Post a comment on the text below
Intercomparability of groundwater chemical assessment
The range in good groundwater chemical status is from [38%] to 100%. As with RBSPs (chapter 2.3), Member States identify substances which pollute groundwater bodies and set “threshold values” at national level as a benchmark for good chemical status. This can lead to a range of approaches, for example, some Member States have considered threshold values for over 90 pollutants, while others have assessed status using fewer than 10. The monitoring of more substances could lead to a greater chance of failing to achieve good chemical status. In addition, the range of concentrations for which threshold values are set can vary quite widely and there are differences in methodologies for establishing threshold values and natural background levels. These factors together mean that caution should be applied when comparing groundwater chemical status between countries.
You cannot post comments to this consultation because you are not authenticated. Please log in.
Previous comments
Please delete the quotation marks "" (..."threshold values")
Please change "These factors together" in "Together, these factors"
BE-FLA (RV): p. 45, last § The monitoring of more substances could lead to a greater chance of failing to achieve good chemical status.
This remark also applies to SWBs.
BE-FLA (WV): p. 45, last § These factors together mean that caution should be applied when comparing groundwater chemical status between countries.
These issues can partly be tackled by making substance-specific graphs and comparing for ex. The 15 pollutants that’s are mentioned by more than 5 MS
(AT)
Perhaps include a reference to previous analytical work on this topic conducted under CIS WG Groundwater
Member States identify substances which pollute cause risk that groundwater bodies are failing good status and set “threshold values” at national level various levels (Member State, RBD, groundwater body) as a benchmark for good chemical status.
not 'pollute' but causing risk of failing good status.
In addition, the range of concentrations for which threshold values are set can vary quite widely and there are differences in methodologies for establishing threshold values and natural background levels .
Variation of TVs also due to variability in receptors which need to be protected and for which TVs are derived. Furthermore the methodologies of calculating average values, which are then compared against the standards/threshold values, are different from MS to MS.