Post a comment on the text below
3.2. Chemical Status, River Basin Specific Pollutants and Pollutants most frequently exceeding standards in Europe
Under the Water Framework Directive, the chemical status of surface waters is assessed against environmental quality standards (EQSs) for a list of priority substances. EQSs are set to protect the most sensitive species – this could be e.g. algae or invertebrates but also top predators like fish or humans, which may eat many smaller organisms and cause the pollutant to “bioaccumulate”. The first list of priority substances included 33 substances and groups in the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (2008/105/EC). The list of priority substances was updated with the Priority Substances Directive (2013/39/EC)[1].
Box 3.1[1]: Key messages on chemical pollutants from EEA’S RBMP Assessment, 2018
· The WFD data reported by Member States showed that 38% of the surface water bodies within the EU were in good chemical status, while 46% were not in good status and for 16%, the status was reported as ‘unknown’. Compared to the previous assessment results in 2010, the number of water bodies with unknown status had decreased significantly (minus 25%), yet the improvements in chemical status were limited.
· In particular, mercury and polybrominated diphenylethers (used as flame-retardants) caused significant failure to achieve good chemical status in surface waters. Mercury and PAHs now mainly reach the aquatic environment following atmospheric deposition, whereas contamination with cadmium, lead and nickel is caused by discharges from waste water treatment plants or from historic mining areas. As well as the use, the pathway taken by the substance to reach the water body influences the relative difficulty of preventing pollution.
· It seems that for substances such as metals (cadmium, lead, and nickel) and several pesticides, some effective measures have been implemented, with Member States reporting improved status for these substances in some water bodies.
· RBSPs also show chemical contamination, but are regulated under ecological status with regional or national EQS. 5 % of surface water bodies did not achieve good ecological status owing to RBSPs, with 40 % reported as being in good or high ecological status, although 55%, the status of RBSPs was unknown.
· About 165[1] RBSPs were reported as causing failure to achieve good ecological status in at least one water body. Those most frequently reported as causing failure were the metals zinc, with 1503 waterbodies failing to achieve good ecological status, and copper (845). Other types of substances causing most failures were ammonium and elements such as arsenic and selenium. As individual substances, most RBSPs caused fewer than 100 waterbodies to fail good ecological status.
· There are differences in the numbers of substances defined by countries as RBSPs (between 5 and over 300) and differences in environmental quality standards applied. This means comparison between countries should be undertaken with care.
· Of the thousands of chemicals in use and potentially present in surface waters, relatively few have been identified as causing failure. From the information reported, it is not known how many other chemical pollutants are present in surface waters, and whether their concentrations should be of concern.
1 – Numbers updated as at 30/08/2018
A summary of findings for chemical status of surface waters from the recent RBMP assessment is provided in Box 3.1 (EEA, 2018a).
Examining these findings further, the priority substances and RBSPs most often exceeding environmental standards under the recent WFD reporting are shown in Table 3.1. This table shows the priority substances and most of the RBSPs which caused failure in at least 4 Member States[2]. To better understand the pressures causing particular chemicals to cause failure of good status, they are grouped according to the main pressure or pathway generally understood for that substance to reach the aquatic environment. Substances have been included, when exceedances were reported from at least four Member States.
[1] The 2013 Priority Substances Directive contains a revised list of 45 priority substances and groups of substances. In the EEA status and pressures assessment (EEA, 2018a), Member States were required to use report using the 2008 EQSs, though some applied a more stringent approach, using the 2013 EQSs.
[2] A further six natural chemical elements exceeded standards for RBSP in at least four Member States (Barium, Selenium, Boron, Cobalt, Uranium, Thallium).
Table 3.1: List of pollutants most frequently exceeding EQS in surface water bodies in EU25 (out of 111 105 water bodies)
For explanation of criteria and structure of table see text.
Source: WISE-Freshwater WFD accessed 20 August 2018. Data from “EU 25” ie 25 Member States (EU-28 except Greece, Ireland and Lithuania). Priority Substances: https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_PrioritySubstance/SWB_SWPrioritySubstance?:embed=y&:display_count=no&:showVizHome=no Substance, causing failure Yes, chemical status Failing
RBSP: https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_FailingRBSP/SWB_FailingRBSP_Europe?:embed=y&:display_count=no&:showVizHome=no ecological status moderate, poor and bad
(a) under the WFD EU-wide standards apply for priority substances (PS), while national or river basin standards apply for River Basin Specific Pollutants (RBSP).
(b) defined as priority hazardous substances, for which all discharges, emissions and losses must be ceased.
(c) Substance is ubiquitous, persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (uPBT) as defined in 2013/39/EU.
(d) Another 6 chemical elements exceeded standards for RBSP in at least four Member States (Barium, Selenium, Boron, Cobalt, Uranium, Thallium) plus PCBs .
It can be seen from Table 3.1 that chemicals causing most failures of chemical status are mercury and polybrominated diphenylethers (pBDEs). Other substances causing failure do so in much lower numbers of water bodies.
Legacy pollutants
One of the challenges in status assessment is that some chemicals can be present in the aquatic environment a long time after they were originally discharged or emitted. This “persistence” means that even after effective measures have been put in place to prevent pollution, the chemical can still cause poor water quality, because some chemicals do not break down and are instead recycled through sediments, water and organisms. Typical situations are mining districts and those areas which received industrial effluents from when there was little regulation (Box 3.3). In the case of mercury, there is now much regulation to prevent losses, but historic and natural sources (volcanoes) lead to widespread pollution in central and northern Europe, though continued coal burning represents a current source.
You cannot post comments to this consultation because you are not authenticated. Please log in.
Previous comments
DE-SH:
Please add information on metabolites an degradation products
DE-SH:
Box 3.11 'The WFD data reported'
The first key message is, that the member states have reported in an unhormanized way (Fig. 2.2.b); so results and percentages are not comparable. More harmonization in electronic reporting needed.
DE-SH:
'In the case of mercury, there is now much regulation to prevent losses, but historic and natural sources (volcanoes) lead to widespread pollution in central and northern Europe, though continued coal burning represents a current source.'
It should be 'western, central and' In Germany also continued coal burning, Germany is western Europe.
DE-UBA IV 1.2:
table 3.1 mainly from agriculture:
Isoproturon is also used as Biocide. It can enter the environment through e.g. WWTP effluent and storm water discharge.
DE-UBA IV 1.2:
Table 3.1c
For information: Copper is one of the main biocidal active substances being used in antifouling paints. Based on estimations by Daehne et al (2016), the use of copper based antifouling paints on leisure boats represent 19% of the total cooper emission into German surface waters in 2017 (Feibicke et al. (2017): Sind kupferhaltige Antifouling Anstriche ein Problem für unsere Gewässer?)
Also Zinc is a common ingredient in antifouling paints. However, it is not regarded as biocidal active substance under BPR, although a considerable biocidal effect of Zinc can be assumed.
Eurometaux
General comment to the “reported number of exceedances” (e.g. table 3.1. and 5.2.) and related text.
A main element of the report is the mentioning of the number of exceedances for the PS and RBSP. For the numbers related to the metals, it is emphasised that the numbers of exceedance have to be considered premature, and possibly misleading, for the following reasons:
Eurometaux
Box 3.11
"38% of the surface water bodies within the EU were in good chemical status, while 46% were not in good status and for 16%, the status was reported as ‘unknown’"
"5 % of surface water bodies did not achieve good ecological status owing to RBSPs, with 40 % reported as being in good or high ecological status, although 55%, the status of RBSPs was unknown"
"About 1651 RBSPs were reported as causing failure to achieve good ecological status in at least one water body. Those most frequently reported as causing failure were the metals zinc, with 1503 waterbodies failing to achieve good ecological status, and copper (845)."
The numbers of water bodies that fail should be put into perspective. Please, also include the total number of water bodies that was assessed, and/or the percentage of exceedances.
Eurometaux
Table 3.1: List of pollutants most frequently exceeding EQS in surface water bodies in EU25 (out of 111 105 water bodies)
Thank you for noting the total of 111 105 water bodies in the caption – this is very important for the reader to be able to put the numbers into perspective. We suggest repeating that number in Tables 3.1a, b, c, et... and adding a column with the percentages of waterbodies with exceedances.
Also, it would be best to express the ratio of exceedances/number of measurements by substance (see comment above).
We suggest replacing the header “Contamination from metals – mining and use” with “Metals and cyanide” (ref. comment to section 3.6 below).
"Contamination from metals - mining and use (section 3.6d)"
"Cyanide (total + free)"
Cyanide is not a metal. This reporting of cyanide is not coming from mining. It has been reported as coming from urban waste water treatment plants.
Page 29 Box 3.1 / 3rd al
It seems that for substances such as metals (cadmium, lead, and nickel) and several pesticides, some effective measures have been implemented, with Member States reporting improved status for these substances in some water bodies.
Comment Belgium (Wallonia) : same remarks as above: for lead and nickel, in the first reporting of RBMPs, EQS were set for soluble concentrations whereas now EQS are set for the bioavailable part of these concentrations calculated through simplified BLM (Biotic Ligand Models). This difference between the first and the second reporting of RBMPs could explain a part of the observed “improvement”.
In general we would like to stress that exceedances have to be evaluated compared to the monitoring activities of Member States. One cause of few reported failures can be the lack of monitoring data. In table 3.1 it is suggested to indicate the total number of water bodies or the total number of member states where the substances were monitored. This would give a more complete picture of the monitoring activities related to hazardous substances.