Back to section

Post a comment on the text below

gwPollutantCausingFailure - Required.(YesNoCode_Enum)

Indicate if the pollutant or indicator is causing failure to achieve good chemical status.

Previous comments

  • ES - Spain (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 19 Mar 2019 16:45:16

    We propose to add a new Quality check

    the guidance states:

    If gwChemicalStatusValue is ‘3’, at least 1 pollutant or indicator should be reported as ‘Yes’ in gwPrioritySubstanceCausingFailure.

    The previous check is insufficient because it only ensures consistency in one direction (from 'GroundWaterBody' to 'GWPollutant), but it is also necessary to ensure it in the opposite direction(from 'GWPollutant' to 'GroundWaterBody'), that is:

    Every groundwaterbody being reported as ‘Yes’ in this element must be reported as swChemicalStatusValue=‘3’.

    This field swPrioritySubstanceCausingFailure should be='No' if

    • gwChemicalStatusValue <>'3' 
    • RO - Romania1 (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 25 Apr 2019 09:47:07

       

      We propose to add a new Quality check

      the guidance states:

      If gwChemicalStatusValue is ‘3’, at least 1 pollutant or indicator should be reported as ‘Yes’ in gwPrioritySubstanceCausingFailure.

      The previous check is insufficient because it only ensures consistency in one direction (from 'GroundWaterBody' to 'GWPollutant), but it is also necessary to ensure it in the opposite direction(from 'GWPollutant' to 'GroundWaterBody'), that is:

      Every groundwaterbody being reported as ‘Yes’ in this element must be reported as swChemicalStatusValue=‘3’.

      This field swPrioritySubstanceCausingFailure should be='No' if

      • gwChemicalStatusValue <>'3' 

      In our opinion, it is not necessary to add other quality check. Groundwater body code is included in both table, so it is enough for quality check.

You cannot post comments to this consultation because you are not authenticated. Please log in.