Post a comment on the text below
Point source pollution
The point source pressures for surface waters are related to effluent discharges of pollutants from urban waste water followed to a lesser degree by discharges from storm water, industries sites and aquaculture, while the point source pressures affecting groundwater is more related to leaching of hazardous substances from landfills and contaminated sites. During the last century, increased population growth and increased waste water production and discharge from urban areas and industry resulted in a marked increase in water pollution from point sources.
In the second RBMPs, Member States identified 21 % of surface water bodies being affected by point source pollution pressures, with transitional and coastal waters more affected than rivers and lakes. The main driver for point source pollution in the second RBMPs is urban waste water, being the source for around 70 % of surface water bodies affected by point sources. Furthermore, point sources from contaminated sites are a significant pressure for 14 % of groundwater body area.
Downward trends in concentrations of water pollutants associated with urban and industrial wastewater are evident in most of Europe's surface waters (Figure 6.5). This is also reflected in the quality of EU bathing waters, which has improved significantly since 1990 (EEA, 2016[4]). In 2016, more than 96 % of bathing sites had good water quality (EEA, 2017[5]). Concentrations of pollutants associated with waste water discharge such as BOD, ammonium and phosphate in European rivers and lakes have decreased markedly over the past 25 years (Figure 6.5).
Figure 6.5: Trend in Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and orthophosphate in European rivers.
|
Note: The diagram depicts two-time series: the longer time series has fewer stations (539) and the shorter time series has more (1 235). Source: Link |
Note: The diagram depicts two-time series: the longer time series has fewer stations (874) and the shorter time series has more (1 470). Source: Link. |
You cannot post comments to this consultation because you are not authenticated. Please log in.
Previous comments
Figure 6.5:
This form of presentation is quite informative especially for experts - the problem with this form of presentation, to our opinion, is that the non-expert reader is "left alone" with the interpretation of the diagramms.
There are two lines showing a similar trend, based on different datasets. But, there is no explanation in the text why this form of diagramm is used and why the two lines in the graphs showing the same trend are used. A policy paper for the politics, the broader public and the administration should to our opinion include a more simplified presentation. Please use one line per graph only. As an alternative you may insert some sentences in the text -"why two lines were used?" and "which of the two lines might be the better / more useful one"
"This is also reflected in the quality of EU bathing waters, which has improved significantly since 1990 (EEA, 2016[4]). In 2016, more than 96 % of bathing sites had good water quality (EEA, 2017[5])" please delete this sentence.
In reference to the 1st paragraph: In the European Union, a vast majority of aggregates extraction sites are dealing with inert materials such as sand, gravel and crushed rock, and produce inert wastes according to EU definitions and criteria included in EU Directives. The industry’s production process and treatment plants do not include the use of chemicals as in most of the cases the processes are based on mechanical crushing, milling, grinding, and size grading. It is necessary to make a clear distinction between the concept of mining and quarrying, as the nature of their activities and the properties of the materials they extract are very different, and the Aggregates Industry does not represent a threat for water quality. Moreover, in the aggregates industry, it is possible to create wetlands during and after the extraction phase, according with the permit granted by the administration (including environment and water management authorities, and in many cases under the EIA scheme). Most of those new wetlands or lakes are designed according to suitable hydromorphological parameters, to achieve a new (artificial) water body that is able to grant water quality parameters and biodiversity requirements for their life time. Some of them have flood protection designs or even good quality water supply to urban areas for human consumption. Recent studies from different countries (Denmark, Austria, France, UK, Germany, Spain) are demonstrating that water quality is by far better in these artificial wetlands linked to quarries and sand and gravel pits extaction sites, compared to natural lakes. The rise of biodiversity is, again, a living proof of that. These facts have received recognition by the European Commission, research institutions, and a number of environmental NGOs.
It would be therefore recommended to clearly define what is meant by heavy industry or mining and which measures apply to mining and which ones to the Aggregates Industry, rather than addressing the entire extractive industry.
In reference to "Downward trends in concentrations of water pollutants associated with urban and industrial wastewater are evident in most of Europe's surface waters": That is proof of the commitment of the industrial sectors like the aggregates extraction sector, towards the permanent improvement of water management.
BE-FLA (RV): p. 59 §7 discharges from storm water, industries sites
discharges from storm water overflows, industriales sites
BE-FLA (RV): p. 59 In the second RBMPs, Member States identified 21 % of surface water bodies being affected by point source pollution pressures, with transitional and coastal waters more affected than rivers and lakes. The main driver for point source pollution in the second RBMPs is urban waste water, being the source for around 70 % of surface water bodies affected by point sources. Furthermore, point sources from contaminated sites are a significant pressure for 14 % of groundwater body area.
p. 31: 38%
p. 32: 12%
p. 49: 4%
SK: Figure 6.5: We propose to change the titles of axis y to concentration of BOD5, mg/l and concentration of P-PO4, mg/l.
(AT) 2nd para, 1st sentence: In the second RBMPs, Member States identified 21 % of surface water bodies ...
Figure 2.8 says 18%