including pharmaceuticals and neonictinoids)EC strategy on pharmaceuticals
UK specific pollutant list revised10 new, 5 revised substances
Assessing the risks of chemical pollutants
New, more accurate d di d t fand diverse data from
Chemical Investigations Programme
River Monitoring data
Agricultural
Minewater
Sources to WwTW
GISWwTW discharges
Minewater
Intermittent urban
Highway runoff
AtmosphericOther point sources
Atmospheric
Natural
Septic tanks
Refined source apportionment
Chemicals monitoring2014/15 Rivers Programme2014/15 Rivers ProgrammeOur chemicals monitoring programmes have been devised to support the Water Framework Directive (WFD), Environmental Quality Standards Directive (EQSD) and the water company Periodic Review (PR) assessment.In 2014/15 a biota and water column programme was established to monitor a range of specific pollutants and priority substances targeted to where there was the greatest risk of failure against the Environmental Quality Standard (EQS) or we needed to improve the confidence in our data.
Mercury
Fluoranthene
BaP
TriclosanFreshwater
BiotaR lt
Sample PointLocations
25
20
15
umbe
r of
site
s
Dicofol
Fluoranthene Bioavailable Zinc Results10 N
u
Bioavailable Copper
Heptachlor
pBDEs HCB
HCBD
Bioavailable Lead
Bioavailable Nickel
Water Column
Results > EQS
<EQS
Uncertain
Dissolved Iron
Dissolved Cadmium 1227
Water column
Results Q
<EQS
< ½ EQS
> EQS
TBT
DEHP
Water column
25
Fish
mbe
r of
ePo
ints
0 100 200 300 400 500
Nonyphenol 16
CrayfishSample points
Mines
CIP1
Risk Assessment
Bioavailable metals
Fish
Crayfish
Water Column
Biota
Num
Sam
pl
Prioritising ActionPrioritising Action
Substances of Current Concern
Local Concern National ConcernLocal Concern
Prioritising ActionPrioritising Action
National Priorityy
A ti LifAquatic Life
e.g. metals Food Chaine g eta s
Drinking Water Sources
Food Chain
e.g. mercury, PBDEs, Drinking Water Sources
e.g. metaldehyde
Management strategiesManagement strategies
9
Management optionsManagement options
Implement national or international source controlsImplement national or international source controlse.g. ban brominated flame retardants
Plan nationally/implement locally
hPathway interventions e.g. mine water remediation
End of pipe e.g. treatment solutionsg
Source ControlsSource ControlsPBDEs MercuryPBDEs
DomesticI t f
MercuryIndustrial legacyInputs from airInputs from
WWTWsInputs from air, industry and coal fired power stations
Ban in placeInputs declining
pPoint sources being phased out
Enhanced treatment expensive and
International convention to take
t f i l tiineffective out of circulation
SLOW ENVIRONMENTAL RECOVERY
Pollution from abandoned mines
Metal mines– ~1 500km rivers not in good status due to abandoned1,500km rivers not in good status due to abandoned
metal mines (~105 surface water bodies)
Metals (zinc cadmium lead nickel iron)– Metals (zinc, cadmium, lead, nickel, iron)
– >50% of Cd, Pb, Zn (Priority Hazardous Substances / f ll ) f b d dSpecific Pollutants) in rivers are from abandoned
mines
Abandoned MinesAbandoned MinesSalburn Gill - Before Salburn Gill - After
Force Crag
treatment stage
Water Industry
120
treatment stageprimary secondary tertiary nonylphenol
tributyl tin120
treatment stageprimary secondary tertiary BDE47
BDE99BPYIPY100
120
t
gprimary secondary tertiary TSS
ammonia
BOD
40
60
80
100
% c
onta
min
ant
y
diethylhexylphthalate
i l 40
60
80
100
% c
onta
min
ant
40
60
80
% c
onta
min
ant BOD
COD
0
20
40
0 20
%
t t t
triclosan
0
20
40
0 20
%
0
20
0 20
treatment
treatment stageprimary secondary tertiary
copper (dissolved)
treatment
treatment stageprimary secondary tertiary
E1
treatment treatment
120
treatment stageprimary secondary tertiary
ibuprofen
80
100
120
tam
inan
t
zinc (dissolved)
60
80
100
120
tam
inan
t
E2
EE2
60
80
100
120
onta
min
ant
propranolol
diclofenac
0
20
40
60
% c
ont
0
20
40
60
% c
on
0
20
40
60
% c
o
oxy-tetracycline
00 20
treatment
0 20
treatment
0 20
treatment
Pharmaceuticals – a future issue?
• Sewage treatment of pharmaceuticals?• Some amenable E2 oxytetracycline• Some amenable – E2, oxytetracycline• Others less so – EE2• Some difficult – diclofenac, propanolol
• What is scope for source control?– Prescribing practise / restrict OTC sales
Increase public/professional awareness– Increase public/professional awareness– Bespoke measures for high risk substances– Treatment prior to sewer, e.g. hospitals
• What are the relative risks and benefits?• What is acceptable to the public?
R ili t f t h llResilience to future challenges
• Societal Challenges– Increasing and aging populationIncreasing and aging population
– Climate Change
S i tifi d l t• Scientific developments– Mixture effects
– Anti-microbial resistance
– Microplastics– Microplastics
Thank you
Any Questions?Any Questions?