EAF(3) Final Report -For Official Use Only

EAF(3) – Final report -For official use only

/ EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL ENVIRONMENT
Directorate B - Environmental quality of Natural resources
ENV.B1 - Water, the Marine and Soil

Brussels, 23 May 2003

Expert Advisory Forum on Priority Substances and Pollution Control

EAF (3) Meeting, CCAB, Brussels
4-6 March 2002

Final report

1.  Welcome and Adoption of the Agenda

The Commission, DG Environment B.1 (COM) welcomed the participants to the third meeting of the Expert Advisory Forum on Priority Substances and Pollution Control (EAF (3) Priority Substances). The COM presented the draft agenda (EAF(3) – 01/01rev/ENV) and draft annotated agenda (EAF(3) – 01/02rev/ENV) for the meeting. Both agendas were adopted.

2.  Discussion and adoption of minutes of previous expert meetings

Comments were invited on the minutes of the second meeting of the Expert Advisory Forum (EAF(3) – 02/05/ENV).

UK requests an addition on page 3, “general discussion”, in the sense that methodologies should be given a thorough road testing. WWF and AT will provide alternative wording for positions on page 4 and page 7 respectively. DK corrects that, on page 5, in their view the setting of EQS should be based on intrinsic properties.

Participants were asked to send comments by e-mail by 22 March 2002 for incorporation into the minutes.

The agreement to the minutes was noted, provided that comments submitted by 22 March are taken into account.

3.  Adoption of the list of priority substances – State of play

The COM informed the meeting that the “Decision N° 2455/2001/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2001 establishing the list of priority substances in the field of water policy and amending Directive 2000/60/EC” has been adopted, and that it was published on the 15th December 2001 and that it therefore entered into force the day after, the 16th December.

These dates have implications for the timetable connected with Article 16 of the WFD.

In addition three further points of clarification / information were raised:

–  The Decision amends the WFD Annex X. There are no provisions for the transposition in the decision itself and therefore the transposition dates of the WFD applies, meaning the end of 2003;

–  Translation errors in the German translation, regarding the substance Mercury, and one minor error in English. EAF participants were asked to inform of other type errors;

–  Three pesticide companies have challenged the decision, not the adoption of the full decision, but the inclusion of 7 Plant Protection Products/substances products therein. The COM indicated it was seeking further information, and at this stage they presented the assumption that the challenge is raised to the Court of the First Instance and that the challenge is made on the basis of Article 230 of the EC Treaty. The COM will keep the EAF informed about development. The challenge is made against the Council and Parliament that adopted the Decision, and the involvement of the Commission is not yet clear.

The ECPA representative was invited to comment, and responded that this would not have a great significance for the EAF. ECPA will continue to take part in the work of the EAF. The legal case has been brought by the companies, and ECPA just partly involved. ECPA clarified that the case based on Article 16 of the WFD, which can be read in a way that the assessment shall be finalised before the products are included on the list. It is at this stage not clear if the case will be admissible.

WWF asked ECPA to clarify the actual position of industry to the whole process, as priority setting is the core of the working of EAF.

COM asked for distinction between listing of substances versus the definition of quality standards and emission control measures, and emphasised that any citizen or legal person has the right to challenge decisions taken. Until the Court has reached a decision, the COM will continue to work on the decision as adopted by the institutions.

4.  Working Programme 2002/2003

The COM introduced the draft Work programme (EAF(3) –04/03/ENV). New activities includes points 6 (Existing legislation and the transfer of these to the WFD) and point 7 (WFD Common Implementation Strategy). Cross linkages and possibilities of co-operation with other EAFs and Working Groups will be addressed during this meeting.

Several Member States (AT, FR, DE) expressed disappointment on the delays, especially for the presentation of proposals on quality standards, and asked for clarification.

NL questioned if the review PS would include the further development of the COMMPS process. NL informed the meeting that surveys in NL has found several substances such as antioxidants, detergents and pharmaceuticals that maybe should be on the list next time. The necessary monitoring by Member States should start well in advance of 2004.

COM explained that the delays were due to the delays regarding a support contract for administrative and technical support. The COM furthermore explained that their impression is that the divergent views on the quality standards (QS) require more work to be overcome. The COM reminded to participants that the clearer the view on the QS and methodology expressed in this meeting, the easier it will be to speed up the process. Regarding the emission controls (EC) delay, the COM explained that the report will take longer time than foreseen to complete. On the 2004 review of the list of Priority Substances, the information provided by NL was noted and this should be discussed in relation to the report by AMPS later.

WWF drew the attention to other sources of delay, such as the work by the consultant on issues already covered and agreed by Member States as well as the slow information from industry and other Commission services that has hampered the process.

5.  Co-operation and co-ordination with other groups

5a – Draft list (EAF(3) – 05/04/ENV) and Info 1

COM introduced the agenda point by highlighting the importance of co-ordination, exchange of information and ensuring consistency between groups as a key component of the implementation strategy for the Water Framework Directive, as well close co-operation with beyond the WFD.

5.1.1.  Sewage sludge Directive,Mr. Luca Marmo (DG ENV.A.2 - Sustainable resources unit)

The COM (LM) presented the developments of the preparations of the revision of the Sewage sludge Directive of 1986 regulating the use of sewage sludge in agricultural sector. The current revision of the Directive focuses on the recycling of sludge into agriculture with the view of long term soil protection, and also on extending the scope to cover also other sources compatible with reuse in agriculture, and in addition to add other uses. Most of interest for the EAF is however, along with the revision of limits for heavy metal in sludge and soils, the inclusion of contamination by organic compounds in sludge. (The presentation is available on Circa.)

Revision work started in 1999, and several studies have been prepared and are available on the Europe site (http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/ sludge/index.htm).

WWF asked to which extent is the existing substance assessment methodology of Regulation 793/93 used to derive the quality standards. COM(LM) replied that coherence with other policies will be sought after regarding the methodology used by the Member States. EEB asked for clarification on the links with the soil strategy. COM (LM) assured that there will be concrete recommendations in the Soil Strategy that can be taken forward at an early stage.

5.1.2.  Classification and labellingMario Nichelatti (JRC)

The JRC (MN) announced that a draft document about classification of the substances on the list. For the moment there are no changes as regards the classification. In the meantime the 28/80/P has been published, a modification with new substances added and we are working on number 29, and there may be changes.

5.1.3.  Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive, Mr. Magnus Gislev (DG ENV.D.3 - Industry and implementation)

The COM(MG) presented progress since the last meeting, in particular on development of Best available technologies(BATs) and BAT reference documents (BREF) on refineries, large volumes organic chemical manufacturers and a cross cutting document for the chemical sector dealing with waste water and waste gas treatment. In 2002, BREFs on Large Combustion Plants, textile manufacturing and intensive livestock farming will be developed, as well as a reference document on monitoring.

As regards implementation, relatively few IPPC permits have been issued, so conclusions cannot be drawn from such limited experience. Four Member States had not yet fully transposed the Directive. Almost all Member States have reported on Emission Limit Values, and the Commission has analysed them. Interpretation difficulties are caused by the different ways of expressing emission limit values: concentrations, loads, yearly to half hour averages, etc.

In relation to the upcoming BREF on the textile industry, WWF asked after existing experience with input substitution as a means of emissions control. COM(MG) explained that for the finalised BREF on the tanning industry (production of leather) a key element has been the consideration of substitution.

COM(Jd’E) invited delegates to inform the Commission and their IPPC colleagues in the Member States, of (possible) linkages identified between PS and the IPPC Directive and the BREFs, where action is required. The different approach used by the IPPC Directive was highlighted, that is looking at all substances emitted by a certain sector of industry, whilst the Water Framework Directive approach is to look at all industries that discharge a certain substance.

DE asked clarifications on whether there is a strategy to integrate and develop the recommendations by Member State rapporteurs stemming from the risk assessments and risk management strategies inside the IPPC framework? COM(MG) assured that they are involved in those substances where the rapporteur suggest that IPPC should regulate, but that so far no recommendation to set Community wide emission limit values were made.

COM (Jd’E) referred to Info document 1 which gives an overview of the state of play of Risk assessments in different pieces of legislation. On pesticides, the assessment for isoproturon is finalised and for chlorfenvinphos no notification has been received, which means that this substance will be withdrawn.

AT asked if the monitoring document includes just waste water or also environmental monitoring? COM(MG) replied that monitoring of emissions to air and discharges into water is included, but not ambient quality monitoring.

5.1.4.  OSPARGerard Broseliske

The objective of OSPAR is the protection of the Marine environment of the Northeast Atlantic. OSPAR operates through six strategies that have been adopted throughout the year, of which one on the hazardous substances: “In accordance with the general objective of OSPAR, with regard to hazardous substances is to prevent pollution of maritime area by continuously reducing the discharges, emission and losses of hazardous substances with the ultimate aim of achieving concentrations in the marine environment near background values for naturally occurring substances and close to zero for manmade synthetic substances”. Basically, the OSPAR objectives for Priority substances are comparable to those of the WFD on Priority Hazardous Substances.

OSPAR has developed a methodology DYNAMEC for priority setting. So far 42 priority substances have been adopted; 14 substances without current production or use, 28 substances which require action by OSPAR. It is likely that 8 substances will be added in June 2002, of which one WFD substance.

To achieve the objectives, background documents are prepared, following a uniform format. They include 5 aspects :

1)  identification of all pathways of the substance to the marine environment;

2)  information on monitoring data, quantification of sources and assessment of the extent of the problem;

3)  desired reduction, is it natural or synthetic substance;

4)  identification of possible measures;

5)  choice for action and measures.

Chapter 4 is includes an overview of existing and planned measures, for both point and diffuse sources. OSPAR focuses on international forums, EC and IMO. Chapter 5 reveals where action is missing, thus ensuring no duplication of measures.

So far background documents for nine groups of substances have been adopted. In June 2002, another seven background documents may be adopted, including some substances on the WFD list.

COM reminded the meeting that OSPAR is one of “founding fathers” of the priority substances article.

SW added that it seems that OSPAR will publish the list of substances of possible concern during the summer of 2002, which includes 380 substances, along with the relevant fact sheets for those substances.

WWF states that the strategy is similar in the HELCOM area, which is of importance for the accession countries. COM added that the Czech Republic discharges into the Atlantic.

5.1.5.  HELCOM, by Alf Aagard

Mr Aagard announced that there has been no specific activities since the last EAF meeting, when a more substantive presentation of HELCOM was made.

Six Guidance documents have been drafted, stating the knowledge on use, production and release of priority substances, existing regulation, proposed legislation to meet the target. The substances chosen are PCBs, cadmium, nonylphenols, short chain chloroparaffin and dioxins.

There has been a small workshop with the Baltic national industry association on the use of chemicals in the HELCOM strategy and EU legislation on how to deal with hazardous substances. Minutes of that meeting will be available on CIRCA.

EUROCHLOR highlighted that within OSPAR for both for the selection of chemicals as well as establishing the background document, a formal system for involving the industry is provided. Such a system should be applied in the WFD for each substance separately.

5.1.6.  Rhine Convention (ICR)Gerard Broseliske

The intention is to report on the next EAF on the developments: based on the lists Annex X of the WFD, directive 76/464, OSPAR, Rhine Treaty and EPER, the substances of relevance for the Rhine basin district are being identified.

COM welcomes the initiative and highlight the importance of keeping in close contact with what is happening within the River Basins.

5.1.7.  Danube ConventionBernd Mehlhorn

The situation on the Danube is complicated, as the Danube countries include EU Member States, accession countries in the first wave and second wave, and possibly accession countries in a third wave. The Danube Convention is working on a list of priority list substances for the Danube, and hope to reach an agreement at the end of 2002.