Water Pollution Control in the Netherlands 2001

7/28/2019 Water Pollution Control in the Netherlands 2001

1/77

Water pollution control

in the Netherlands

Policy and practice 2001

Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Mana gement

RIZA Institute for Inland Water Mana gement a nd Waste Water Treatment


2/77

Water pollution control

in the Netherlands

Policy and practice 2001

Henk Warmer & Rona ld van Dokkum

March 2002

RIZA report 2002.009

ISBN 9036954290


3/77

RIZA

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RIZA 2

The a cronym RIZA stands for Rijksinstituut voor Integ raa l Zoetw at erbeheer

en Afvalwaterbehandeling (Institute for Inland Water Mana gement and Waste

Water Treat ment ). RIZA is the research and a dvisory bo dy for the Ministry

of Transport, Public Works and Wat er Mana gement for inland w at er in the

Netherlands and is a leading international centre of knowledge for integrated

w ater management.

The institute collects da ta on a nd cond ucts research into w at er q uality a nd

q uantity. On the b asis of t hese dat a, RIZA makes recommendat ions

concerning the mana gement of inland w ater in the Netherlands a nd a broad.This wide-rang ing remit requires a m ulti-disciplina ry a pproa ch. From

biochemists and hydrologists to computer professionals and management

experts, RIZA's sta ff represents a w ide variety of specialisms.

RIZA ha s four ma in departments:

Wetland d evelopment and restoration: research and ad vice on the

restoration of wetlands to their natural state.

Wat er systems: research and advice on the integrated ma nag ement of

inland w at ers.

Wat er pollution cont rol: research and ad vice on w astew at er treat ment

and emissions levels. Informat ion and measurement technology: collection and processing of

data and research in specialist laboratories.

Clients of RIZA are water managers in the Netherlands: the regional

directorat es of the Directorat e-General for Public Works and Wat er

Management (Rijkswaterstaat), provinces and w at er boa rds. RIZA also

represents the Netherlands in international consultations about water

management.

RIZA w as set up in 1920. Currently it ha s about 500 employees. The hea d

off ice is loca ted in Lelysta d. There are branches in Arnhem a nd Dordrecht

and monitoring stations in Lobith and Eysden.

RIZA

P.O. Box 17

NL-8200 AA Lelystad

Tel. + 31 320 298411

www.riza.nl


4/77

Contents

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Contents 3

Introduction 5

I Water management in the Netherlands 7

1 The historical and geographical context of water management 9

2 Institutional and planning structure 13

2.1 Institutional structure 13

2.2 Planning structure13

3 Legislation and regulations 17

II Water pollution control in the Netherlands: the policy 21

4 Integrated environmental quality objectives 23

5 General principles of the policy on water pollution control 27

5.1 Introduction 27

5.2 Reduction of pollution 285.3 Stand-still principle 31

III Water pollution control in the Netherlands: the practice 33

6 General granting of permits 35

7 Outline permits 39

8 Approach to tackling diffuse sources 43

9 Coordination and harmonisation 47

10Enforcement 51

11Charging system 55

References 59


5/77

Contents 4

I Integrated environmental quality objectives 63

II Priority substances in the field of w ater policy 69

III 132 black-listed substances 71IV Types of industry designa ted under the Industries Order 75

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Annexes 61


6/77

Introduction

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction 5

This booklet is entitled Water pollution control in the Netherlands, policy and

practice 2001. It describes the main features of Dutch water management

policy, and gives a more detailed account of Dutch emissions policies and

their implementa tion. It should be remembered, ho w ever, that some a spects

of po licy and practice may chang e in the coming yea rs as a result o f the

implementation of the European Union Water Framework Directive.

The b ooklet is divided into three pa rts:

I . Water management in the Netherlands

This part provides a brief introduction to w ater mana gement in th eNetherlands. It includes information on the historical and geographical

context of w at er mana gement (section 1), the institutional and planning

structure (section 2) and major relevant legislat ion and regulat ions (section 3).

II. Water pollution control in the Netherlands: the policy

Section 4 discusses integ rated environmenta l qua lity standa rds, w hile section

5 is devoted to the general principles of water pollution control policy.

III. Water polluti on control in the Netherlands: the practice

Sections 6 to 11 shed light on t he practice of w ater pollution control: g eneral

permitt ing requirements (section 6), out line permits (section 7), action to dea lw ith diffuse sources (section 8), coordination a nd harmonisation (section 9),

enforcement (section 10) and the charging system (section 11).


7/77

Introduction 6


8/77

I Water management in the Netherlands

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .



9/77



10/77

1 The historical and geographical contextof water management

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Wat er ha s alwa ys played a n importa nt pa rt in Dutch life. The Netherlan ds

(41,000 km2, including 3,000 km2 of fresh water and 4,000 km2 of sa lt

w at er) is a low -lying count ry in the delta o f fo ur European rivers: the Rhine,

the M euse, the Scheldt and the Ems. It is part of the North Sea ca tchment

area (figure 1). More than half of the territory of the Netherlands is prone

to flooding a nd o ne-third a ctua lly lies below mea n sea level. The location

of the country has endowed it with fertile soil and convenient waterways

for the conveya nce of g ood s and people. How ever, it also entails the risk

of flooding when river discharges and sea levels are high.

The Netherlands ha s tw enty -five centuries of experience in mana ging this

difficult mix of land and w at er. Flood defence w orks and land reclama tion

have created the country's fa mous systems of polders and dikes, w hich

allow water levels to be carefully controlled.

It is a densely populated country. During the 20th century, the population

grew from 6 million t o 16 million inhab itan ts. This sharp populat ion increase

w as linked to industrialisation, urbanisation a nd the modernisation a nd

intensification of agriculture. Industrial growth, increased domestic

consumption and the increase in agricultural production have exacerbated

the pollution o f rivers and lakes.

Althoug h w at er qua lity problems had alread y been identified prior to the

20th century, it was not until the 1960s that the deteriorating quality of the

surface waters really became apparent. By that time, the load of organic

pollutants was causing acute oxygen problems. Discharges of wastewater

from industry, agriculture, traffic and households also posed threats to the

surfa ce w at ers. Large a mounts o f hea vy meta ls, pesticides, hydrocarbons

and organic chlorine compound s w ere being discharged, causing the

disappea rance of indigeno us species, deterioration of w at er qua lity and

pollution of sediments.

By tha t t ime, in fact, pollution w as serious enoug h to jeopardise the use of

water resources for human activities such as the provision of drinking

water, agriculture, fisheries and recreation. Effective action to combat the

threat began in 1970, the year in which the Netherlands' first real piece of

environmental legislation, the Pollution of Surface Waters Act, came into

force. The Act provided the sta tutory mea ns to turn the tide of po llution

and bring about a considerable improvement in w at er qua lity.


11/77


Over the years since 1970, the initial approach to tackling water pollution

has been mod ified: t here ha s been a sw itch from end-of-pipe measures to

measures to ta ckle pollution a t source, from a sectoral to an integ rated

approach, and from na tional to international/regional action.

In the 21st century, the a im is to a chieve sustainable w at er systems a ndintegrated water management will therefore be organised at an (international)

river ba sin level. The European Union' s Water Framew ork Directive (see

section 3) w ill play a ma jor role in th is respect.


12/77


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 1

The Sche ldt, M euse, Rhine a nd Ems river basins.

Brussel

Luxemburg

Bern

Amsterdam

NO RTH SEA

KEY

Rhine

Meuse

Scheldt

Ems

Rhine

Rhine

Ems

Rhine

Rhine

Rhine

M euse

M euse

M euse

Scheldt

Scheldt

GERMANY

BELGIUM

LUX

THE NETHERLAND S

AUSTRIA

ITALY

FRANCE

SWITZERLAND


13/77



14/77

2 Institutional and planning structure

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


2.1 Institutional structure

The Netherlands ha s three tiers of d irectly elected g overnment : na tiona l,

provincial and municipal. Each of these has its own legislative assemblies

and executive organisations, together with a broad range of duties within

the relevant geographical area. Alongside these general-purpose government

bod ies, there are w at er boards w ith the sole task of ma nag ing w at er. They

are (financially) independent of, but supervised by, provincial government.

Members of the water boards are elected.

Wat er policy in the Netherlan ds is the responsibility of the Ministry o f

Transpo rt, Public Works and Water Mana gement and the 12 provinces. The

ministry is also responsible for the management of state waters (sea, rivers

and large lakes). The operat iona l section of the ministry is the Directora te-

General for Public Works and Wat er Mana gement (Rijkswaterstaat).

The provinces are responsible for the ma na gement o f regiona l w a ters

(small rivers and lakes, and the extensive system of canals and ditches) but

they a ll have d elega ted t his responsibility t o the w at er boards. Ma ny of

these w at er bo ards have existed for centuries. Their ma in mana gerial

responsibilities relate to dikes, water quantity and - since 1970, when thePollution of Surface Waters Act came into force (see section 3) - water

q ua lity. This third a rea of responsibility means tha t the w a ter boa rds are

responsible for the treatment o f sew ag e (other than from industrial plant s

w ith their ow n treatment fa cilities). How ever, the w at er boards are not

responsible for the provision, maintenance a nd o perat ion o f the sew ers

w hich convey w astew ater to the urban w astew ater treatment plants they

opera te. Tha t is a ma tter for the municipa lities.

2.2 Planning structure

National and provincial policy documents in the fields of w ater mana gement ,

spatial planning and environmental ma nag ement are very closely interrelat ed

(see figure 2). They a ll aim to a chieve the best po ssible mana gement o f the

physical environment, ba sed on a n integrated consideration of the va rious

interests involved. Their coordinat ion is achieved ma inly throug h a kind of

alternate 'leap-frog ging' o f na tional and provincial documents. Each new

or revised policy document spells out the consequences for policy and

plans in the other fields.


15/77


National policy documents on w ater mana gement play a key role in the

Netherlands. Policy is developed via a process of broad-based consultation

betw een the ministries involved, t he w at er boa rds, provinces, municipalities

and other interested parties (including non-governmental organisations

represent ing environment a l interests, consumers, industry etc.). The process

is mana ged on b ehalf of the g overnment by the M inister of Transport,Pub lic Works and Water Ma nagement . The policy la id do w n in na tiona l

policy do cuments provide a framew ork both f or provincial policies on w ater

and for the a ctual practice of w ater management . The policy documents a lso

take explicit account of agreements and commitments made in international

forums, such a s the International Commissions fo r the Protection of the

Rhine, the Meuse and the Scheldt (ICPR, ICPM and ICPS), the North Sea

Ministerial Conference (NSMC) and the Convention for the Protection of

the Ma rine Environment of the North-East Atlant ic (OSPAR).

The most recent of these documents, the Fourth Na tiona l Po licy Documenton Water Management (1998-2006), entitled A Framew ork for Wat er

(NW4), is based on t he strat egy o f integrat ed w at er manag ement first

proposed in the previous national policy document. It fo cuses on a n integrated

area-specific approach and the use of hydrological processes as a guiding

principal in spatial planning.

The 12 provinces draw up reg iona l w at er mana gement plans (increasing ly

as pa rt of their integ rated environmental/spatial plans) and oversee w at er

mana gement by the w at er boards and municipal authorities. The w ater

boards then base their operational plans on the regional water management

plans a nd are responsible for the implementa tion of policies for the regionalw a ters. The municipa lities have a role in loca l land use planning.


16/77


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 2

Planning structure.

State

Tier ofgovernment

Type of plan

Strategic

Operational

Province

Wat er board

and municipality

Strategic

Operational

Operational

Policy fields

SpatialPlanning

National PolicyDocument onSpatialPlanning

NationalEnvironmentalPolicyPlan

Management

plan fo rstate waters

National

environmentprogramme

National PolicyDocument o nWaterManagement

Regionalspatialplan

Loca l land useplan

Management plan for local andregional waters

Provincialpolicydocument onenvironment

Provincialenvironmentprogramme

Provincialpolicy docu-ment on watermanagement

WaterManagement

EnvironmentalProtection

Lega l obliga tion to draft plan according to objectives and instructions of the higher level of go vernment

Coordination obliged by law


17/77



18/77

3 Legislation and regulations

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


The mo st importa nt legislat ion and regulations w ith regard to integ rated

water management are:

Pollution of Surface Waters Act (PSWA, 1969/1970)

The ma in ob jective of t his act is to control the po llution o f a ll surface

w a ters. To th is end, it provides a framew ork for a tw o-track policy: the

reduction of pollution and the improvement of water quality (the 'combined

approach' , see section 5). Tw o importa nt instruments o f th e PSWA are: the

issue of discharge permits (see section 6) and the use of levies (see section 11).

Water Management Act (1989)

The Wat er Ma nag ement Act d efines the planning structure fo r w at er

management by agencies at different levels of government and lays down

rules for the q uantitative mana gement of surface w aters. It provides for the

following policy instruments: planning, permits, registration of abstractions

and discharges, w at er covenants, level decisions, a nd charges. The a ct's

provisions on the structure of planning are of major importance because

they prescribe an integ rated system of nat iona l and provincial plans under

the PSWA, the Groundw at er Act a nd the Wat er Mana gement Act itself.

The a ct a lso includes sta tutory cross-references to spat ial a nd environmenta l

planning (see section 2).

Environmental Management Act (1993)

The Environmenta l Ma na gement Act provides the lega l framew ork

for the environmenta l plans a nd programmes o f central government, the

provinces and the municipalities and lays down the regulatory procedures

for planning a nd permits. The environment al aspects of a large number

of industrial act ivities are regulated o n the ba sis of the Environmenta l

Management Act (integrated environmental legislation).

General Administrative Law Act (1994)

The G eneral Administrat ive Law Act prescribes the procedures to be

follow ed fo r the issue, mod ificat ion a nd w ithdraw al of permits under the

PSWA and t he Environmenta l Management Act. These include third-party

consultation.

Water Framework Directive of the European Union (2000)

The Wat er Framew ork Directive (WFD, 2000/60/EC) ca me into fo rce

on 22 December 2000. It sets out a new approach to w ater mana gement

and is the ba sis of the EU's wa ter mana gement strategy. It establishes a


19/77


framew ork for the protection both o f a ll bod ies of surfa ce w at er (inland ,

transitional and coasta l) and of groundw at er. The WFD a ims to:

1. incorporate a ll requirements for the management of w ater stat us into a

single river basin managementsystem based on geographical and

hydrolog ical areas rather tha n a dministrative a nd na tional bounda ries;2. coordinate objectivesfor the protection of different types of water

(e.g. drinking, ba thing, surfa ce and groundw at er);

3. coordinate measuresto address individual and sectoral problems in

order to a tta in the objectives;

4. define the relat ionship betw een emission limit va lues and q uality

standards through the 'combined approach';

5. increase public participationand thereby the transparency and

enforceability of EU water legislation;

6. introduce a system of cost recovery pricingof w ater.

Figure 3 shows how the implementation of the WFD is being organised in

the Netherlands.

O ther EU d irectives relevant to w at er mana gement include the:

Dangerous Substances Directive (76/464/EEC) and its daughter directives.

Urba n Wastew a ter Treat ment D irect ive (91/271/EEC).

Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive

(96/61/EC).

Nitrates Directive (Directive concerning the protection of waters against

pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, 91/676/EEC).


20/77


DGW = Directorate-General of Water Affairs of the Ministry of Transport,

Public Works a nd Wat er Ma nag ement

RBMP = River Basin Management Plan

G IS = G eog ra phic Info rma tio n System

WG = Working G roup

VROM = Ministry of Housing, Spat ial Planning a nd the Environment

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 3

O rganisation of the implementa tion of t he WFD in the Netherland s.

WGLegislation

Lead: DG W

WG

Communication

Lead: DG W

WG

Emissions and huma n

impacts

Lead: RIZA

WG

Geo graphical assignment

Lead: RIZA

WGInternational

implementation

Lead: DG W

WG

Econo mic an alysis

Lead: DG W

WG

Monitoring &objectives

Lead: RIZA

WG

Administrative

organisation

Lead: VROM

WG

GIS

Lead: RIZA

M inistries

Provinces

M unicipaliti es

Water Boards

WG

Information demands for

RBMP (pilots)

Lead: RIZA

Strategic Coordinationgroup

Lead: DG W


21/77



22/77

II Water pollution control in theNetherlands: the policy

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

II Water po llution control in the Netherland s:

the policy

21


23/77


the policy

22


24/77

4 Integrated environmental qualityobjectives

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


the policy

23

Dutch policy on w at er pollution control is ba sed on a tw o-track approa ch:

one track is concerned with emissions and the other with immissions or

w a ter q uality (see a lso section 5). The emissions t rack (the source-oriented

a pproach) ta kes precedence, w hile th e immissions t rack includes a n

environmental quality standards test designed to show whether a further

source-oriented a pproach is necessary. The Fourth Nationa l Policy Document

on Water Mana gement (NW4) and the Water Framework Directive also

adopt this two-track approach.

The NW4includes general quality standards for surface w ater and sediments:the ma ximum ad missible risk w ith a ssociat ed ma ximum permissible

concentrations and the negligible risk levels with associated target values.

The calcula tion of environmenta l q ua lity sta nda rds is a tw o-sta ge process:

1. calculat ion o f risk levels (research sta ge);

2. translat ion o f risk levels into environmental q uality stand ards (policy

stage).

Figure 4 sho w s the rela tionship betw een the scientifically established risk

limits and the environmental quality standards established as the result of

policy decisions.

The ma ximum admissible risk is the minimum q ua lity ob ject ive for 2000.

The numerical va lues (maximum permissible concent rat ions) are sta ted in the

nat iona l policy documents on w at er manag ement (see annex I) and filter

through to t he wa ter manag ement authorities by w ay of t he manag ement

plans. Since this means that water management authorities have a duty to

strive to achieve the maximum permissible concentrat ions, it is importa nt to

ta ke into account t he need to achieve these w hen formulat ing cond itions

for individua l discharge permits und er the Po llution o f Surface Wat ers Act

(see section 5). The Commission on Integ rated Wat er Manag ement (see

section 9) has developed an immission test that can be used for this purpose.

The ma ximum permissible concentra tions are no t ye t being achieved f or all

substances in all surface w at ers. M oreover, the longer-term a im is to achieve

the t arget va lues (the q uality stand ards to be a chieved by 2010). For this

reason, high priority continues to be at ta ched to pollution prevention a nd

there must b e no relaxa tion of effo rt even w here concentrations of

substa nces a re below the ma ximum permissible concentrat ions. This is to

prevent problems being passed on to other w at er systems. Additiona l

requirements and further prioritisation aimed at the eventual achievement


25/77


the policy

24

of the t arget values are being decided f or each individua l wa ter system,

ta ilored to its functions. The Dut ch parliament has d ecided tha t ad ditiona l

requirements for existing discharges can only justifiably be based on the

immission test if t he ma ximum permissible concentrat ions a re exceeded in

the recipient surface w ater. If the q uality of t he w at er system is somew here

betw een the ma ximum permissible concentration a nd the ta rget value,further emission reduction requirements must be based on advances in

technology, in accordance with the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable)

principle.

The general qua lity sta nda rds for surface wat er and sediment are listed in

annex I. Except in the case of the tributyltin compounds, these are identical

for fresh and salt w at er systems. The g eneral quality stand ards for soil and

air are set out in the National Environmental Policy Plan.


26/77


the policy

25

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 4

Relationship betw een risk limits a nd environmenta l qua lity standa rds.

Scientific risk limits Policy-based environmental

quality standards

high

low

Concentration

in the

environment

maximum admissible risk level

facto r 100

neglig ible risk level target va lues

maximum permissible

concentrations

via:

ALARA

Area-specific

prioritisation


27/77


the policy

26


28/77

5 General principles of the policy onwater pollution control

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


the policy

27

5.1 Introduction

Dutch w ater mana gement policy for the next few years is outlined in the

Fourth National Policy Document on Water Ma nag ement (NW4, see

section 2). The g uiding principles a re:

pollution reduction;

the stand-still principle;

the polluter pays principle.

These principles apply to a ll sources (industrial, municipa l and diffuse).

The NW4makes a clea r plea fo r prioritisation in the reduction of emissions,

placing a duty on water management authorities to strive to achieve the

ma ximum permissible concent rations (see previous sect ion) w ithin the plan

period. In reducing emissions, priority must be given to substances where

the maximum permissible concentrations are exceeded.

In addition, the NW4focuses on the need for integrated decision-making

on environmental issues: the integrated approach. Decisions on measures

to deal with emissions to water must balance the protection of the water

system with that of the other two compartments of the environment (soil

and air) and must also take account of aspects such as energy consumptionand waste prevention. Integrated consideration of this kind is generally part

of the decision process (based on the chain management approach) preceding

the a ctua l issue of a discharge permit und er the Po llution of Surfa ce Wat ers

Act (PSWA). Guidance for integrated consideration is available in the form

of the BREF (BATreference documents) draw n up a t Europea n level fo r

each sector of industry in the context of the IPPC Directive.

PSWA permits can be rega rded as the culmination of the process of integrated

consideration. Conditions at tached to them must relate only to the protection

of water quality and to measures safeguarding the efficient functioning of

the urban w astew ater treatment plant . The level of decision-making involved

in the preparation of permits can range from the choice of techniq ues (the

means) to a chieve a desired reduction in w astew ater discharges (the end)

right through to the prioritisation of measures and investigat ions in different

areas of the environment.

Figure 5 shows a schematic outline of the policy of water pollution control

in the Netherlands.


29/77

step 1 prevention:

(prevention of pollution)

step 2 re-use:

(re-use of water andsubstances whereverpossible)

step 3 removal :

(end-of-pipe measures)

1 impl ementation ofEsbjerg/ OSPAR:

2 abatement based on:

2a primary approach:

2b f urt her requi rem ent s

based on (= immission

test):

C in case of new orincreased discharges:


the policy

28

BLACK-LISTED OTHER POLLUTANTS

SUBSTANCES

i

n

t

e

g

r

a

t

e

d

a

p

p

r

o

a

c

h

p

r

i

o

r

i

t

i

s

a

t

i

o

n

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 5

Schematic outline o f t he policy o f w ater po llution control in the Netherland s.

) Applies at a ny rat e to the 43 priority substa nces/groups of substances designated under the O SPAR

ag reement (see annex II).) The term Best Available Techniques (BAT), w hich is frequently used in internationa l circles, encompa sses

bot h BTM a nd BPM.) MPCs= maximum permissible concentrations

In view of t he low concentrations (largely < MPC s) in the marine environment, the obliga tion is to strive

to a chieve the t arget va lues rather than the MP Cs (letter of 18 Octo ber 1996 from the Environment

Minister to the Low er House of t he Dutch parliament ).) In the case of indirect discharges subject to PSWA permits, the immission test or water quality objectives

approach encompasses measures to safeguard the efficient functioning of the relevant urban waste-

water treatment plant as well as the protection of the receiving surface water.

source-oriented approach d irected a t: improved selection of b ase ma terials, add itives and products use of environmenta lly f riendly techno logy in the production

process, corporate practices or use phase new production process or corporate practices use of process-integrated solutions

recycling (re-use w ithin the product ion process /corpora tepractices)

re-use outside the production process / corporate practices reprocessing fo r possible re-use

wastewater treatment, purification

effort to end emissions by 2020)B substance-specific approach:

organohalogeniccompounds, mer-cury, cadmium,etc.

emissions approach

Best Technical

Means (BTM))

MPCs) or otherapplicable environ-mental qualitystandards)

no increase permit-ted withinmanagement area

sulphate, chloride,heat

water qualityobjectives approach

ad missibility o f d is-

charges and measuresto be taken dependingon target environmen-tal qua lity standa rds)

no significant d eterio-ration permitted inw ater qua lity

heavy metals,oxygen-consumingsubstances, P, N,etc.

emissions approach

Best Practicable

Means (BPM))

MPCs) or otherapplicable environ-mental qualitystandards)

no significant dete-rioration permittedin water quality

stand-still principle

pollution reduction

A general approach (chain management):


30/77


the policy

29

5.2 Reduction of pollution

The 'po llut ion reduction principle dicta tes tha t pollution should alwa ys be

minimised, irrespective of the type of substance concerned (see figure 5).

In this respect, a distinction is draw n bet w een a general approach (chain

mana gement ) and a substance-specific one.

A. General approach (chain management)

The principle is increasingly be ing implement ed b y g iving priority t o

prevention and re-use. In this regard, source-oriented measures take priority

over technical treatment ones. Examples are:

selection of base materials, additives and products;

use of clean t echnolog y;

new production process or corporate practices;

use of process-integrated solutions;

closed-loop recycling; re-use.

B. Substance-specif ic approach

1 Implementation of Esbjerg/OSPAR agreements

During the fourth North Sea Ministerial Co nference in Esbjerg (1995), it

w as ag reed to strive fo r a continuous reduction of emissions, d ischarges

and losses of hazardous substances (irrespective of source) thereby moving

tow ards the ta rget of t heir cessat ion w ithin one generation (25 years) w ith

the ultimat e a im o f concentrat ions in the environment near ba ckground

values for naturally occurring substances and close to zero concentrations

for man-made synthetic substances. Over the next few years, internationalefforts w ill be mad e to identify the substances involved a nd esta blish the

priorities for ta ckling them. In 1998, a s the first sta ge of the implementa tion

of the Esbjerg Declaration, 15 substances/groups of substances were

designa ted und er the OSPAR Convention to be the subject of a n effort to

end discharges by 2020. In 2000 and 2001, OSPAR expanded this list to

include a further 12 and later 16 substances (see annex II).

The European Union has recently pub lished a list o f 34 priority substa nces

(see annex II). This list w ill fo rm part of the Water Framew ork Direct ive

and has been compiled on the basis of a risk assessment included in the

directive. It w ill be review ed every fo ur years, at w hich point new sub-

sta nces can be added to it. The list is divided into three ca teg ories:

priority hazardous substances (aim: zero discharges within 20 years);

priority substances (aim: to meet q uality stand ards, w hich have y et

to be defined); and

priority substances under evaluation (definitive classification to follow).


31/77

2 Emissions approach or water quality objectives approach

Depending on the substance concerned an emissions approach or a water

q uality objectives approach is ado pted.

Emissions approach

The emissions approach is follow ed in virtually a ll insta nces, no t onlyof pollution by substances included in List 1 of Council Directive 76/464/EEC

or in the list of 132 substances (which a re considered 'b lack-listed' in the

Netherlands), but also of pollution of most 'other substances' (see box).

The emissions a pproach implies tha t eff orts must b e ma de t o prevent

pollution of surface waters irrespectiveof the w ater quality o bjectives to be

achieved. In the case of black-listed substances (and those with comparable

characteristics), this mea ns tha t the Best Technica l Means (BTM* ) are to be

applied, whereas in the case of the other substances to which the emissions

approach a pplies the req uirement is for an a ba tement eff ort ba sed on the

Best Practicable Means (BPM*).

In addition t o the use of BPM/BTM, t he emissions a pproach ca n a lso

encompass more fa r-reaching requirements ba sed on the prevailing w at er

q uality objectives for the receiving w at er (the w at er qua lity test o r immission

test, see section 4).

In the case of indirect discharges from designated sectors of industry (see

section 6 a nd a nnex IV), the w at er qua lity test w ill also ta ke into account

the need t o saf egua rd the efficient functioning o f the relevant urban

wastewater treatment plant.

The impact o f individual substa nces on the a q uat ic environment va ries,

w hether or not the particula r substance is black-listed. Therefore, despite

the d efinitions, it is not th e case tha t there a re tw o clearly def ined g roups

of techniq ues for the control of w astew at er discharges. Rather, there is a

broad range of technical options. The most obvious difference betw een

treat ment w ith BTM or BPM is tha t the a im in the first case is entirely to

eliminate pollution of the aquatic environment, while in the second case a

certain amount of residual discharge is expected and will be acceptable in

terms of meeting the relevant w at er qua lity o bjectives.

* Best Practi cable M eans(BPM) are defined as: 'Those techn iques w hich can be used to a chieve

the greatest reduction in emissions, taking account of economic aspects (i.e. the best techniques

that are financially acceptable to a normal company)'.

Best Technical M eans(BTM) are d efined a s: 'Those techniques w hich can fea sibly be used, a t a

higher cost, to achieve an e ven g reater reduction in emissions'. How ever, it is apparent from

the jurisprudence that it is not intended that financial and economic aspects should play no

part w hatsoever in def ining the BTM in a particular case.

The term Best Ava ilable Techn iques (BAT), w hich is freq uently used in internat ional circles,

encompasses both BTM a nd BPM.


the policy

30


32/77


the policy

31

Black-l isted substances

Substances on the black list (i.e. included in List 1 of Council Directive

76/464/EEC) a re so ha rmful to the environment tha t emissions should,

in principle, be stopped. For these and similar substances, the aim is to

reduce discharges as close as possible to zero. Source-oriented measures

should involve the applicat ion of BTM.

The decision to b lack-list a substa nce is ba sed on a number of cha racte-

ristics (such as toxicity, persistence and bioaccumulation). Accordingly,

there is a list of 132 substances which are regarded as black-listed in the

Netherlands (see annex III). However, this list is by no means exhaustive.

Indeed, substa nces such a s dioxins an d dibenzofurans are not included,

despite t heir undoubted a dverse effects on the environment.

Depending on developments in the implementation of the Water Frame-

w ork Directive, the ca teg orisation of substances may chang e (seeabove: priority or priority hazardous).

O ther substances

For the majority of the o ther substances, the req uirement is for ab at e-

ment throug h a pplicat ion of BPM. This prima rily concerns substances

which are relatively harmful and are characterised by persistence and/or

toxicity: heavy metals not included in the black list, certa in types of o rga nic

micropolluta nts, cya nide, a mmonia, o xygen-consuming substances and

nutrients (phosphate and nitrate).

Water quality objectives approach

The w at er qua lity o bjectives approa ch is used for a limited numb er

of relat ively ha rmless substa nces w hich occur naturally in surfa ce w at ers

and are only sligh tly to xic. These include sulpha tes a nd chlorides, as w ell as

discharges of hea t. The extent t o w hich measures need to be t aken to

reduce such discharges depends primarily on the relevant water quality

ob jectives for the receiving surface w at er. Co nseq uently, it is impossible to

lay dow n a general rule for the t echniq ues to be a pplied.

In the case of an indirect discharge from a designated sector of industry,

the w at er qua lity o bjectives approach w ill also ta ke into account the need

to safeguard the efficient functioning of the relevant urban wastewater

treatment plant.


33/77


the policy

32

5.3 Stand-still principle

Und er the st and-still principle, ext ra req uirements ma y be necessary (in

addition to those that follow from the emissions approach or the water quality

ob jectives approa ch). The sta nd-still principle incorpora tes a distinction

betw een black-listed substa nces and o ther substances. In the case ofblack-Iisted substances (and substances with comparable characteristics), the

principle is tha t: 'The to ta l amount of d ischarge o f a ny of the substa nces or

groups of substances on the black list is not permitted to increase within a

particular management area'. With respect to other substances, the principle

is that : the w at er quality must no t det eriorate significant ly; concentrations

of substances should not be allowed to increase, even when they are

below the maximum permissible concentrations.

In the case of these substa nces not on the black list, the impact o f the sta nd-

still principle lies primarily in the duty of the water management authorityto monitor surface water quality in its management area, to identify any

significant deterioration, and to examine the possible causes in order to

assess whether the det erioration can be prevented o r is accepta ble.


34/77

IIIWater pollution control in theNetherlands: the practice

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

III Wat er pollution control in the Netherlands:

the practice

33


35/77


the practice

34


36/77

6 General granting of permits

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


the practice

35

Under Section 1 of the Pollution of Surface Waters Act (PSWA), it is forbidden

to discharge waste matter, pollutants or hazardous substances, in whatever

form, into surface waters without a permit. For indirect discharges (discharges

via the sewage system), no PSWA permit is required unless the discharge

originates from a sector of industry designated under a general administrative

order know n a s the 'Industries O rder' (see a nnex IV). The Environmenta l

Ma nag ement Act specifies coordinat ion a rrang ements fo r those cases

where permits are required under both the PSWA and the Environmental

Management Act (see figure 6).

Cond itions att ached to such discharge permits can relat e only to the

protection of w at er qua lity and /or measures to sa fegua rd the efficient

functioning of the sewag e treatment plant . In the case of substances included

in list 1 of Directive 76/464/EEC, there are legal limit values for different

sectors of industry. For certain sectors, recommendations may be made by

the Commission on Integrated Water Management (see section 9). Work is

being done to supplement the traditiona l conditions of d ischarge w ith a new

one b ased on w hole effluent t oxicity. In a ddition t o imposing conditions, a

permit may also specify monitoring and reporting obligations.

Permits specify conditions for discharges from each individual company

and are prepared on a case-by-case ba sis.

Applicants for discharge permits or amendments to them must supply the

competent authority w ith various det ails, including informat ion on:

the nature of the company and the nature and extent of its activities;

processes and plant capa city;

the na ture, composition, properties and amo unt of ba se materials,

ad ditives, intermediate products and end products, a nd t heir locat ion

w ithin company premises. The G eneral Assessment System d evised b y

the Commission on Integrated Water Management can be used to

identify the necessary discharge reduction eff ort on the b asis of the

properties of the substances and preparations involved;

the nature and extent of pollution of surface waters as a result of the

discharges;

measures or provision to prevent or reduce the discharge of wastes;

proposed methods for measuring, recording and reporting the discharges;

trends w hich the applicant may reasona bly expect t o o ccur in relat ion

to t he discharges and w hich may be relevant to t he decision on the

application.


37/77


the practice

36

Permitting t akes place in accordance w ith t he procedure laid d ow n in the

General Administrat ive Law Act (see section 3). As a rule, the applicat ion

and the dra ft decision a re published a nd a re ava ilab le fo r public scrutiny for

a period of f our w eeks, during w hich the a pplicant and third pa rties may

comment on t hem. The final decision, ta king account of the comments

received, is then available for public scrutiny for a further period of twow eeks. There is a righ t of appeal ag ainst the final decision, b ut on ly by

those parties involved at an earlier stage in the procedure.

Since 1 March 1993, the PSWA has contained provision for general regulations

to be ma de under a general administrative order (amvb) to control specific

designa ted discha rges. These general regula tions can (at least partly)

replace the individual duty to obtain a permit.

At the time of writing in 2001, general administrative orders are in force

under the PSWA (and other stat utes) in relat ion to t he prevention of w at er

pollution from: greenhouse horticulture (1994);

materials to be used for construction work in surface waters (1995);

soil remediation and the a ssociat ed removal of conta minat ed g round-

water (1997);

domestic sewa ge (1997);

cleaning and conservat ion of bridg es, sluices, land ing stag es, etc.

(1998);

field crops and livestock farming (2000).


38/77


the practice

37

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 6

Schematic diagram of the co ordination of permits under the PSWA and EMA.

PSWA

Pollution of Surface Waters Act, 1970

s. 1a: Limi t values (17 mi nisterial decrees on

dangerous substances)

s. 18: General basis for charges relating t o

state and regional w aters

s. 19: Criteria fo r charges payable to central

government

Industries Order1983, last amended 1990

General admini strative

order for t he designation

of types of industry

requiring PSWA permit s

for ind irect di scharges

Implementa tion decree on the po llutionof state w aters (UVR)

1970, last amended in 1999

General Administrative Order on the

imp lementati on of t he PSWA i n statewaters

* Urba n Wastew at er Treatment P lant

Provincial ordersRegional w ater boa rd

orders

EMAEnvironmental Management

Act (air, waste, soil,noise), 1993

Annual environmental reporting for

main industrial sources (approx. 300)

Coordination

of

permitting

by

provinces

Indirect discharges fromcommercial enterprises and small

industries not designated underthe Industries Order

Direct dischargesto state

waters

Direct dischargesto regional

waters

STATE w aters REGIONAL w aters

Discharge orders(general regulations)

General admini strative

order on d ischarge

requirements

(general regulati ons)

UWTP*

Indirect dischargesto regional w aters

covered by theIndustries Order


39/77


the practice

38


40/77

7 Outline permits

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


the practice

39

New w ay s are being soug ht t o control emissions and achieve ongoing

improvement s in environmenta l quality. The Nat iona l Environmenta l Policy

Plan of 1989 outlines a strategy for ensuring the environmental sustainability

of D utch society but this will require a considerab le effo rt. The only w ay to

make real progress is to develop new and cleaner processes and to supplement

or replace end-of-pipe measures by 'in process' solutions and preventive

action. This requires long -term planning a nd closer harmonisat ion w ith

corporate investment cycles.

A command and control approach is not a n effective w ay to a chieve this

long-term goal. Such an approach will not stimulate industry to identifybig step solutions. Rather, it w ill encourag e end-of-pipe solutions which

result in small step improvements. When environmental performance is

already moderately high, further steps to achieve sustainable industrial

development w ill become very expensive for industry.

Mo reover, end-of-pipe mea sures a re mostly just sing le-medium solutions

tackling, for example, air, waste or water pollution while disregarding

effects on ot her compa rtments of the environment. It has become clear

tha t a n integ rated a ssessment of measures can be highly cost-effective.

Another factor is that most companies have become tired of ongoing and

often inopportune demands for additional measures and want bettergua rantees concerning the long-term requirements of the a uthorities and

more flexibility to decide fo r themselves w hen a nd ho w to achieve the

required reductions.

A different relationship between the authorities and industry needs to be

found, therefore, and new instruments need to be developed to overcome

these objections. In practice, individual companies and authorities have

already redefined their responsibilities. Figure 7 shows how a company can

pass through various phases a s a result o f its ow n a ttitude (horizonta l axis)

and tha t o f t he a uthorities (vertical axis). Now ad ays d iscussions betw een

individual companies and authorities are no longer always based on detailed

permits. A mix of instruments is used:

1. a company environmental plan(requiring the approval of the authorities)

in which the company describes how it intends to improve its environ-

mental performance in the longer term;

2. an environmental management system(e.g. complying with EMAS and

ISO 14001) by w hich the company regulates its ow n processes;

3. an annual environmental reportdetailing the environmental performance

of the company and;


41/77


the practice

40

4. the outli ne permit, which can be restricted to requirements concerning

the most important environmental issues.

This mix of instruments presents g reat po tent ial ad vanta ges for all parties

involved. The introduction of environmenta l management systems, compiling

of environmental plans a nd d rafting of annua l environmental reportscertainly imposes a considerable burden on companies but, in return, they

benefit from the greater degree of flexibility allowed by outline permits.

These ena ble them to respond more quickly to ma rket developments by

launching modified products, since their environmental permits no longer

need to be amended to take account of minor changes in the production

process. What is more, outline permits can produce cost savings, since they

allow companies to time their environmental investments to coincide more

closely w ith their corporate investment cycles. Fina lly, the inclusion of an

outline permit in the mix of instruments encourages companies to make

further improvements in their environmental performance.

In parallel with this development, the role of the authorities is evolving

away from traditional enforcement towards facilitation and checks on

environmental management systems (see section 10).


42/77


the practice

41

In more detail, this can be described as:

Phase Companies stance Stance of the authorit ies

1. inactive defensive coercive

2. postulant passive encourag ing

3. novice active facilita ting

4. advanced pro-active trusting

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 7

Phases in the developing relations betw een compa nies and autho rities.

authorities:

positive attitude,

trustdevelopment

company: company:

passive, defensive active, offensive

2

authorities:

negative attitude,distrust

1

3

4

: lag ga rds

: central groups

: leaders

1

2/3

4


43/77


the practice

42


44/77

8 Approach to tackling diffuse sources

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


the practice

43

For many years, industrial discharges were seen as the main causes of

poor water quality in the Netherlands. But water quality has now been

substantially improved and industry is no longer the main source of pollution.

Increasingly, it is diffuse sources that are dominating the load to surface

waters and causing breaches of water quality objectives.

The ma in causes of diffuse pollution of surface w at er are the extensive use

of ag ricultural fertilisers and pesticides, corrosion o f building ma terials

(copper and zinc), leaching of PAHs and meta ls out of impregna ted ba nk

protection ma terials, the use o f a nti-fouling paint o n boa ts, ca rgo residues,the use of zinc sacrificial anodes to protect vessels against corrosion, and

at mospheric deposition. In a ddition, stormw at er overflow s produce major

emissions of nutrients, o xygen-consuming substances and organic and

inorga nic micropolluta nts.

The o bjectives w ith rega rd to diffuse sources are spelled o ut in the Fourth

National Policy Document o n Wat er Mana gement (NW4), the Action

Programme on D iffuse Sources (1997) and na tional and regional w at er

q ua lity ma na gement plans. The ma in priorities are:

to reduce a gricultural emissions;

to promot e use of susta inab le ma terials in new building a nd renovat ionprojects;

to promote sustainable practices in inland navigation;

to encourage sustainable shipbuilding and vessel maintenance;

to improve waste collection from commercial vessels and pleasure craft;

to reduce the use of chemical weedkillers in urban areas; and

to reduce emissions to the air (and hence atmospheric deposition).

Given that the main impact of pollution from diffuse sources is on regional

water quality, a regional approach is the obvious solution. Such an approach

will take account of local circumstances. Measures will be based not only on

statutory instruments; public information campaigns, research, demonstration

projects, covenant s w ith ta rget groups, monitoring and financial instruments

(levies and subsidies) w ill also be importan t. Mea sures of this kind ca n be

used a t a ll levels of g overnment . The choice of instruments and t he timing

of their use will depend on the specific situation. In addition, a number of

general administrative orders have come into force over recent years which

can b e used to ta ckle the diffuse pollution of surface w at er in a generic

w ay. There are decrees of th is kind rela ting to ma tters such as g reenhouse

horticulture, field crops and livestock farming and materials to be used for

construction work in surface waters (see also section 6).


45/77


the practice

44

For a long time there w as insufficient support to get a blanket a pproa ch to

tackling diffuse sources on the European agenda. Nevertheless, policies

were developed with regard to certain individual types of diffuse sources.

In the agricultural field, for example, they were developed both for fertilisers

and for pesticides and strict European regulations were introduced on

consumer and other products (e.g. biocides, w ashing detergents, pa int,solvents etc.). In the case of atmospheric deposition and shipping, the

nature of the source dicta tes an international approach. Sufficiently w idespread

international support is now ava ilab le to permit t he fo rmulat ion o f mo re

generalised policies w ith regard to diffuse sources and, increasing ly, the

chosen instrument for tackling such sources is BEP (Best Environmenta l

Practice).

Figure 8 provides a g eneral overview of emission rout es from sources to

surface w ater. D iag rams like this a re used both na tionally a nd internationa lly

to prioritise action to tackle sources of pollution once emissions have beenquantified.


46/77


the practice

45

Entry routes to surface w at ers:

1 atmospheric deposition

2 g roundw a ter

3 discharges/drifting

4 erosion

5 drainage

6 run-off from soil

7 run-off from imperm. surfaces

8 separa te sto rm sewer

9 UWTP discharges

10 stormwa ter overflow

11 untreated discharges

12 not connected

13 direct discharges from industry

14 direct diffuse discharges

15 background loads

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 8

General overview of entry routes to surface waters.

a ir

sewer system

principal sources

surfacewaters

23

7

8

9

101112

13

14

15

soil

impermeablesurfaces

groundwater

456

agriculture

transport and

building

materials

infrastructure

households

industry

direct diffusesources

background

loads

separatesewersystem

mixedsewersystem

UrbanWastewaterTreat ment

Plant


47/77


the practice

46


48/77

9 Coordination and harmonisation

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


the practice

47

The Co mmission o n Integrat ed Water Ma nag ement (CIW) is responsible

for coordination and harmonisation in the field of water management.

Chaired by His Royal Highness Prince Willem-Alexander, heir to the Dutch

throne, it is an advisory committee on policy implementation and devel-

opment in the field o f integrated w at er mana gement . The Co mmission

includes representat ives of all tiers of g overnment : cent ral, provincia l,

municipal and water boards.

The CIWhas a fourfold function:

1. To coordinate a nd ha rmonise existing po licies (making recommendat ionsto the authorities involved in water management with the aim of achieving

'joined up government' under the Pollution of Surface Waters Act);

2. To examine and study aspects of integrated w ater management;

3. To a dvise central government on national w ater manag ement;

4. To ha rmonise policy proposals in the field of integ rated w at er

management.

The CIWis composed of board-level representatives of authorities involved

in water quality: water boards, provinces and municipalities in the

Netherlands. The commission a lso includes d elega tes f rom the M inistry o f

Transport, Pub lic Works and Water Ma na gement, the M inistry of Housing,Spatial Planning and the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture,

Nature Ma nag ement and Fisheries.

Most of the preparatory work relating to the CIW'sreports and recommen-

dations is done by five 'working groups' (see figure 9). Each of these deals

w ith a specific aspect of integrated w ater mana gement, but not of course in

isolation. The ta sks of the w orking group o n Water and the Environment

are:

to devise programmes or guidelines to reduce or eliminate discharges

of oxidising substances, nutrients, micropollutants and other types of

pollution to sew ers and surfa ce w at er;

to standardise or streamline technical regulations applying to permits

under the Pollution of Surface Waters Act and concerning the reduction

of discharges to sewers and surface water;

to coordinat e technical and policy a spects of enforcement relat ing to

discharges to sewers and surface water;

to coordinat e a nd stimulat e research on diffuse sources of w at er

pollution, and to initiate measures to combat such pollution;

to comment on, and if necessary initiate, international proposals and

developments, a nd t o indicate effects on the implementa tion of


49/77


the practice

48

discharge reduction policies (for example, to implement BATreference

documents (BREFs) in the co ntext of the IPPC Directive);

to ad vise on, coo rdinate a nd ha rmonise efforts concerning the q uality

and quantity of surface water and aquatic soils (standards, bioassays,

area-specific policies, etc.).

The membership of the w orking group is broader tha n tha t o f the CIW

itself: it includes representa tives of industry, the Dut ch fed eration o f

agricultural and horticultural organisations (LTO) and the environmental

movement. This participation by non governmental orga nisa tions guarantees

broad-based support for CIWrecommendations.

Since the a ctivities of the w orking group a re so w ide-rang ing, the

implementation of individual tasks or actions is usually undertaken by a

project g roup (ad hoc or ot herwise), t o w hich the relevant experts a nd

interested parties can contribute. Secretarial support is often provided bythe Institute f or Inland Wat er Mana gement and Wastew at er Treat ment

(RIZA).


50/77


the practice

49

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 9

The CIW and its wo rking g roups.

1. Institutiona l

aspects of wa ter

management

2. Water and

spatial

planning

4. Water

and the

environment

Commissionon Integrated

Water Management

5. M onitoring

and evaluation

3. Water in

urban areas


51/77


the practice

50


52/77

10 Enforcement

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


the practice

51

Enforcement consists of surveillance and detection. It is a matter of using

surveillance and the means available in administrative, criminal and private

law to ensure compliance bo th w ith blanket stat utory provisions and w ith

individual directions (definition offered by the Council of Public Administration,

1998).

To ensure a proper enforcement process, the w at er authority needs to

have a clear understa nding of t he area under its control, the t arget g roups

involved and the various statutory and regulatory provisions applicable to

each of them. Compliance and risk analyses can then provide a basis on whichto set enforcement priorities, t aking into account bot h the environmenta l

relevance o f t he discharge a nd t he beha viour of the d ischarger.

There should be a surveillance plan linking the permit or reporting d at a ,

the environmental relevance of the discharge (or group of discharges), the

beha viour o f the discharger a nd the necessary surveillance act ivities. Where

a violation is identified, the processes of administrative and criminal law

enforcement should be pursued simultaneously (see figure 10). Action under

ad ministrative law w ill normally ta ke the f orm of a tw o-stag e procedure

(warning with notification that a sanction will follow if the violation continues

beyo nd a stat ed d ead line). Whether or not action under criminal law isappropriate w ill be determined by t he strateg y o f t he Pub lic Prosecutor

and the relevant list of core criteria.

Various administrativemeans of enforcement are ava ilab le to the a dmini-

strative authority (i.e. Rijkswaterstaat, the provincial and local authority or

the d istrict w a ter board). The ma in ones include:

warnings(verba l or in w riting );

administrat ive pressure(also ca lled po lice pressure). The a uthority may

w rite to the off ender ordering him to d esist from the off ence, or may

itself put a stop to it, t he costs involved being cha rged to the o ffender;

withdrawalof the permit;

amendmentof t he terms of the permit;

the imposition of financialdamages to force compliance.

In addition, serious environmental offences are subject to a considerable

range of possible judicial sanct ions. These include:

f ines(up to a bout 50,000 for private individuals and up to about

500,000 per offence for corporate bodies);

terms of imprisonment(up to a maximum of six years);


53/77


the practice

52

removal ofany wrongfully obtained financial (or other) advantage

which has been gained by committing an offence;

closureof the company concerned.

As explained in section 7, a new approach is now being ad opted to

enforcement, w ith g reat er emphasis being placed on ad ministrative rathertha n physical inspection. Permitting a nd enf orcement w ill be gea red t o t he

a tt itude and beha viour of the discharger, as expressed for example in its

environmental man ag ement systems a nd company environmental plan. The

new individua lised a pproach t o permitting w ill be reflected in a similar sty le

of inspection a nd enforcement. Where the empha sis used to be simply on

checking emission va lues, it w ill now a lso be o n examining the system

underlying t hose values: w hy did an incident ha ppen, w hat action did the

company ta ke af ter it occurred a nd how does it intend to prevent anyt hing

simila r happen ing in the future? This approach w ill enab le a utho rities to

encourag e companies to show g reat er environmental aw areness and t o paymore at tent ion to cont rolling t heir processes.

Dutch environmenta l legislat ion bestow s permitting and enforcement

powers on a wide range of government bodies, including central government,

the provincial aut horities, the w a ter boards and the po lice. This situa tion

creates the risk of duplication of effort, including simultaneous (or near-

simultaneous) inspections by different en forcement autho rities. There is no

stat utory structure of cooperation to prevent this, but w ork is now being

done to promote cooperation on enforcement between the authorities

concerned. In 2001, the M inistry o f Transport, Public Works and Wat er

Ma nag ement set up a n inspectorate to operate independently of its policyand implementa tion branches and to be responsible for the enforcement of

a range of environmental and other legislation, including the Pollution of

Surface Waters Act.


54/77


the practice

53

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 10

Administrative and juridical means of enforcement.

Instruments of enforcement

Administrativeinstruments

Judicial instruments

Warning

Administrative pressure

Withdrawal

Amendment

Financial damages

Fines

Imprisonment

Removal of advantage

Closure


55/77


the practice

54


56/77

11 Charging system

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


the practice

55

The Pollution of Surface Waters Act (PSWA) provides tha t a ll dischargers to

surface w aters and to the sew erage system (households as w ell as industries)

a re liab le to pay a pollution levy. Under these provisions, w astew ater charges

have been levied since 1971 by central government authorities for discharges

to state w aters, a nd by regional w ater boa rds for discharges to the non-state

surface waters and sewerage systems.

The purpose o f cha rging is to raise revenue to finance measures necessary

for the abatement and prevention of water pollution. Up to 2000 the

revenues were used to subsidise the building of urba n w astew ater treatmentplants; now ada ys they are used to finance general wa ter management.

Althoug h this w as not a formal objective on introduction, it w as fo reseen

tha t w astew at er charges might provide an incentive for dischargers to

reduce the ir pollution load.

The essentials of the cha rging systems for all discharges a re laid d ow n in

the PSWA. Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management

(Rijkswaterstaat) is responsible for imposing a nd collecting charges f or

discharges to stat e w at ers. Since 1993 the relevant pollution paramet ers

and the tariff for discharges to state waters have required the approval of

Pa rlia ment , w hereas previously it w as t he sole responsibility ofRijkswaterstaat.

For the non-state waters, the imposition and collection of charges is in the

ha nds of the w a ter boa rds. They ha ve the sa me responsibilities in rela tion

to discharges to non-stat e w at ers as Rijksw at ersta at has fo r discharges to

state waters, but are free to set tariffs as they see fit.

In general terms, charges (for both direct and indirect discharges to non-

stat e an d sta te w at ers) are calculat ed by multiplying the po llution loa d

expressed in pollution units (p.u.) by the unit tariff (for state waters about

32/p.u. in 2001). They rela te to discha rge s of oxyg en-consuming

substa nces and hea vy meta ls (see figure 11). The PSWA a lso a llow s the

w at er boards to ad just the pollution levy to ta ke a ccount of chloride,

sulpha te, phospho rous and silver.

Und er the P SWA, the ma ximum a ssessment fo r households is 3 p.u. This is

now the standard basis for charges to households, a lthough it can be reduced

to 1 p.u. fo r one-person households on request. Ho w ever, t here is some

variation between regions in this respect.


57/77


the practice

56

Small businesses prod ucing less tha n 5 p.u. a re also charged f or 3 p.u. This

ma y be reduced to 1 p.u. fo r businesses discharging 1 p.u. o r less. The levy

for heavy metals, chloride, sulphate and phosphorous, is subject to thresholds

below w hich no cha rge is imposed.


58/77


the practice

57

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 11

Calculation of the charge.

Oxygen-consuming substances

For oxygen-consuming substances one p.u. represents a yearly a mount of 49.6 kg

oxygen (1 p.u. of o xygen-consuming substa nces = 49.6 kg O 2/year), formulated as:

tota l amo unt of discharged o xygen-consuming substan ces (CO D + 4.57*N), in kg/year

P =

levy stand ard amo unt (= 49.6 kg/year)

where:

P = number o f p.u. of oxygen-consuming substances

COD = chemical oxygen demandN = Kjelda hl nitrog en

Heavy metals

For the hea vy meta ls mercury, cadmi um and arsenic, one p.u. represents a tot al

yea rly amount of 0.1 kg (1 p.u. of mercury, cad mium and a rsenic = 0.1 kg/year).

tota l amount of discharged mercury, cadmium and arsenic in kg/year

P =levy standa rd amount (= 0.1 kg/year)

where:

P = number of p.u. of mercury, cad mium an d a rsenic

For the hea vy meta ls chromium , copper, lead, nickel and zinc, one p.u. represents a

total yearly amount of 1 kg (1 p.u. of chromium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc =

1 kg/year).

tota l amount of discharged chromium, copper, lead , nickel and zinc in kg/yea r

P =

levy stand ard amo unt (= 1 kg/year)

where:

P = number of p.u. o f chromium, copper, lead, n ickel and zinc

In calculat ing t he amo unt of heavy meta ls discharged , a deduction is made for the

amount of heavy metals taken into a ccount w hen calculating the a mount of oxygen-

consuming substances discharged.


59/77


the practice

58


60/77

References

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

References 59

Company environmental management as a basis for a different relationship

between companies and governmental authorities, a guide for governmental

authorities and compa nies, Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning

and the Environment, The Hague, 1995.

Fourth National Policy Document o n Wat er Mana gement , g overnment

decision, abridg ed version, Netherlands M inistry o f Transport, Public w orks

and Water Management, December 1998.

Handboek Wvo-vergunningverlening , CIW, 1999, revised version.

Handhaving Wvo, CIW, 2000.

New deal with an old enemy: w ater mana gement in the Netherlands: past,

present a nd future, RIZA, June 1999.

Water in the Netherlands, NHV, 1997.


61/77

References 60


62/77

Annexes

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Annexes 61


63/77

Annexes 62


64/77

Maximum Permissible Concentration (MPC) and Target Value for Surface Water and Sediment

Ref: Staa tscourant, The Netherlands, June 2000.

Hallmarks for compounds in w ate r systems (MPC: short term, Target value: long term).

The values for tot al w ate r apply to th e stand ard cont aining 30 mg/l suspended solids.

The values for sediment apply to th e stand ard cont aining 10 % orga nic ma tter and 25 % lutum.

For stand ard suspended solids (20% organic mate rial an d 40% lutum) the va lues for met als

are a factor of 1.5 higher and for organic compounds a factor of 2 higher compared to the

values for sediment.

The target value and the M PC fo r metals include the nationa l ba ckground concentration.

SURFACE WATER SURFACE WATER SEDIMENT

TARGET TARGET TARGETVALUE MPC VALUE MPC VALUE MPC

(di ssol ved) (di sso lved ) (t ot al ) (t ot al ) (dry mat ter) (d ry mat ter)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

METALS g/l g/l g/l g/l mg/kg mg/kgcadmium 0.08 0.4 0.4 2 0.8 12 #

mercury (inorganic) 0.01 0.2 0.07 1.2 0.3 10 #

methyl-mercury 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.1 0.3 1.4

copper 0.5 1.5 1.1 3.8 36 73

nickel 3.3 5.1 4.1 6.3 35 44

lead 0.3 11 5.3 220 85 530 #

zinc 2.9 9.4 12 40 140 620

chromium 0.3 8.7 2.4 84 100 380 #

arsenic 1 25 1.3 32 29 55 #

antimony 0.4 6.5 0.4 7.2 3 15 #

barium 75 220 78 230 160 300

beryllium 0.02 0.2 0.02 0.2 1.1 1.2

cobalt 0.2 2.8 0.2 3.1 9 19

molybdenum 4.3 290 4.4 300 3 200 #

selenium 0.09 5.3 0.09 5.4 0.7 2.9

tha llium 0.06 1.6 0.06 1.7 1 2.6

tin 0.2 18 2.2 220 .. ..

vanadium 0.9 4.3 1 5.1 42 56

borium @ 6.5 650 .. .. .. ..

tellurium @ .. .. .. . . . . ..

t itanium @ .. .. .. . . . . ..

uranium @ 0.01 1 .. .. .. ..silver @ 0.0008 0.08 .. .. .. 5.5

salt w ater: 0.01 1.2 .. .. .. ..

ORGANIC SUBSTANCES

PAHs g/l g/l g/l mg/kg mg/kg

naphtha lene 1.2 0.01 1.2 0.001 * 0.1 *

anthracene 0.07 0.0008 0.08 0.001 * 0.1 *

phenanthrene 0.3 0.003 0.3 0.005 * 0.5 *

fluoranthene 0.3 0.005 0.5 0.03 * 3 *

benzo(a)anthracene 0.01 0.0003 0.03 0.003 * 0.4 *

chrysene 0.3 0.009 0.9 0.1 * 11 *

benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.04 0.002 0.2 0.02 * 2 *

benzo(a)pyrene 0.05 0.002 0.2 0.003 * 3 *

Annex I Integrated environmental quality objectives

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Annex I 63


65/77

Annex I 64


ORGANIC TARGET TARGET TARGET

SUBSTANCES VALUE MPC VALUE MPC VALUE MPC

(continued) (dissolved) (dissolved) (total) (total) (dry matter) (dry matter)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

benzo(ghi)perylene 0.03 0.005 0.5 0.08 * 8 *

indeno(123-cd)pyrene 0.04 0.004 0.4 0.06 * 6 *

chlorobenzenes ng/ l ng/ l ng/ l g/kg g/kg

pentachlorobenzene 300 3 300 1 100

hexachlorobenzene 9 0.09 9 0.05 5

chlorophenols ng/ l ng/ l ng/ l g/kg g/kg

pentachlorophenol 4000 40 4000 2 300

chloranilines g/ l g/ l g/ l g/kg g/kg

tetrachloranilines (ind) 3 0.03 3 1.7! 1220

pentachloraniline 0.1 0.001 0.1 0.6 60

chlorinated organics ng/ l ng/ l ng/ l g/kg g/kg

a ldrin 0.9 0.01 1 0.06 6dieldrin 12 0.4 39 0.5 450

endrin 4 0.04 4 0.04 4

DDT 0.4 0.009 0.9 0.09 9

DDD 0.4 0.005 0.5 0.02 2

DDE 0.4 0.004 0.4 0.01 1

-endosulphan 20 0.2 20 0.01 1-HCH 3300 33 3300 3 290

-HCH 800 9 860 9 920-HCH (lindane) 910 9 920 0.05 230

heptachlor 0.5 0.005 0.5 0.7 0.7

heptachlorepoxide 0.5 0.005 0.5 0.0002 0.02

chlordane 2 0.02 2 0.03 3

organophosphorus compounds ng/ l ng/ l ng/ l g/kg g/kgazinphos-ethyl 11 0.1 11 0.005 0.5

azinphos-methyl 12 0.1 12 0.009 0.9

chlorfenvinphos 2 0.02 2 0.0006 0.06

chlorpyriphos 3 0.03 3 0.01 1

coumaphos 0.7 0.007 0.7 0.0006 0.06

demeton 140 1 140 .. ..

diazinon 37 0.4 37 0.01 1

dichlorvos 0.7 0.007 0.7 0.00003 0.003

dimethoate 23000 230 23000 0.8 78

disulfoton 82 0.8 82 0.03 6

ethoprofos 63 0.6 63 0.003 0.3

fenitrothion 9 0.09 9 0.007 0.7

fenthion 3 0.03 3 0.004 0.4

foxim 82! 0.8! 82! 0.08! 8!heptenofos 20 0.2 20 0.003 0.3

malathion 13 0.1 13 0.009 0.9

mevinfos 2 0.02 2 0.0006 0.06

oxydemeton-methyl 35! 0.4! 35! 0.0003! 0.03!

para thion(-ethyl) 2 0.02 2 0.001 0.1

para thion-methyl 11 0.1 11 0.01 1

pyrazofos 40 0.4 40 0.02 2

tolclofos-methyl 790! 8! 800! 1! 130!

tria zophos 32 0.3 32 0.007 0.7

trichlorfon 1 0.01 1 0.00002 0.002


66/77

Annex I 65


ORGANIC TARGET TARGET TARGET

SUBSTANCES VALUE MPC VALUE MPC VALUE MPC

(continued) (dissolved) (dissolved) (total) (total) (dry matter) (dry matter)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

organotin compounds ng/ l ng/ l ng/ l g/kg g/kg

tetrabutyltins (ind) 1600! 16! 1600! 0.8! 78!

salt w ater: 17! 0.2! 17! 0.008! 0.8!

tributyltins (ind) 14 0.1 14 0.1 10

salt w ater: 1 0.01 1 0.007 0.7

triphenyltins (ind) 5 0.05 5 0.06 6

salt w ater: 0.8 0.009 0.9 0.01 1

organo-silicium compounds g/ l g/ l g/ l mg/ kg mg/kg

octamethyltetrasiloxane 0.4 0.005 0.5 0.01 1.3

acids (fenol herbicides g/ l g/ l g/ l g/kg g/kg

& chlorfenoxycarbonacid

herbicides)

bentazone 64! 0.6! 64! 1! 130!

2.4-D 10 0.1 10 0.3 27dichlorprop 40 0.4 40 32 3200

dinoseb 0.03 0.0003 0.03 0.003 0.3

dinoterb 0.03 0.0003 0.03 0.1 11

DNO C 21 0.2 21 0.7 280

MCPA 2 0.02 2 0.05 5

mecoprop 4 0.04 4 0.02 2

2.4.5-T 9! 0.09! 9! 0.2! 50!

carbamates & dithiocarbamates ng/ l ng/ l ng/ l g/kg g/kg

a ldica rb 98 1 98 0.001 0.1

benomyl 150 2 150 0.006 0.6

carbaryl 230 2 230 0.03 3

carbendazim 110 1 110 0.03 3

carbofuran 910 9 910 0.02 2maneb as ETU .. a s ETU 2 ..

metam-Natrium 35! 0.4! 35! 0.006! 0.6!

methomyl 80 0.8 80 0.001 0.1

oxamyl 1800 18 1800 0.01 1

pirimicarb 90 0.9 90 0.02 2

propoxur 10 0.1 10 0.0001 0.01

thiram 32 0.3 32 0.008 0.8

tri-a lla te 1900 19 1900 0.2 160

zineb as ETU .. a s ETU 130! ..

t riazines, pyridazines & triazoles ng/ l ng/ l ng/ l g/ kg g/kganilazine 85 0.9 85 0.02 2

a trazine 2900 29 2900 0.2! 26

chloridazon 73000 730 73000 3 350cyanazine 190 2 190 0.01! 2

desmetryn 34000! 340! 34000! 0.08! 370!

metamitron 10000 100 10000 1 95

simazine 140! 1! 140! 0.009! 0.9!

Documents

Water Pollution Control in the Netherlands 2001