Post a comment on the text below

3.1.         Introduction

At European level, our knowledge of the chemical status of water is largely based on regulatory requirements, which demand information on well-established, key pollutants. In the WFD, most priority substances are already subject to use restrictions under REACH or pesticides legislation, while river basin specific pollutants (RBSPs) are usually subject to national legislation.  So why do we still see failures to achieve good status for these substances? This chapter considers key chemical pollutants and why these continue to pose challenges to good water quality in Europe.

When the assessment of status under the WFD finds a failure, the reasons for that – the “pressures” need to be investigated, as a step towards identifying measures that might be taken to bring the water body to good status. Therefore, here we consider the priority substances most frequently causing failure to achieve good chemical status, and RBSPs most frequently causing failure to achieve good ecological status. For example, improved waste water treatment or altering farming practice can help to reduce harmful chemicals reaching the aquatic environment.

It is important to appreciate that this is where WFD meets chemical source control legislation.  Environmental monitoring undertaken for WFD feeds back information to legislation such as REACH, on the effectiveness of the source control. However, because some chemicals are persistent and can remain in the environment for a long time, we also need information on the trend, to assess whether and how concentrations are changing.  At a European level, there is limited comparable information about concentrations of hazardous substances over time. To get around that issue, reporting on the trends in chemical emissions can provide complementary information on the status of chemicals in the environment. For the key priority substances, emission data reported under the E-PRTR, WFD and WISE State of Environment reporting are presented. Conclusions about our level of understanding and areas where actions need to be taken, are provided.

Previous comments

  • sommelin (Linda Sommer) 26 Sep 2018 14:01:42

    DE-UAB IV 1.2:

    'under REACH or pesticides legislation'

    it should be pesticides legislations

    This should be plural, because there is the plant protection product legislation and the biocidal product legislation.

  • Bertrand Vallet (invited by Caroline Whalley) 28 Sep 2018 10:22:00

    EurEau

    We cannot consider the improvement of treatment as a viable solution. The source of the pollutant has to be identified and treated upstream to protect the WWTP. Toxic substances should not reach WWTP as it may endanger the capacity of treatment for basic pollutants. It also influence the quality of sludge and jeopardize circular economy.

  • Bertrand Vallet (invited by Caroline Whalley) 28 Sep 2018 10:25:27

    EurEau

    WWTP should never be seen as a source of pollutants if it comply with the UWWTD. They have been built to be compliant, responsibility should not be put on them for other kind of pollution.

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