1

Streamlining EEA – ESTATStreamlining EEA – ESTATstate-of-the-play with focus onstate-of-the-play with focus on

potential for potential for sharing data with utility organisationssharing data with utility organisations aiming at aiming at streamlining UWWTD – JQ-IWstreamlining UWWTD – JQ-IW and improving and improving performance indicatorsperformance indicators

Bo N. JacobsenEEA

WISE TG meeting 07-08 June 2010, Madrid

2

3

Data streamlining within WISEData streamlining within WISE- examples- examples

Sum

National database

EEA Eurostat JQ-IW

4

Overview – state-of-the-playOverview – state-of-the-play

Streamlining attempts ongoing for• SoE emissions

• SoE (Eionet) request designed with high alignment with JQ-IW

• Emission WaterBase made available by 22 march 2010

• SoE Water Quantity• UWWTD

• Ref. To ETC-W presentation WISE TG Stockholm• UWWTD WaterBase made available by 22 march 2010

5

EEA pilot initiative by potential data EEA pilot initiative by potential data sharing with utility organisations sharing with utility organisations

Aims• Facilitate further UWWTD – JQ-IW streamlining• Further devoping performance indicators• Get added value from existing:

• E-PRTR reporting (transfers to water)• Data on population density• GIS layer superimposing techniques

• Contribute to water–energy nexus for water utility sector

• Strengthen WISE relations to water utility segment

6

Main messagesMain messagesUWWTD – JQ-IW streamlingUWWTD – JQ-IW streamling

• The two data flows are closely related on urban wastewater

• Two basic differences hinders a streamlining:• Population equivalents (p.e.) versus population

(inhabitants)• Agglomeration versus urban WWTP catchment

• Expanding current UWWT WaterBase with population per UWWTP sewerage catchment will enable prefilling of parts of JQ-IW table 4, 5 & 7

7

How to get data on population How to get data on population (inhabitants) per WWTP ?(inhabitants) per WWTP ?

• Already in national databases operated by national UWWTD reporters

• Already in databases of national water utility associations

• Already known by individual UWWTP operators

• To be calculated from shapefiles of UWWTP sewerage catchments by GIS overlay with existing European grids of population density

8

How to derive indicators ?How to derive indicators ?Agree on a story and the important (policy)

questions

Conclusion and communication of key messages

-Identify relevant indicators (headlines) answering these

-Compare with currently available indicator assessments

Decide on assessment methods (targets, criteria)

and data needed / available

Data compilation and Assessment

9

Performance: treatment of Performance: treatment of waste waterwaste water

Changes in wastewater treatment in regions of Europe between 1990 and 2005

CSI 024 link

Key policy question:How effective are existing policies in reducing loading discharges of nutrients and organic matter ?

10

Pop-up information on individual WWTPsPop-up information on individual WWTPs

•

UWWTP-link

11

E-PRTR link

12

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0,000

0,020

0,040

0,060

0,080

0,100

0,12019

93

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Tota

l Pho

spho

rus

load

dis

char

ged

from

UW

WTP

s [t

/y]

Conc

entr

ation

of

Tota

l pho

spho

rus

[mg/

l]

P total [mg/l]

P total discharge from UWWTPs [t/y]/ EUROSTAT-JQ

Trend in mean Total Phosphorus concentration in rivers Trend in mean Total Phosphorus concentration in rivers plotted against loads discharged from UWWTPs- Austriaplotted against loads discharged from UWWTPs- Austria

Note: Percentage of population connected to tertiary treatment increased by 24 % since 1998

13

Think holistic – start focussed !- start simple and with big WWTPs - Make data specific per: m3 / p.e. / inhabitant in

sewerage catchment- Modify: total loads minus big industries (E-PRTR)

Focus on:- Actual, specific pollution loads

- UWWTP influent and effluent- Corresponding, specific energy consumptions

Looking forward on further development Looking forward on further development of performance indicators of performance indicators

Performance of catchment

Performance of catchment + WWTP

preferred

Carbon footprint

14

Potential performance indicatorsPotential performance indicators- specific loads excluding E-PRTR transfers; based on 2007 data;- specific loads excluding E-PRTR transfers; based on 2007 data; *) excluding WWTP storm overflows*) excluding WWTP storm overflows

Damhusåen DK310106Inf. (g/d/p): 68 (BOD), 12 (N), 2.2 (P)Eff. (g(d/p): 4.5 (BOD), 2.8 (N), 0.4 (P) *)Power (W/p): 4.7 (total) 2.5 (net)

Lynetten DK10105Inf. (g/d/p): 96 (BOD), 15 (N), 2.6 (P)Eff. (g(d/p): 3.5 (BOD), 2.2 (N), 0.3 (P)Power (W/p): 6.1 (total) 6.1 (net)

Spildevandscenter Avedøre DK1670001 Inf. (g/d/p): 68 (BOD), 13 (N), 2.4 (P)Eff. (g(d/p): 1.7 (BOD), 2.4 (N), 0.3 (P) *)Power (W/p): 7.6 (total) 4.3 (net)Carbon footprint (kg CO2-e/y/p): 23 (net)

(Source: utility websites)

15

Catchment Performance IndicatorsCatchment Performance Indicators"Catchment performance indicator"

Influent loads ID Q CODcr BOD5 Total N Total P Inhabitants

UWWTP short name   l/p/d g/p/d 1000 p

Lynetten DK10105 138 165 96 15 2.6 535

Damhusåen DK310106 154 135 68 12 2.2 230

Spv.Cent. Avedøre DK1670001 142 164 68 13 2.4 235

Hagen DETP_NW1206 184 116 49 13 1.7 190

Bochum-Olbachtal DETP_NW1201 100 134 52 13 1.7 184

Menden DETP_NW1247 239 116 46 12 1.7 73

Iserlohn-Baarbachtal DETP_NW1237 173 107 46 14 1.7 69

16

Catchment +UWWTP IndicatorsCatchment +UWWTP Indicators"Catchment + UWWTP performance indicator"

effluent loads ID Q CODcr BOD5 Total N Total P Inhabitants

UWWTP short name   l/p/d g/p/d 1000 p

Lynetten DK10105   15 3.5 2.2 0.3 535

Damhusåen DK310106   20 4.5 2.8 0.4 230

Spv.Cent. Avedøre DK1670001   13 1.7 2.4 0.3 235

Hagen DETP_NW1206   8.3 1.8 4.5 0.19 190

Bochum-Olbachtal DETP_NW1201   8 1 2.9 0.12 184

Menden DETP_NW1247   13.1 2.7 4.9 0.38 73

Iserlohn-Baarbachtal DETP_NW1237   11.2 1.3 4.3 0.24 69

17

Water & Energy specific power Water & Energy specific power consumption at UWWTPsconsumption at UWWTPs

Water & Energy relations: specific power consumption at UWWTPs

  ID Power consumption GHG emission

UWWTP short name   W/p kg CO2-e/p/y

    total net net, fossile

Lynetten DK10105 6.1 6.1  

Damhusåen DK310106 4.7 2.5  

Spv.Cent. Avedøre DK1670001 7.6 4.3 23

Hagen DETP_NW1206 4.0 0.03 0.2

Bochum-Ollbachrtal DETP_NW1201 4.2 1.0 5.4

Menden DETP_NW1247 4.2 2.0 10.3

Iserlohn-Baarbechtal DETP_NW1237 4.5 2.3 12.4

18

Options for data flows in WISEOptions for data flows in WISE

• Via national reporters to UWWTDs• Via Eionet national focal points • Via national associations

• Coordinated by EUREAU, WSSTP, IWA,..

• By individual uploads (EoE-approach)

to be discussed...

19

Strategic opportunities for future challenges:Strategic opportunities for future challenges:(presented at IWA Water Utility managent Conference, (presented at IWA Water Utility managent Conference, Barcelona 11-12 may 2010)Barcelona 11-12 may 2010)

• WISE is a transparent information system of high relevance for water utilities – be free to use it !

• Several datasets based on EU water directive reporting can get added value by voluntary supplementary strategic data flows

• Hereby proposed to utilities to share data on:• Specific loads from sewerage catchments• Specific emissions from UWWTPs• Specific energy consumptionPotentially leading to performance indicators across Europe

and beyond ..

20

Thank you to:Thank you to:Avedoere Wastewater ServicesAvedoere Wastewater ServicesLynettefaellesskabetLynettefaellesskabetRuhrverbandRuhrverband

for sharing data – hopefully more to come for sharing data – hopefully more to come in pilot exercise via utility organisationsin pilot exercise via utility organisations

21

Thank you for your attentionThank you for your attention

Do you agree on the WISE perspectives ?

bo.jacobsen@eea.europa.eu

22

UWWTDUWWTD

• Reporting stream is well established according to requirements of UWWTD

• Additional voluntary reporting has been incorporated in xml-schemas

• Reporting via Reportnet has been established as a dataflow

• Xml-schemas may be revised for next reporting in 2011

• Reporting is un-aggregated, e.g. per agglomeration or WWTP level

23

JQ-IWJQ-IW

• Reporting stream is well established according to voluntary agreements and guidance is given in a JQ-IW Manual

• Reporting is aggregated per country – now also to be regionalised per RBD

• Nomalising units are p.e. and WWTPs (to destinguish type of treatment)

24

UWWTD (p.e.) UWWTD (p.e.)

• p.e. is a term normalising organic pollution load (BOD) from industrial sources into the comparable unit of BOD load from 1 person

• Definition 1 p.e. = 60 BOD (5,ATU) / day)

• CEN standard (EN:1085) operates with PE (same as p.e.) for more parameters,e.g.:• PEB60 = 60 g BOD/day• PEN12 = 12 g total N/day,

• PEP2,7= 2.7 g total P/day,Standardisation is only on the nomenclature

25

UWWTD (p.e.) - Pro et contraUWWTD (p.e.) - Pro et contra

• Pro: • widely used, throughout decades• has been used in UWWTD as unit for generated pollution

load as criteria to prescribe certain ww- infrastructure service levels

• Contra: • The load from 1 person varies between countries and also over

the years• In particular P load per person has decreased over time

• Lack of homogenity for quantifying p.e. from service sector with domestic sewage (included or not)

• Quantification of pollutant load only related to BOD is losing importance compared to N and P

26

UWWTD (agglomeration) UWWTD (agglomeration)

• Agglomeration is a term introduced in UWWTD in order to establish size criteria for communities to be served by various levels of wastewater infrastructure service

• The load expressed in p.e. reflects typically the ”capacity” of the agglomeration based on design criteria, e.g., based on p.e/ha for different classes of land use

27

Agglomeration - Pro et contraAgglomeration - Pro et contra

• Pro: • The concept ensures that the same size of communities are evaluated

alike, independently of how many individual WWTPs and corresponding catchments

• Contra:• Such design criteria are expected to vary considerably across Europe• Lack of homogenity for quantifying p.e. from service sector with domestic

sewage (included or not) and some inhomogenicities arise,e.g. on how generated load from domestic wastewater from service sector is accounted for.

• Unless the agglomeration and catchment of UWWTD is the same, monitoring data from influent WWTP load cannot be used to characterise the load.

• Therefore, load expressed in p.e. generated from agglomarations is technically not such a good normalising parameter for the actual loads for the year of reporting

• The normalisation per inhabitant (=capita) is already widely used in many other environmental and consumption statistics