Dangerous Substances in Water 8068EEC Case studies

1
Dangerous Substances in Water (80/68/EEC) Case
studies

• Juhani Gustafsson
• Finnish Environment Institute, SYKE

2
Content

• Implementation of the directive (80/68/EEC) in
  Finland
• Groundwater issues in Finnish legislation
• Institutional aspects
• Finnish groundwater areas
• Classification of groundwater areas
• Case I
• Recharge of artificial groundwater
• An artificial groundwater intake in Tuusula
  municipality
• The permit procedure
• The decision of the environmental permit agency
• Case II
• Petrol station
• Case III
• Pesticides
• Conclusions

3
Implementation of the directive (80/68/EEC) in
Finland

• A national workgroup was established to study the
  impacts of the Directive on the Finnish
  legislation
• As a conclusion the group stated that the Finnish
  legislation concerning discharges of harmful
  substances into groundwater was stricter than the
  directive (80/68/EEC)
• A few modifications to the prevailing legislation
  were proposed and the Government Decision on the
  Protection of Ground Water Against Pollution
  Caused by Certain Dangerous Substances was given.
• Because all discharges to groundwater were
  prohibited already in the Finnish Water Act
  (Environment Protection Act) there was no need to
  establish a permit system for discharges into
  groundwater.

4
Groundwater issues in Finnish legislation

• The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) sets
  the framework and objectives for water protection
  in Finland.
• Groundwater issues are mainly regulated through
  the Water Act and the Environmental Protection
  Act.
• A good groundwater chemical status is safeguarded
  by means of the prohibition against groundwater
  pollution laid down in Section 8 of the
  Environmental Protection Act. Under this
  regulation, no substance shall be deposited in or
  energy conducted to a place or handled in a way
  that
• groundwater may become hazardous to health or its
  quality otherwise deteriorate in areas important
  for water supply or otherwise suitable for such
  use
• groundwater on the property of another may become
  hazardous to health or otherwise unsuitable for
  usage or
• the said action may otherwise violate the public
  or private good by affecting the quality of
  groundwater
• The prohibition on groundwater pollution means
  that a permit may not be granted for an activity
  which does not conform to this regulation. There
  is obligation by law for remediation of polluted
  groundwater and the polluter is considered
  responsible.

5
Institutional aspects

• The Ministry of the Environment
• is responsible for environment policies,
  preparation of the environmental legislation and
  the guidance of environmental administration.
• regional environment centres (13)
• take care of issues related to environmental
  protection, land use, building, nature
  conservation, protection of the cultural
  environment, and the management and use of water
  resources.
• the environmental permit agencies (3) and
• decide on the most important environmental
  permits and the permits under the Water Act. They
  also handle most compensation issues emanating
  from water pollution.

6

• the Finnish Environment Institute, SYKE
• is the governmental research and development
  centre of the environment. It provides expert
  services for the environment administration, the
  citizens, and business and industry. SYKE is also
  responsible for the national groundwater
  monitoring network and maintains GIS databases on
  groundwater.
• The Finnish Environment Institute and 13 Regional
  Environment Centres undertake water resources
  tasks under the guidance of the Ministry of
  Agriculture and Forestry and The Ministry of the
  Environment
• The municipalities and towns, numbering about
  450, are local authorities in charge of
  environmental issues including groundwater
  issues. They are also responsible for arranging
  water supply and planning the overall development
  of water services
• Ministry of Social Affairs and Health is the
  authority responsible for the quality of potable
  water

7
Finnish groundwater areas

• Finnish aquifers are mainly shallow and
  unconfined, located in eskers or ice marginal
  formations.
• Finnish groundwater areas (aquifers) were mapped
  in 19881996
• The determination of the outer boundaries of
  groundwater area were based on the subsoil and
  the conceptual types of formations
• The boundary of the recharge area (high
  vulnerability) was based on the permeability of
  subsoil, which should be equal to fine sand or
  higher
• Information collected on the
• location of aquifers, hydrogeology of these
  areas, suitability for water supply, quality of
  groundwater, possible risk activities and
  contaminated sites (industry, roads,
  depositories, farming, gravel extraction sites
  etc.)
• The inventory was based on
• earlier studies, maps of subsoil and field work
  focused on checking the estimated borderlines and
  the material of the formations
• The data collected throughout the project is
  stored in a database

8
Classification of groundwater areas

• The classification is based on the suitability
  for water supply and vulnerability of the area
• Groundwater area important for water supply
  class I
• water extracted from the area is used by a water
  works which supplies at least for 10 or more
  households (approximately 50 persons)
• Groundwater area suitable for water supply
  class II
• area is suitable for water supply, but for the
  time being, is needed neither for the municipal
  water supply nor for households in the sparsely
  populated areas
• Other groundwater area class III
• further studies are needed to find out the
  suitability of the area for water supply

9
Case I Recharge of artificial groundwater

• The legislation related to recharge of artificial
  groundwater is included in the Finnish Water Act
  and Water Decree
• The extraction of groundwater needs a permit if
  the amount of groundwater extracted is more than
  250 m3/day.
• If the waterworks has a pre-treatment of the
  recharged water it will need a environmental
  permit also.
• All waterworks having a recharge of artificial
  groundwater are obligated to make an official
  notice based to the environment protection act.
• The Environmental Permit Agencies grants the
  permits of groundwater extraction

10
An artificial groundwater intake in Tuusula
municipality

• The waterworks is situated in groundwater area
  classified important for water supply
• The aquifer is a glasiofluvial esker, which is
  approximately 4 km long. The material is coarse
  sand and gravel. The total area is 1,5 km2 and
  the estimated natural yield is 2000 m3/day. In
  the regional and master plan a part of the
  groundwater area is defined as valuable in the
  basis of the landscape.
• There is hydrologic connection between the
  aquifer and the surface water through the high
  permeable sediments in the shoreline (Lake
  Rusutjärvi).
• In the vicinity of the recharge area the are
  farms and residential areas with private wells.
• The total amount of water to be extracted from
  the aquifer will be 20 000 m3/d. The waterworks
  will distribute water to four municipalities,
  totally to over 100 000 inhabitants.
• The surface water to be recharged is taken from
  the Päijänne -tunnel. (a water tunnel in bedrock,
  which provides water to the capital city area.)

11
The permit procedure

• In accordance with the Finnish Water Degree the
  applicant (waterworks) have to submit a
  attachment where is explained
• the background information
• the present situation of the water supply on the
  area
• the purpose of the recharge of artificial
  groundwater and the amount of water needed
• the description of the project
• hydrogeology of the area
• recharge and intake arrangements
• implementation of the project and costs
• the possible impacts to the environment
• the description of the possible harmful impacts
  and damages
• juridical requirements
• Environmental assessment procedure should be
  applied when the recharge of artificial
  groundwater consist large amounts of water or/and
  the possible effects of the activity are expected
  to be extensive.

12

• In this case the waterworks applied a preliminary
  permit for a fixed-period to test the capacity
  and possible effects of the recharge. The permit
  was granted by the Water Court (abolished,
  nowadays environmental permit agency) and
  reinforced by the Water Court of Appeal (nowadays
  Administrative Court)
• The waterworks applied the final permit after
  approximately four years the preliminary permit
  was granted.
• A flow model of groundwater conditions was made
  to simulate the process and the possible impacts
  of the recharge and increased water extraction
• A few claims were made to the application
• The environment centre of Uusimaa reminded that
  the monitoring data collected during these four
  year have not been applied profoundly enough to
  improve the model
• Some residents in the vicinity of the waterworks
  have claimed that the extraction of water might
  have a effect on the quality and quantity of
  groundwater in their wells and their premises

13
The decision of the environmental permit agency

• The permit was granted on the basis of that
• the recharge of artificial groundwater and the
  extraction of groundwater do not cause any
  prohibited impact stated in the Water Act.
• The extraction of groundwater is necessitated by
  the public interest
• The extraction of water stipulated in the permit
  do not cause any harm to the settlement,
  occupation or environment
• The permit regulations
• The waterworks may not extract groundwater more
  than 20 000 m3 per day calculated in monthly
  average.
• The holder of the permit (waterworks) is
  responsible for the recharge of the artificial
  groundwater and the extraction of water and for
  the possible damages and harms caused by the
  activity
• The waterworks will have to monitor the effects
  of the recharge artificial groundwater and the
  extraction of groundwater on the groundwater
  conditions. The environment centre of Uusimaa
  will approve the monitoring programme. The
  results of the monitoring shall be sent to the
  environment centre.

14
Monitoring programme

• The waterworks is responsible for the monitoring.
  The programme is approved by the environment
  centre of Uusimaa.
• The programme contains monitorings of
• The amounts of water
• distributed to the network
• the total amount of surface water recharged into
  groundwater in each recharge areas
• the amount of extracted groundwater from each of
  the production wells (artificial groundwater)
• The groundwater levels
• the level of groundwater is measured daily from
  two monitoring points
• from 16 ( 2 new tubes) monitoring tubes once a
  week during the first three months and thereafter
  once a month
• The water level of Lake Rusutjärvi
• once a day, results are compared with the
  groundwater levels

15

• The groundwater quality
• the samples are taken from each of the six
  production wells and from 4 monitoring tubes 4
  times a year
• The quality of the artificially recharged water
• The recharged water (surface water) is taken from
  the Päijänne tunnel, which provides water for
  the capital city area. The water supply in the
  capital city area is run by a water company,
  which is also responsible for the monitoring.
• The water samples are taken once a month
• The water quality in Lake Rusutjärvi
• In summer water samples are taken once in three
  weeks, the rest of the year once a month.

16
Case II Petrol station

• The property of petrol station is located on a
  groundwater area classified important for water
  supply (class I) and in the safeguard zone of a
  water intake.
• The petrol station situated on the location since
  year 1965. The zone provision in the town plan
  enabled the activity until a new permit was
  required.
• The permit was to be renewed based on the
  Environmental protection act
• in accordance to the act a environmental permit
  is needed for a petrol station.
• The activity may cause a risk to groundwater.
• The Ministry Trade and Industry has defined the
  new technical standards for the environmental
  safety of the petrol stations in 1998. The
  amendments should have been carried out by the
  end of year 2002.

17

• The new environmental permit concerned the
  alterations to be done at the site stated in the
  decisions of The Ministry Trade and Industry and
  to enlarge the volume of the underground tanks
  (74 m3 -gt 120 m3)
• An application for an environmental permit was
  sent to the authority in this case the permit
  authority is the municipality
• The environment centre of Häme was asked to give
  a statement
• The environmental centre of Hame stated that the
  groundwater area is extremely important for water
  supply and the groundwater are is highly
  vulnerable. The groundwater level is only few
  meters from the surface of the ground.
• Despite of the statement of the Environment
  centre of Häme the environmental authorities in
  the municipality granted the permission
• The environmental centre of Häme made an appeal
  to Administrative Court against the decision of
  the municipality.
• The Administrative Court dismissed the appeal

18

• The environmental centre of Häme made an appeal
  to Supreme Administrative Court to repeal the
  decision of the Administrative Court.
• The Supreme Administrative Court stated in the
  judgement that the permit can not be granted
  because
• Although the petrol station has been in operation
  on the same location since 1965 in the permit
  procedure the activity should be estimated as a
  new activity because of the alterations.
• the location is not suitable (important
  groundwater area)
• it is necessary to find alternative sites
• the risk caused to groundwater by the activity is
  strict reason for not to grant the permit
• even the BAT does not eliminate the requirement
  of absolute prohibition against groundwater
  pollution
• it is not certain that the protective measures
  described in the application will prevent the
  pollution of groundwater
• The Supreme Administrative Court returned the
  application back to the municipality in order to
  study the possibilities to prevent the risk by
  tightening the groundwater protection measures
  and technical solution

19
Case III - pesticides

• In Finland, the approval decisions of the
  pesticide products are made by the Pesticide
  Board, which consists of authorities from
  different institutions or ministries. They
  represent the areas of health, environment,
  occupational safety, residues in food and needs
  of agriculture.
• The Plant Production Inspection Centre is the
  national co-ordinator of registration process and
  it keeps a register of pesticides accepted for
  marketing in Finland.
• The decisions of the Pesticide Board are based on
  statements given by different authorities. The
  Finnish Environment Institute is the responsible
  authority for the environmental risk assessment
  of pesticides.
• Environmental risks are assessed based on
  documentation supplied by the applicant and on
  other information available. The statement of
  Finnish Environment Institute includes a
  conclusion, whether an applied pesticide is
  acceptable or not.

20

• Only those products which do not cause
  unacceptable harm to the environment can be
  accepted. Often particular restrictions for the
  usage are set as a condition for acceptance in
  order to decrease the harmful effects of a
  pesticide to the environment.
• These restrictions are currently mainly based on
  the properties of a pesticide. For instance the
  use of a pesticide in successive years in the
  same field or the use in the groundwater areas
  may be restricted. Additionally, the restrictions
  may include buffer zones to watercourses.
• Pesticides should only be used at selected sites
  and even then only in small amounts. In
  groundwater areas and near springs and water
  intake structures pesticides should not be used
  at all. A buffer zone has to be left between the
  application area and waterbody. The equipment
  used in the application of pesticides may not be
  cleaned directly in the waterbody

21
Conclusions - pesticides

• Pesticide had to be investigated and approved
  before importing, marketing and usage of a
  pesticide was allowed.
• Finland has taken part to the common pesticide
  evaluation and approval process within EU. The
  authorizations of plant protection products are
  ultimately decided at national level.
• The Finnish Environment Institute is the
  responsible authority for the environmental risk
  assessment of pesticides
• Only those products which do not cause
  unacceptable harm to the environment can be
  accepted
• Use of a pesticide in the groundwater areas may
  be restricted depending on results of the risk
  assessment.