Post a comment on the text below
EU and international policy have been tackling water and environmental pollution for nearly 50 years. Gross chemical pollution, exemplified by “dead rivers”, has been successfully addressed in many cases. However, in its recent report, “European waters — Assessment of status and pressures 2018”, based on data from Member States on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), the European Environment Agency (EEA) found that despite action to reduce chemical pollution over many years, only 38 % of EU surface water bodies are in good chemical status. 46 % are not achieving this status, and 16 % are in unknown chemical status (EEA, 2018a).
The risk presented by hazardous substances is assessed under the WFD by comparing concentrations in the environment with environmental quality standards (EQS) for single substances. Some of the substances show high toxicity directly to organisms in the water, while others accumulate up the food chain and may therefore harm predators, which includes humans eating fish. This single substance approach has been used for many years, and fits well with regulation which seeks to control chemicals at source.
However, our understanding of the complex interactions between chemicals and living organisms has greatly increased over the last 20 years. At concentrations lower than those which kill directly, harmful chemicals may exert more subtle effects on organisms, for example limiting their ability to reproduce. Concern has been raised in relation to “the cocktail effect”, referring to mixtures of substances which may be present at low concentrations and which may combine in complicated ways to affect health. Achieving good status in surface waters may therefore require a better understanding of the subtler links between ecological and chemical status. Some approaches to improving this understanding are described in chapter 2.
Improving protection against chemical risks means we need to know what the risks are. Returning to what monitoring and reporting currently provide, chapter 3 gives more specific information on the chemicals recently reported as causing failure under the WFD. It describes fate, status and pollution, and provides examples of measures for the 15 substances most commonly causing failure across Europe under the WFD, and a further 15 identified at Member State level as River Basin Specific Pollutants.
Among these substances, those described as “ubiquitous” cause the most failures. They are persistent and toxic substances, distributed worldwide, in many cases over many years. Mercury is the major cause of failure: nowadays in Europe its main sources from human activities are from coal burning for power generation and the chemical industry, while substantial amounts are also released from urban waste water treatment plants (EEA, 2018b). Brominated diphenylethers (pBDEs), which were used as flame-retardants, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) which arise both naturally and from human sources during the burning of organic matter, are also leading causes of poor surface water quality. If these ubiquitous substances are omitted, only 3% of surface water bodies in Europe fail to achieve good chemical status.
Several other substances used in products enter surface water, mostly via urban waste water treatment plants. Examples are nonylphenols, used as surfactants, and the plasticiser DEHP. Historically, pollution by metals was caused by industry and mining, but significant sources now include our homes, buildings and untreated storm water discharges. Agriculture is the major user of pesticides, though we have limited data to show that as a source, while municipal and domestic uses can be significant in urban waste water. The herbicides isoproturon, metolachlor, MCPA and terbuthylazine are discussed, as is the insecticide lindane, already heavily regulated but a very persistent and volatile substance. Some biocides, like tributyltin were used to protect vessels from “fouling” by mussels and other water organisms.
You cannot post comments to this consultation because you are not authenticated. Please log in.
Previous comments
POLAND
All of the abbreviations should be explained in the document, particularly those which are not used commonly, such as names of pollutants - e.g. DEHP.
"Historically, pollution by metals was caused by industry and mining, but significant sources now include our homes, buildings and untreated storm water discharges. Agriculture is the major user of pesticides, though we have limited data to show that as a source, while municipal and domestic uses can be significant in urban waste water. The herbicides isoproturon, metolachlor, MCPA and terbuthylazine are discussed, as is the insecticide lindane, already heavily regulated but a very persistent and volatile substance. Some biocides, like tributyltin were used to protect vessels from “fouling” by mussels and other water organisms." - Literature sources needed to give more in depth information and explain the context of the mentioned statements. The statement about agriculture needs rewording or withrawal as it seems vague and looks like there was not enough research done on that subject.
DE-BY,NW
'relseased from urban waste water treatment pants': According to MoRE model emissions of urban waste water treatment plants are about 2% of the total Hg-Emissions into german rivers - this amount is not seen as a "substantial amount". Hence, on page 5 the conclusion 'further effort to reduce...' this source should be reconsidered.
DE-UBA II 2.2:
'Historically, pollution by metals was caused by industry and mining, but significant sources now include our homes, buildings and untreated storm water discharges.'
Please add combustion processes.
Is storm water discharge meant as source or as pathway? Because of emissions coming from combution processes (causing atmospheric deposition) storm water discharges are an important pathway for metalls. Furthermore, it doesn´t seem to be a complete new source/pathway.
DE-UBA IV 1.2:
'Agriculture is the major user of pesticides,'
Is there a literature source available, if so please amend.
EurEau
UWWTP are not source of pollution but pathways from the urban areas. They are treating what they are designed for. Specific pollutions should be tackled at source to apply the polluter pays principle.
P4, 1st paragraph: Please consider referencing changing standards here as this is quite an important reason for the current status as analysed. Without this context, the statement may be misleading.