Risk Mitigation Groundwater & Drainagesesss12.setac.eu/embed/SESSS12/Risk_Mitigation... · the PPP...

SETAC Europe 12th Special Science Symposium Risk mitigation measures, risk assessment and labelling in the EU 28: Introduction to the MAgPIE toolbox

Environmental Quality through Science® Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

Gerhard Goerlitz 1, Colin Brown 2

1 Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Gemany 2 University of York, Heslington, United Kingdom

Risk Mitigation Groundwater & Drainage



Groundwater

Aquifer

Drinking Water Well Monitoring Well

•

1m FOCUS GW conservative surrogate for PEC calculation



Groundwater EU has established a protective Quality Standard of 0.1 µg/L for pesticide a.i. and relevant metabolites in groundwater. (DIRECTIVE 2000/60/EC =“WFD”)

RMM 1) in 4 categories: 1. Well established in the EU, widely used and consolidated

2. Established somewhere in the EU, and consolidated

3. Well documented RMM, but needs more consolidation

4. Only an idea and needs research

1) Mitigation measures to ensure compliance with the groundwater quality standard are in the following also termed „Risk Mitigation Measures“ (=RMM) even if that may not be strictly correct.



Technical, agronomic and legal feasibility generally very high, measures covered by existing label phrases Spe1 and SPe2 Effectiveness: (V)ariable and needs to be established via approved regulatory models (H)igh Enforceability: (Y)es = no issues seen (H)igh

Risk Mitigation Toolbox Groundwater

RMM Effective-

ness Enforce-ability

Label Phrase Comments Applicable to Drainage

restriction of application to certain growth stage V Y SPe 1 usually implicitly part of

the GAP, yes

restriction of application to certain time of the year V Y SPe 1 yes

max number of applications H Y SPe 1 yes

within 2yr/3yr period H Y SPe 1 no

soil type, - parameter V H SPe 2 suitable communication

in the label yes

1. RMM well established in the EU, widely used and consolidated



Risk Mitigation Toolbox Groundwater (2)

2. Established somewhere in the EU, and consolidated

RMM Effectiveness

Use in Risk Assessment

Label Phrase Comments Applicable to Drainage

application only from … to … V Y SPe 1 yes

Band application H Y Spe X yes

geohydrological properties H Y SPe 2 Use of Spe 2 needs

clarification no

exclude drinking water abstraction areas H *) (Y) covered in

WFD

depends on the

definition of DW

abstraction well/area no

*) drinking water

Technical, agronomic and legal feasibility generally very high, measures covered by existing label phrases Spe1 and SPe2, new label phrase needed for band application Effectiveness: (V)ariable and needs to be established via approved regulatory models (H)igh Enforceability: (Y)es = no issues seen (H)igh



3. Well documented RMM, but needs more consolidation

RMM Effectiveness Use in Risk Assessment

Label Phrase Comments Applicability to Drainage

exclusion based on vulnerability maps

H

Y

SPe 2, but

needs

clarification

communication of the

vulnerability map,

differentiation between

generic and product

specific maps

yes

catchment management plans H Spe X presently mostly applied

to DW catchments yes

Technical, agronomic and legal feasibility generally high, clarification is needed whether they can be covered by SPe2 or need a new label phrase (band application) Effectiveness: (V)ariable and needs to be established via approved regulatory models (H)igh




Groundwater Vulnerability Maps



Substance-Independent Vulnerability Maps



Substance-Specific Vulnerability Maps

Issue: Efficient distribution of vulnerability maps

Explore GPS based solutions



Farm Visit



Catchment Management Plans

Comprehensive plan to manage farming practice and PPP use in a catchment to adress specific contamination issues in accordance with the needs for efficient and profitable farming. Very dependent on local legal, economical and institutional conditions England Case Study Need to find a „Catchment Manager“ Experiences mostly with drinking water catchments (ground- and surface water) Cooperation between • Catchment manager (e.g. local water works) • Farmers • Advisory services • PPP companies / Industry Associations • Authorities (Water, Agriculture, Environment, Health …) Important issues: Competition law and costs!




4. Only an idea and needs research

Multiple agronomic and environmental benefits (reduction of nitrate leaching, improved soil quality, biodiversity, water balance …)

Very attractive solution

Effects on leaching of PPP largely untested and need investigation

RMM Effectiveness Use in Risk Assessment

Label Phrase Comments Applicability to Drainage

cover crops during winter needs investigation

inter-row crops needs investigation



Subsurface drainage

• Aims to remove excess water from the soil or land surface

• Free-draining soils in landscapes with shallow groundwater

• Slowly-permeable, fine-textured soils often prone to macropore flow



hardwickagricultural.co.uk

umequip.com

Subsoiling

Typical tile drain installation

agriculture.vic.gov.au ironcorner.com

Moling



Extent of drained land

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Alb

ania

Au

stri

a

Be

lgiu

m

Bu

lgar

ia

Cze

ch …

De

nm

ark

Esto

nia

Fin

lan

d

Fran

ce

Ge

rman

y

Gre

ece

Hu

nga

ry

Ire

lan

d

Ital

y

Latv

ia

Lith

uan

ia

Luxe

mb

ou…

Ne

the

rlan

ds

Po

lan

d

Po

rtu

gal

Ro

man

ia

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

ven

ia

Spai

n

UK

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f la

nd

(%

) Subsoiling

Moling

Normal

Patricia de la Cueva (2006). Cranfield University



Risk mitigation concept for drainage (1)

• Effective drainage is vital for arable cultivation so stopping water movement via drains is not practicable

• Contrasts with surface runoff and erosion where farmers are already working to control as part of best management practices

• So risk mitigation for drainage needs to address use of the PPP in situations presenting unacceptable risk



Risk mitigation concept for drainage (2)

• First step for transport via drainage is leaching through the upper soil profile

• Risk mitigation measures share many common features with those for groundwater

• Two main types of risk mitigation measures • RMM applied across the whole usage area • RMM targeted at vulnerable situations

• Which type of measure will depend on legal framework and existing practice within the MS

• Modelling likely to be the main approach to demonstrate the reduction in risk (e.g. change in GAP)



RMM applied across whole usage area

Drainage mitigation measure

Scientific data basis

Proposed modelling tool or parameter modifications

Comment

Restriction on application timing

+++

Modified application pattern with standard risk

assessment models

Can include restrictions based on crop growth stage

or dates

Restriction on application rate

+++

Modified application pattern with standard risk

assessment models

Can include maximum single rate or maximum rate

per season

Band application ++

Simulate the effective application per unit area

with standard risk assessment models

-



RMM targeted at vulnerable areas

Drainage mitigation measure

Scientific data basis

Proposed modelling tool or parameter modifications

Comment

Restriction based on soil type

++

Purpose-designed modelling drawing on MACRO or other

models; potential to incorporate GIS

Restrict on soil type rather than presence/absence of drains as latter not always

known

Restriction based on vulnerability maps

+

Purpose-designed modelling drawing on MACRO or other

models; likely to incorporate GIS

Could draw on existing catchment management

plans and/or Drinking Water Protection Areas



Retention ponds & artificial wetlands

• Slow the movement of water allowing time for infiltration, sedimentation, sorption and degradation

• Effective measure at MS level where volume/rate of drainflow relatively small; structure relatively large; and/or significant infiltration out of structure

• French guidelines target 7-d hydraulic retention time

• Retention structures 1% of drained area & 0.8 m deep to retain 7 mm of flow

• Use is more challenging in heavy clay soils, so not included into harmonised mitigation scheme at present

• Drainflow can be continuous throughout winter and the main hydraulic pathway

• Retention times decrease if structures full of water prior to storm event



Tournebize et al., 2015



S-Phrases of relevance to groundwater and drainage

Reference Phrase

SPe2 To protect [groundwater/aquatic organisms] do not apply to [soil type or situation to be specified] soils

Reference Phrase

SPeX To protect [groundwater/aquatic organisms] do not apply this or any other product containing [identify active substance or class of substances, as appropriate] in vulnerable areas [areas of drinking water abstraction or other vulnerable conditions]

SPeX To protect [groundwater/aquatic organisms] the use of this or any other product containing [identify active substance or class of substances, as appropriate] is only allowed if specific management conditions [e.g. use of cover crops, band application, others (to be specified)] are fulfilled

Current

Proposed additions



The Groundwater Group Irene Hanke, Agroscope, CH (chair) Gerhard Goerlitz, Bayer, D; Denis Yon, Dow, UK Giovanna Azimonti, SACCO, IT Antonio Finizio, Unimib, IT Bernhard Gottesbueren, BASF, D Erika Schneider, Adama, D Janrenger van de Veen, Sumitomo, F

Stefano Lucci, Isprambiente, IT Elena Alonso Prados, INIA, ESP Tim Haering, BASF, D D. Delikirova, BFSA, BG Orchideya Mitova, NRSZ, BG Greg Hughes, UK Wolfgang Reiher, Knoell, D

Drainage Bernard Vincent, IRSTEA, F Colin Brown, University York, UK

Risk Mitigation Groundwater & Drainagesesss12.setac.eu/embed/SESSS12/Risk_Mitigation... · the PPP...

Documents

Transcript of Risk Mitigation Groundwater & Drainagesesss12.setac.eu/embed/SESSS12/Risk_Mitigation... · the PPP...