1 / 17

Policy update with regard to Priority and Emerging Substances SOCOPSE Final Conference

Policy update with regard to Priority and Emerging Substances SOCOPSE Final Conference Maastricht, 24-25 June 2009 Jorge Rodriguez Romero WFD Team Coordinator DG Environment, European Commission. Contents. Priority substances: state of play Priority substances vs emerging substances

urit
Download Presentation

Policy update with regard to Priority and Emerging Substances SOCOPSE Final Conference

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Policy update with regard to Priority and Emerging Substances SOCOPSE Final Conference Maastricht, 24-25 June 2009 Jorge Rodriguez Romero WFD Team Coordinator DG Environment, European Commission

  2. Contents • Priority substances: state of play • Priority substances vs emerging substances • Working with other related legislation (REACH, pesticides, biocides, …) • Outlook

  3. Legal framework • Article 16 of WFD • Article 8 of Directive 2008/105/EC (EQSD) • Within the framework of the review of Annex X to Directive 2000/60/EC, as provided for in Article 16(4) of that Directive, the Commission shall consider inter alia the substances set out in Annex III to this Directive for possible identification as priority substances or priority hazardous substances.The Commission shall report the outcome of its review to the European Parliament and to the Council by 13 January 2011. It shall accompany the report, if appropriate, with relevant proposals, in particular proposals to identify new priority substances or priority hazardous substances or to identify certain priority substances as priority hazardous substances and to set corresponding EQS for surface water, sediment or biota, as appropriate.

  4. Prioritisation principles • Significant risk to or via aquatic environment, including to surface waters used for drinking water • Identification of risks through • Risk assessments under chemicals, pesticides or biocides legislation • Targeted risk assessment focusing only on toxicity to or via aquatic environment • Simplified risk-based assessment procedure based on scientific principles and taking into account • intrinsic hazard • monitoring data • production volumes and/or use patterns.

  5. Tier 1: risk assessments under chemicals, pesticides, biocides • 97 finalised risk assessment reports under Existing Substances Regulation 793/93 (+24 drafts) • 334 pesticides active substances in Annex I Directive 91/414/EEC • 14 substances included in Annex I of Directive 98/8/EC on biocides • Subsidiarity: Priority substances should be an EU wide problem, otherwise should be regulated at national/RBD level (as part of ecological status)

  6. Tier 3: Simplified risk assessment • 2001 priority list: COMMPS (Combined Monitoring-based and Modelling-based Priority Setting) • New data collection 2008-2009

  7. Tier 3: Simplified risk assessment Monitoring-based ranking Modelling-based ranking Central database data collection preparation and treatment Establishment of the universe of chemicals Assessment of exposure and hazard Establishment of the manageable list Scoring Evaluation of exposure and effects data Application of fugacity modelling Application of prioritisation algorithm 1st Expert review (de-selection criteria) 1st Expert review (de-selection criteria) List of substances  List of substances  Consideration of risk ratio and other criteria 2nd Expert review (de-selection criteria) Final list of substances Monitoring data provide an excellent basis, from direct observation, to get information on European environmental conditions. However, monitoring data cannot be used as the single scoring method because the available information is incomplete and only covers a set of substances which were considered "relevant" in the past. Thus, the current monitoring information is biased by previous decisions on which substances should be monitored. (…) Therefore, it is important to incorporate a second system, to allow inclusion in the final list, of substances with a high potential risk for aquatic organisms for which no monitoring information is available to date. Opinion of CSTEE on COMMPS 28.09.99

  8. Additional substances of concern • Directive 2008/105/EC Annex III substances (13) • Existing substances regulation PBTs (27) • REACH Substances of Very High Concern SVHC (16) • ECHA recommended recently 7 of them for authorisation • Persistent Organic Pollutants POPs • Others: OSPAR priority, pharmaceuticals, etc

  9. Historical pollutants • PCBs, dioxins • Heavily regulated since years • Still causing problems due to PBT properties • There are arguments in favour of listing them as priority substances • Trigger for action • From a regulatory point of view, the reason for including these chemicals in the list is the need for assessing the effectiveness of existing measures and the evolution of water quality as a consequence of the measures. (CSTEE 1999)

  10. EQS setting • EQS Technical Guidance in final draft stage • Testing period over next months • To be finalised by the end of 2009 • Water – sediment – biota

  11. Priority vs emerging substances • WFD article 16: significant risk to or via aquatic environment • There is no place for emerging pollutants if risk is not demonstrated – e.g. presence is not enough RESEARCH (e.g. NORMAN network, Modelkey) Not monitored REACH Not regulated

  12. Scarcity of monitoring data • Example: PFOS • Annex III Directive 2008/105/EC

  13. Quality of monitoring data • Example: Triphenyltin compounds

  14. Control measures • WFD Article 16(6) • Commission proposal in 2006: existing measures at Community level should be sufficient to achieve the objectives – this needs to be looked at • Revision of river basin management plans: pressures – status – measures • Activity on emissions under WG E Priority Substances • Research projects (like SOCOPSE)

  15. Working with other legislation • REACH • Registration dossiers • Annex XV dossiers (SVHC) • Evaluations • Pesticides & biocides • Authorisations for use • WFD as downstream safety net to ensure measures taken to mitigate the risk are efficient – and providing a feedback mechanism to those other policies in case further product controls are needed

  16. Outlook • Overall methodology for WFD article 16 Community action to be consolidated, to be used in future updates, including relationship with other legislation • Progressively evolving in the future • Improve information base • Chemical monitoring in Member States (Commission Directive on QA/QC to be adopted in July 2009) • REACH (ecotoxicological data, use patterns) • Effectiveness of measures: RBMP cycle • Emerging substances • Research (Socopse, ScorePP, Modelkey, Neptune, …)

  17. Thank you for your attentionwater.europa.eu

More Related