Preparation of the Commission’s 2011 proposal on Priority Substances. Water Directors meeting 26-27 May 2011. Jorge Rodriguez Romero Helen Clayton WFD Team DG Environment. Recall of the process. Legal basis: WFD article 16 requiring regular review Work in progress since 2007!
Water Directors meeting
26-27 May 2011
Jorge Rodriguez Romero
Legal basis: WFD article 16 requiring regular review
Work in progress since 2007!
Extensive support from Member States and stakeholder experts along the technical process (thanks!)
Technical Guidance Document significantly expanded – adoption by all MS representatives at the SCG in March (one reservation)
SCHER opinions being finalised for proposed EQS
Extensive consultation on impact assessment with WGE plus other targeted stakeholders – still many data gaps
Commission proposal expected September 2011 covering
Changes to existing EQS and proposal of new substances
Specific problems related to ubiquitous PBTs
Monitoring watch list for EU prioritisation
Most dangerous chemicals accumulating in sediment and/or biota
Causing risk to aquatic environment and human health
Some long-range transboundary pollutants
Many measures have been taken – more planned
REACH should prevent placing on the market new PBTs in the future
Despite heavy regulation it will take decades for these substances to disappear from the aquatic environment
Remediation of hot-spots may be feasible in some cases
Identification of substances that may fall under this heading
Heptachlor + epoxide
Chemical status will deteriorate for the second RBMP!
More stringent EQS for some existing substances
New ubiquitous PBTs
Exemptions will need to be used widely
What can the WFD do to solve these serious environmental problem
Provision of robust information about the extent of the problems – no other mechanism at EU level
Provide a environmental target (the EQS)
Trigger action at local level when feasible
There is limited scope for “WFD measures” – further EU measures need to be taken under other sectoral legislation (REACH, air, waste...)
Presentation of chemical status: Ubiquitous PBTs may bring a negative picture and hide improvements in other substances
Option a: allow separate presentation
Option b: take out from chemical status
Choice of monitoring matrix influences dramatically the results (same environmental situation, different results)
Option a: link choice of matrix to QA/QC Directive
Option b: fix monitoring matrix for each substance
Monitoring effort: default WFD monitoring not tailored for ubiquitous PBTs (in time and scale)
Option a: reduced monitoring obligations if certain conditions met
Option b: reduced monitoring obligations (unconditional)
Tool to develop limited, targeted, high quality monitoring data for the purpose of EU level prioritisation
Address emerging pollutants catch-22
Substances are not regulated...
...so they are not monitored...
...so there is not data available...
...so there is no basis to propose regulation ??
High support from WGE (MS and stakeholders)
Limited number of substances 20-25 monitored in 250-300 stations across the EU
Cost estimates are 3-6%% of the current cost of monitoring for priority substances - high benefit/cost ratio
Options: voluntary or legally binding