Post a comment on the text below
Chemical pollution
In the WFD, the risks and impacts from pollution with chemical substances contribute to three different status assessments: 1) surface water chemical status based on priority substances (chapter 3); 2) ecological status as regards River Basin Specific Pollutants (chapter 2) and groundwater chemical status (chapter 4).
The main findings were:
- The percentage of surface water bodies in good chemical status within the EU is 38 %, while 46 % are not achieving good chemical status and 16 % of the water bodies have unknown chemical status. In many Member States, relatively few substances are causing failure to achieve good chemical status. Mercury causes failure in a high number of water bodies. If widespread pollution by ubiquitous substances including mercury is disregarded, the proportion in good chemical status improves to 78 % of all surface water bodies, and 4 % do not achieve good chemical status (16 % has unknown status). The main pressures leading to failure of good chemical status are atmospheric deposition and discharges from urban waste water treatment plants.
- Several Member States (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Sweden, Luxembourg and Slovenia) have extrapolated the results for failure to reach good chemical status to all water bodies, because the environmental quality standard for mercury was exceeded in all monitoring samples.
- At EU level, only 5 % of water bodies failed to achieve good status due to River Basin Specific Pollutants (RBSPs) identified by the Member States, with zinc and copper being the main RBSPs causing failure.
- 74 % of the area of groundwater bodies in the EU is in good chemical status. Of the 160 pollutants causing failure to achieve good status, 15 are reported by more than five Member States. Nitrate is the predominant groundwater pollutant throughout the EU followed by pesticides. In addition, salt intrusion (e.g. chloride), some chemicals used industrially e.g. tetrachloroethylene, and/or metals, such as arsenic, nickel and lead, are causing problems in some Member States. Agriculture is the main pressure causing failure of groundwater chemical status, and other significant pressures are discharges not connected to a sewerage system and pollution from contaminated sites or abandoned industrial sites.
Chemical pollutants are or have been emitted to water bodies through a range of pathways and from a variety of sources, including industry, agriculture, transport, mining and waste disposal, as well as from our own homes. Significant levels of some priority substances have built up from historic use and this legacy pollution may persist in water bodies long after pollutant discharges and inputs have ended.
Information regarding the sources and emissions of many pollutants remains incomplete, limiting the scope for identification and targeting of appropriate measures.
You cannot post comments to this consultation because you are not authenticated. Please log in.
Previous comments
"Several Member States (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Sweden, Luxembourg and Slovenia) have extrapolated the results for failure to reach good chemical status to all water bodies, because the environmental quality standard for mercury was exceeded in all monitoring samples." please delete Luxembourg from the enumeration list.
In reference to: "In addition, salt intrusion (e.g. chloride), some chemicals used industrially e.g. tetrachloroethylene, and/or metals, such as arsenic, nickel and lead, are causing problems in some Member States. Agriculture is the main pressure causing failure of groundwater chemical status, and other significant pressures are discharges not connected to a sewerage system and pollution from contaminated sites or abandoned industrial sites." In the European Union, a vast majority of aggregates extraction sites are dealing with inert materials such as sand, gravel and crushed rock, and produce inert wastes according to EU definitions and criteria included in EU Directives. The industry’s production process and treatment plants do not include the use of chemicals as in most of the cases the processes are based on mechanical crushing, milling, grinding, and size grading. It is necessary to make a clear distinction between the concept of mining and quarrying, as the nature of their activities and the properties of the materials they extract are very different, and the Aggregates Industry does not represent a threat for water quality. Moreover, in the aggregates industry, it is possible to create wetlands during and after the extraction phase, according with the permit granted by the administration (including environment and water management authorities, and in many cases under the EIA scheme). Most of those new wetlands or lakes are designed according to suitable hydromorphological parameters, to achieve a new (artificial) water body that is able to grant water quality parameters and biodiversity requirements for their life time. Some of them have flood protection designs or even good quality water supply to urban areas for human consumption. Recent studies from different countries (Denmark, Austria, France, UK, Germany, Spain) are demonstrating that water quality is by far better in these artificial wetlands linked to quarries and sand and gravel pits extaction sites, compared to natural lakes. The rise of biodiversity is, again, a living proof of that. These facts have received recognition by the European Commission, research institutions, and a number of environmental NGOs.
It would be therefore recommended to clearly define what is meant by heavy industry or mining and which measures apply to mining and which ones to the Aggregates Industry, rather than addressing the entire extractive industry.
In reference to: Chemical pollutants are or have been emitted to water bodies through a range of pathways and from a variety of sources, including industry(...)". In the European Union, a vast majority of aggregates extraction sites are dealing with inert materials such as sand, gravel and crushed rock, and produce inert wastes according to EU definitions and criteria included in EU Directives. The industry’s production process and treatment plants do not include the use of chemicals as in most of the cases the processes are based on mechanical crushing, milling, grinding, and size grading. It is necessary to make a clear distinction between the concept of mining and quarrying, as the nature of their activities and the properties of the materials they extract are very different, and the Aggregates Industry does not represent a threat for water quality. Moreover, in the aggregates industry, it is possible to create wetlands during and after the extraction phase, according with the permit granted by the administration (including environment and water management authorities, and in many cases under the EIA scheme). Most of those new wetlands or lakes are designed according to suitable hydromorphological parameters, to achieve a new (artificial) water body that is able to grant water quality parameters and biodiversity requirements for their life time. Some of them have flood protection designs or even good quality water supply to urban areas for human consumption. Recent studies from different countries (Denmark, Austria, France, UK, Germany, Spain) are demonstrating that water quality is by far better in these artificial wetlands linked to quarries and sand and gravel pits extaction sites, compared to natural lakes. The rise of biodiversity is, again, a living proof of that. These facts have received recognition by the European Commission, research institutions, and a number of environmental NGOs.
It would be therefore recommended to clearly define what is meant by heavy industry or mining and which measures apply to mining and which ones to the Aggregates Industry, rather than addressing the entire extractive industry.
BE-FLA (RV): p. 64 If widespread pollution by ubiquitous substances including mercury is disregarded, the proportion in good chemical status improves to 78 % of all surface water bodies, and 4 % do not achieve good chemical status (16 % has unknown status).
p. 35: 81% - 3% - 16%
BE-FLA (WV): p. 65 Several Member States (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Sweden, Luxembourg and Slovenia) have extrapolated the results for failure to reach good chemical status to all water bodies, because the environmental quality standard for mercury was exceeded in all monitoring samples.
“water bodies”: specify “surface water bodies”; this remark also counts for the next main finding (see below)
BE-FLA (RV): p. 65 At EU level, only 5 % of water bodies failed to achieve good status due to River Basin Specific Pollutants (RBSPs) identified by the Member States, with zinc and copper being the main RBSPs causing failure.
These parameters and figures can’t be traced in the previous chapters
Please, consider our remarks made on the need to incorporate bioavailability and natural background in the compliance assessment for both metals. The consideration of both factors is crucial for making a proper ecological risk assessment related to these metals.