substance assessment Lena Avellan HOLAS II 4-2015 24-25 November - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Hazardous substance assessment

Lena Avellan HOLAS II 4-2015 24-25 November 2015

Lena Avellan 11/25/2015 1

This presentation:

• Setting the stage for a hazardous substance

assessment discussion

• Summarize legal requirements – reflecting recent

discussions

• Provide overview of indicators
• Reflect relevant State and Conservation 3-2015
• utcome
• Summarize national comments received
• Present planned work through BalticBOOST WP 2.1

and WP 2.2

Lena Avellan 11/25/2015 2

Hazardous substance assessment

• Aims to provide an assessment of the status of hazardous

substance in the Baltic Sea for the purposes following up on the progress towards the GES goals of BSAP and EU MSFD

• Builds on core indicators and associated GES-boundaries
• In HOLAS I – integrated thematic assessment for open sea and

coastal areas, not including all listed substances as targets were lacking

• In HOLAS II – now up for discussion!

Aggregation and Integration criteriat/compartments/protection goals Substances and assessment units

Lena Avellan 11/25/2015 3

Core indicator reports and pressure data layers

Elements Main outputs Thematic outputs Activities & Inputs/emissions (BSPI) Ecosystem health (HOLAS tool) ”nice to have” Status and pressure descriptors Birds Fish Mammal Benthic Pelagic

D1, D3 part, 4, D6 part

(biodiversity ass.)

D2 NIS

(1 core indicator)

D5

(HEAT 3)

D7

descriptive no indicators

D8

(CHASE)

D9

descriptive no indicators

D3 part

descriptive ICES indicators

D6 part

(one pre- core)

D10

(one pre- core)

D11

(one pre- core) Socio-economic analysis

Effects (BSII)

Lena Avellan 11/25/2015 4

2nd holistic assessment: HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) follow-up

• BSAP goal to reach Good Environmental Status (GES) by 2021
• All segments and objectives to be evaluated using the indicators
• Defining GES-boundaries thorugh core indictors in spatially explicit

assessment units allows for more quantitative progress evaluation

Lena Avellan

Baltic Sea unaffected by EUTROPHICATION Favourable status of Baltic Sea BIODIVERSITY Baltic Sea undisturbed by HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES MARITIME ACTIVITIES in the Baltic Sea carried out in an environmentally friendly way

11/25/2015 5

2nd holistic assessment: HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) follow-up

Ecological objectives to be assessed:

• Concentrations of hazardous substances close to natural levels
• All fish safe to eat
• Healthy wildlife
• Radioactivity at pre-Chernobyl level

Lena Avellan

Baltic Sea undisturbed by HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES

11/25/2015 6

2nd holistic assessment: Roof Report for EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive

Lena Avellan

• Goal to reach Good

Environmental Status (GES) by 2020

• All elements to be

assessed

• Structured to be aligned

with the 11 Descriptors

11/25/2015 7

2nd holistic assessment: Roof Report for EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive

Lena Avellan

Descriptor 8

Concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to pollution effects

Descriptor 9

Contaminants in fish and other seafood for human consumption does not exceed levels established by European Union legislation or other relevant standards

11/25/2015 8

Lena Avellan

Criteria

Pressure Primary 8.1.1 Concentration of contaminants and their trends, measured in the relevant matrix (such as biota, sediment and water) in a way that ensures comparability with the assessments under Directive 2000/60/EC 8.1.2 Occurrence, source (where possible), spatial/geographical extent of significant acute pollution events caused by crude oil and similar compounds 9.1.1 Actual levels of contaminants that have been detected Impact Primary 8.2.1 Contaminant‐related adverse effects on biological responses at or below individual level in the target species in the region, sub‐region or subdivision concerned 8.2.2 Significance of the impact on biota affected by acute pollution events caused by crude oil and similar compounds

Recent MSFD discussions MSCG November 2015 (ppt presentations)

11/25/2015 9

Recent MSFD discussions WG GES October 2015 (draft minutes)

The Commission presented draft example text and main approaches for a revised Commission Decision for descriptors D8 and D9

D8:

• One participants proposal to follow the WFD sampling requirements until 12 nautical miles, after

which MS can choose substance and matrix

• Commission clarification that it is most important to ensure that no gaps occur for spatial coverage

and substances which are a risk

• Consistency needed between the RSC lists and the River Basin Specific Pollutants of WFD, with

Commission clarification that MS can add substances beyond the WFD list of Priority Substances

• The Commission clarified that bio-effects should remain

D9:

• One participants point that integrating microbiological contamination under D9 was an important

conclusion of the consultation.

• Clarified that ensuring traceability of seafood is a requirement, and this already assured through

information to consumers on the location where the fish was caught that is also used in fish stock assessments

• Proposal does not entail additional obligations or other requirements beyond regulation 1881/2006,
• nly linking of data and ensuring that it is fed into the MSFD

Lena Avellan 11/25/2015 10

Contaminants at 3 levels ;

i. Environment ii. Seafood iii. Acute pollution events (monitoring should be directed by occurring incidents)

Lena Avellan

Recent MSFD discussions MSCG November 2015 (ppt presentations)

11/25/2015 11

Area

0-12 nautical miles 12-> nautical miles

Substance i.

Priority Substance list ii. River Basin Specific Pollutants i. As for 0-12 nm ii. additional substances for (sub)region (e.g. RBSP and/or RSC listed)

matrix

as in WFD (option if change matrix => equivalent to EQS value) as in WFD or as assessed in sub-region (option if matrix changed => apply the same EQS as in territorial waters)

Reference level

a) EQS of Dir. 2008/105 EC for priority substances as amended by Dir 2013/39/EU. If matrix changed => modified EQS agreed at (sub)regional level b) RBSP values agreed in (sub)region a) As for 0-12 nm b) Values agreed for (sub)region for additional substance Draft examples of possible GES Decision criteria – Descriptor 8

Lena Avellan

Recent MSFD discussions MSCG November 2015 (ppt presentations)

11/25/2015 12

12 nautical miles vs. Coastal assessment units

What’s what?

Core indicator:

• Commonly agreed indicator

evaluating progres towars target Pre-core indicator:

• Not fully developed core

indicator, principle-level agreement by CPs to include in the assessement structure and monitoitor Candidate core indicator:

• Proposed indicator, no

agreement Baltic Sea Environment Fact Sheet (BSEFS)

• Commonly agreed parameter

describing a trend

• Updated by institutes

Lena Avellan 11/25/2015 13

Hazardous substance core indicators

• the issue of EQS -GES
• GEAR 8-2014: GES-boundaries to be aligned with EQSD
• S&C 1-2014: Not straight forward in all cases
• WFD Guidance Document No. 23 on biota monitoring published January

2015

• CORESET II Feb-2015 h.z. themathic meeting: EQS relevant as GES-

boundary when derived for secondary poisoning, when derived for human health not suitable as environmental assessment target (but as D9)

• EU WG GES Apr-2015: EQS relevant no matter which protection goal
• S&C 2-2015 EQS to be used when they exist > propose as GES-boundaries

for agreement

• HOD 48 -2015 agree on proposed boundaries (DE, DK study reservations)

Lena Avellan 11/25/2015 14

• Extremely low boundaries

> sub-GES maps even if food authorities have not issued warnings and detrimental effects are not seen in the Baltic Sea

• Current monitoing

programmes sample other matrixes (e.g. whole fish) and no conversion factors available (potentially lipid content?)

• Analytical methods of

environmental laboratories may not be sufficiently sensitive

• Molluscs are not used

extensively as human food in the Baltic Sea

Lena Avellan 11/25/2015 15

Substance EQS (µg/kg

ww)

matrix Protection goal PBDE 0.0085 Fish (fillet) Human health via consumption of fishery products Fluoranthene (PAH) 30 Crustaceans and molluscs Human health via consumption of fishery products Benzo[a]pyrene (PAH) 5 Crustanceans and molluscs Human health via consumption of fishery products Mercury and its compounds 20 Fish Secondary poisoning PFOS 9.1 Fish (fillet) Human health via consumption of fishery products Dioxin an dioxin- like compounds 0.0065 TEQ2005 Fish (fillet), crustaceans and molluscs Human health via consumption of fishery procudts HBCDD 167 fish Secondary poisoning

Guidance document No 32. on biota monitoring

Table 1.1

Substance EQS (µg/kg

ww)

matrix Protection goal PBDE 0.0085 Fish (fillet) Human health via consumption of fishery products Fluoranthene (PAH) 30 Crustaceans and molluscs Human health via consumption of fishery products Benzo[a]pyrene (PAH) 5 Crustanceans and molluscs Human health via consumption of fishery products Mercury and its compounds 20 Fish Secondary poisoning PFOS 9.1 Fish (fillet) Human health via consumption of fishery products Dioxin an dioxin- like compounds 0.0065 TEQ2005 Fish (fillet), crustaceans and molluscs Human health via consumption of fishery procudts HBCDD 167 fish Secondary poisoning

Lena Avellan 11/25/2015 16

Guidance document No 32. on biota monitoring

QS biota HH QS biota sec pois 0.0085 44 30 11522 5 No data available 500 20 9.1 33 0.0065 TEQ 0.0012 TEQ 6100 167 Table 5.3 Table 1.1

HELCOM HZ core indicators with GES-boundaries

Lena Avellan

Core indicator name GES-boundary Matrix Secondary GES- boundary BSAP objective MSFD criterion

Lead Country Co-Lead Country

Hexabromo- cyclododecane (HBCDD) EQS biota secondary poisoning 167 µg/kg ww tropic level 4

• whole fish

Sediment Concentrations of hazardous substances close to natural levels 8.1

Finland Sweden

Metals Cd: EQS water (AA) 0.2 µg/l water QSsediment 2.3 mg/kg dw OR Biota BAC blue mussel 960 µg/kg dw Concentrations of hazardous substances close to natural levels 8.1

Poland Denmark Finland Sweden

Hg: EQSbiota secondary poisoning 20 µg/kg ww tropic level 4

• whole fish
• Concentrations of hazardous

substances close to natural levels 8.1 Pb: EQSwater (AA) 1.3 µg/l water QSsediment 120 mg/kg dw OR Biota BAC mussel 1300 µg/kg dw OR Biota BAC fish 26 µg/kg Concentrations of hazardous substances close to natural levels 8.1 Polybrominate d biphenylethers (PBDE) EQSbiota human health 0.0085 µg/kg ww trophic level 4 - fish fillet sediment Concentrations of hazardous substances close to natural levels 8.1

Finland Sweden

Perfluorooctan e sulphonate (PFOS) EQSbiota human health 9.1 µg/kg ww trophic level 4 - fish fillet EQSwater Concentrations of hazardous substances close to natural levels 8.1

Finland Sweden

Radioactive substances: Cesium-137 in fish and surface waters ‘Pre-Chernobyl level’ herring 2.5 Bq km-1 flounder/plaice 2.9 Bq kg-1 seawater 15 Bq m-3 Herring & flounder/ plaice & seawater

• Radioactivity at pre-

chernobyl level ?

Poland Finland

White-tailed eagle productivity Productivity: 0.97 nestlings Brood size: 1.71 nestlings Breeding success: 0.59 (59%) “nests” Healthy wildlife 8.2

Sweden

11/25/2015 17

HELCOM HZ core indicators without GES-boundaries

Lena Avellan

Core indicator name BSAP objective MSFD criterion Lead Country Co-Lead Country Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and their metabolites Concentrations of hazardous substances close to natural levels 8.1 (8.2?) Germany Finland Sweden Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) and dioxins and furans Concentrations of hazardous substances close to natural levels 8.1 Finland Sweden TBT and imposex Concentrations of hazardous substances close to natural levels Healthy wildlife 8.1 and 8.2 Sweden (tentative) Denmark Finland

11/25/2015 18

HELCOM HZ pre-core indicators

Lena Avellan

Pre-core indicator name BSAP objective MSFD primary criterion Lead Country Co-Lead Country Acetylcholinesterase inhibition Healthy wildlife 8.2 Diclofenac concentration Concentrations of hazardous substances close to natural levels 8.1 Denmark Finland Estrogenic-like chemicals and effects Concentrations of hazardous substances close to natural levels Healthy wildlife 8.1 and 8.2 Sweden Denmark Finland Lysosomal membrane stability (LMS) Healthy wildlife 8.2 Denmark Finland Reproductive disorders: malformed eelpout and amphipod embryos Healthy wildlife 8.2 Sweden Finland Denmark Fish disease index Healthy wildlife 8.2 Denmark Finland Micronucleus test Healthy wildlife 8.2 Denmark Finland Oil-spills affecting the marine environment MARITIME – Enforcement of international regulations – no illegal discharges (Annex III) HELCOM IWGAS

11/25/2015 19

HELCOM assessment units

Scale 3 17 units + division into coastal areas Scale 4 WFD Water bodies

Lena Avellan

Scale 1 Entire Baltic Sea Scale 2 17 units

(”scale 5” – EEZ borders as needed)

11/25/2015 20

• Currently most HZ core

indicators use Scale 3

• Proposals to use Scale 4 to

ensure WFD coherence would require work (proposed e.g. in EU WG GES discussions)

Lena Avellan

Spatial variation of the HBCDD sampled stations and the different matrixes used. Green colour indicates that the measured HBCDD concentrations are below the GES-boundary

HELCOM assessment units

11/25/2015 21

HELCOM HZ BSEFS

State and Conservation 3-2015 noted updates to the following BSEFS

• Emissions from Baltic Sea shipping
• Atmospheric deposition of heavy metals on the Baltic Sea
• Atmospheric emissions of heavy metals in the Baltic Sea region
• Illegal discharges of oil in the Baltic Sea
• Atmospheric deposition of PCB-153 on the Baltic Sea
• Atmospheric emissions of PCB-153 in the Baltic Sea region

Previously published BSEFS

• Atmospheric deposition of PCDD/Fs on the Baltic Sea
• Atmospheric emissions of PCDD/Fs in the Baltic Sea region
• Cesium-137 in Baltic Sea sediments
• Temporal trends in contaminants in Herring in the Baltic Sea in the period 1980-2010
• Liquid discharges of Cs-137, Sr-90 and Co-60 into the Baltic Sea
• Trace metal concentrations and trends in Baltic surface and deep waters

Lena Avellan 11/25/2015 22

State and Conservation 3-2015 relevant outcomes

• Agreed on ToR for the Expert Network on Hazardous

Substances (DE to provide comments by 30 Nov)

• EN HZ to focus during 2016 on supporting indicaotor

development and ensuring timely indicator evaluations to HOLAS II

• EN HZ nominations currently from

FI (1), DE (9), LV (1), LT (2), PL (1), SE (6)

• Underlined need to elect a Chair

Lena Avellan 11/25/2015 23

• Regarding the same table that is Annex 2 of HOLAS II

4-2015 doc 4-2, S&C concluded 2MA.4

– took note of the discrepancy between countries regarding the species and matrices sampled for hazardous substances in biota and the likely need to develop conversion factors for evaluations of core indicators – noted the discrepancy in reporting on monitoring of contaminants to the Monitoring Manual compared to data reported to the COMBINE database – invited the Contracting Parties that have not or only partly reported monitoring of contaminants to COMBINE to clarify available national data for hazardous substances to HOLAS II 4-2015 taking place 24-25 November 2015 (lena.avellan@helcom.fi).

Lena Avellan

State and Conservation 3-2015 relevant outcomes

11/25/2015 24

4J.13 took note of DE comments – ‘Concentration of contaminants’ and ‘Contaminants in seafood’ should be assessed separately and not be mixed in the further development of the HELCOM hazardous substances assessment tool. – on the CHASE tool and welcomed Germany to submit the comments to the upcoming HOLAS II 4-2015 meeting. 4J.14 acknowledged that guidance for integrated assessment is being developed as part

• f the MSFD CIS and noted that HELCOM will be in a position to provide input to

the development of such a guidance document and encouraged that the workshops on tool development carried out under the BalticBOOST project should be scheduled with this in mind.

Lena Avellan

State and Conservation 3-2015 relevant outcomes

11/25/2015 25

BalticBOOST WP 2.1

• NIVA (Jesper Andersen) is the WP Lead
• Further development of hazardous substance

assessment tool

• CHASE 2.0 considered to be a good starting

point

• Guidance on prinicples needed

Lena Avellan 11/25/2015 26

CHASE

• what?

Lena Avellan 11/25/2015 27

CHASE (ver1) used for HOLAS I is a multi-metric tool that integrates the results of an unlimited number of indicators Structured based on BSAP objectives (elements)

element 1. 2. 3. 4.

CHASE

• how to?

Assessing an indicator

• Indicator ”contamination ratio” (CR) determined by dividing the measurement with the

threshold level

• > the higher the CR the lower the status of an area indicated by the indicator

CR >1.0 indicates moderate or worse status for the given indicator Assessing an element;

• Indicator CR values are summed and then divided by the sqare root of the number of

indicators

• Each element receives a status (bad, poor, moderate, good or high)

High: CR sum value <0.5 Moderate: CR sum value > 1.0 Poor: CR sum value >5.0 Bad: CR sum value > 10.0 Assessing an area:

• Each area receives an assessment based on the lowest status received by any of the four

elements, i.e. “one out all out” principle, giving each element the same weight

Lena Avellan 11/25/2015 28

CHASE

• indicator selection criteria

1. An indicator must have a threshold level which is preferably ecotoxicologically or statistically justivied 2. An indicator must reliably describe the status of hazardous substances in the Baltic Sea 3. A substance cannot be enterd into an element more than once 4. The indicators under elements 1 and 4 are to be based o measurements primarily from bivalves, secondarily from fish, and thirdly from sediment. Waterbased indicators are to be used only if other measurements are not available. In the element 2 (seafood) the compound can be entered even though it has been used under element 1 as the data and thershold levels are different

Lena Avellan 11/25/2015 29

CHASE

• confidence
• Allows experts to choose three quality scores for both the thresholds and

the data low, moderate and high

• Confidence of an indicator is the average of the threshold and data

confidence which are given values between 0% and 100% for the low, moderate and high scores

• Confidence of an element is taken as the average of the indicator

confidence values

• Confidence for the final assessment is the average of the four elements’

values

• If the assessment has only one element, the confidence rating is reduced

by 25%, i.e. one level lower

Lena Avellan 11/25/2015 30

CHASE 2.0

Lena Avellan 11/25/2015 31

element 1. 2. 3. 4.

Structured based on compartments (elements) Example CHASE 2.0 spreadsheet Coastal Status values are median

• f year/station/

assessment unit (nested – grid approach)

BalticBOOST WP 2.2

• ICES (Neil Holdsworth, Sebastian Valanko) are

WP lead

• Aim to improve data-arrangements for core

indicators, including semi-automated calculations

• Focus on core indicators, pre-cores as deemed

feasible

• First tasks on compariring metadata between

EIONet and COMBINE started

Lena Avellan 11/25/2015 32

Hazardous substance core indicators

• the issue of the assessment protocol
• Nationally developed assessment protocol so far applied in

HELCOM core indicators

• Synergies and regional comparability sought between

HELCOM hazardous substance experts and OSPAR MIME

• Initial comparisons showed minor difference between the

methods, not yet concluded on all indicators

• Initially experts believe that the MIME protocols could be

applied in HELCOM core indicators, making the outcomes between OSPAR and HELCOM comparable

Lena Avellan 11/25/2015 33

HELCOM EN HZ 1-2016 -BalticBOOST WP 2.1 (2.2.) Workshop proposed

• There is a need to

1. specify parameters and metadata required for the hazardous substance core indicators data-arrangements 2. Conclude on the indicator assessment protocol comparison to OSPAR MIME approach, consecutively establish data-flow 3. get expert input to the aggregation/integration of the HZ assessment tool 4. S&C 3 request: EN HZ to review mandatory data fields and the quality screening criteria under COMBINE to further investigate the possibility to use EIONet data in HOLAS II, wiht the view of considering if all fields/criteria are needed for indicators and whether some criteria data/information fields are missing

• Early February tentatively proposed as significant consecutive work

during 2016 needed based on the outcome

Lena Avellan 11/25/2015 34

Action required

The Meeting is invited to:

• take note of the information,
• provide guidance to the planning of activities of BalticBOOST WP

2.1 on development of the hazardous substance assessment tool,

• provide guidance to the planning of activities of BalticBOOST WP

2.2 on improving hazardous substance data-arrangements

• take note of the reported data currently available in the COMBINE

database and discuss the delimitation of monitoring data to be used in the hazardous substance assessment, taking into account the

• utcome of State and Conservation 3-2015.

Contracting Parties are invited to use the information in their planning

• f national contributions to the hazardous substance assessment

regarding expertise and data

Lena Avellan 11/25/2015 35