2021

To allow the source of an undesirable discharge in the Meuse riverbed to be traced as quickly as possible, it is important that the parties involved know exactly what they must do. Practice makes perfect is applicable in this context. A crisis exercise was therefore organised on May 10, 2022, to allow the ‘Protocol for Source Tracking in the Meuse’ from the drinking water companies to be tested in practice. What happened? From now on, the involved parties intend to coordinate their crisis management more efficiently.

The crisis exercise was prepared by the special working group called 'Crisis Scenario Inspiration Group', which Evides, RIWA-Meuse, Dunea, Rijkswaterstaat and the Aa and Meuse Water Board participated. Mika den Hollander, Water Management student at the Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, was closely involved in organizing this exercise. Mika was the primary contact point for the parties involved and his report on the exercise can be found below in a question-and-answer format

1. What was the motivation for the crisis exercise?

"When drinking water companies along the Meuse are confronted with unforeseen discharges, they must stop the abstraction of river water. Motivated by the incident with prosulfocarb (2019), RIWA-Meuse drafted a protocol for this. However, this protocol had not yet been tested in practice, so it wasn’t clear whether it actually worked. This is why this crisis exercise was organised."

2. Who was involved in the exercise?

"The joint exercise was intended to facilitate future cooperation during a crisis situation. Evides and Dunea, Rijkswaterstaat and the Aa and Meuse Water Board participated in the exercise, together with RIWA-Meuse. The Aa and Maas Water Board was the connecting part in this exercise for other water boards."

3. What working format did the crisis exercise have?

"During the preparation for the exercise, we decided to deviate from the standard crisis exercise. By ‘we’, I mean Rob Westra, Arnoud Wessel from Evides, and Maarten van der Ploeg from RIWA-Meuse. In place of that, we opted for a kind of 'dilemma session' with a workshop character. In this way, we could examine the protocol more substantively."

4. A fictional example was opted for the exercise. What situation did the participants have to deal with?

"We simulated a crisis from the Helmond sewage treatment plant. The participants were confronted with a discharge of an unknown substance by a fictional new business that was discharging into the sewer. The substance broke down after discharge and was then discharged into the Meuse via the Helmond sewerage plant. After this, the substance was detected at the drinking water abstraction station at the BergscheMaas. The scenario concerned a substance that remained anonymous for a long time, so it was extra difficult to discover where it might have come from. We deliberately opted for this, because it has emerged from practice also that the identification of a substance can take up to three weeks. This happened previously for example, in the case of GenX and pyrazole.”

5. What key points were central during the exercise?

"Many questions were asked. To mention a couple of examples: it was about the detail level of discharge permits. The question was: in the tracking down of dischargers, do we in the future want to be able to gain insight into the possible location of the discharger via office investigations? This would be possible for example via the Atlas for a Clean Meuse, where Rijkswaterstaat’s direct discharge permits can already be referred to, but not yet with indirect discharges.

Another key point was the practical question of how long different drinking water companies could stop their water abstraction for, and when the situation would become problematic. This information is important to allow us to mutually help each other.

A further question was how long does it take before a discharge is localised. Do we want to be able to do this more quickly, or not? And what factors play a role in the consideration of whether to be able to localise a discharge quicker. As costs also play a role in this of course. Do we want to be able to charge the damage from an incident to the party that caused the discharge?

Finally, the water board indicated that it wants to be involved much earlier in the information provision about incidents along the Meuse. After all, they also abstract Meuse water. Therefore, the question was when exactly do they want to be informed? And how can the water boards then remain more closely involved in the provision of information provision regarding an incident."

6. What will happen now after the exercise?

"The exercise yielded 40 recommendations, varying in nature and extent. Some for example concern the way in which information exchange happens. Sometimes the improvement points are very practical, such as including the water boards in an app group, or about deputization in the absence of specific contact persons.

There were also points about the use of each other's facilities in emergency, such as analyses by laboratories. Sometimes the recommendations were aimed at the management method. One for example concerned the integration of the operational and policy groups that are instituted during an incident. It emerged from the exercise that the various organisations would be happy to have their protocols linked together. This is an important conclusion.”

My recommendation to the working party? The point now is to see which of the 40 recommendations can be incorporated into the Protocol for Source Tracking. After this iteration cycle, a new crisis exercise could be organised, but then with the traditional character of an actual simulation."

7. What needs to happen and why?

"The recommendations put forward deserve a follow-up. A number can be incorporated into the protocol rapidly. The cooperation among the parties that participated in the exercise ought also to receive feedback/follow-up. The Clean Meuse Water Chain could be a good platform for this. The parties considered it useful to be able to speak together about each other's interests and actions.

Another possibility is to expand this network with other water boards, municipalities, and environmental agencies. This is important when the issue is related to a discharge from a sewage treatment plant. At the time of the GenX incident, it took months before the discharge was tracked down. This needs to be different in future."