Status box
Agenda item: 1c
Title:
Preparations for the next CIS Work Programme: proposal to develop
guidance on chemical monitoring of priority substances
Version no.: 2
Date:31 May 2012
Version history:
Version 1 was submitted to the Strategic Coordination Group ahead of its
meeting in May 2012, and the Group agreed at that meeting to forward
the proposal to the Water Directors. Version 2 has been retitled/formatted for the Water Directors and contains a minor edit
(clarification in parenthesis) in section 3 regarding the requirement for
alternative EQS but is otherwise unchanged.
Author(s):
Jorge Rodríguez Romero and Helen Clayton (ENV)
The Water Directors are invited to:
Support the proposal to develop further CIS guidance on chemical
monitoring and priority substances as well as undertake supporting
technical development work under the next CIS Work Programme.
1
Preparations for the next CIS Work Programme: proposal to develop guidance on
chemical monitoring of priority substances
1. The assessment of chemical status – choice of matrix for EQS and monitoring
The Commission is currently assessing the first generation of RBMP reported by the Member
States. One of the important conclusions that can be drawn from the assessment is the lack of
comparability in the assessment of chemical status.
In principle, the assessment of chemical status under the WFD is straightforward: the
concentrations of priority substances in water bodies need to be compared with environmental
quality standards (EQS). If the concentrations of all substances are below the EQS, the water
body is in good chemical status. If there is any concentration above the EQS, the water body
fails to achieve good chemical status. The EU wide EQS should ensure the comparability of
the assessments across all Member States.
However, the implementation of this concept is complicated by a series of technical issues
that hinder comparability significantly, namely:
- The availability of analytical methods which are able to measure reliably the
concentrations of substances at the level of the respective EQS. Priority substances are
among the most dangerous for the aquatic environment. Their high toxicity is often
reflected in very low EQS. These low levels can pose challenges to the state of the art
analytical techniques.
- Linked to the previous point, the matrix where the substances are measured can have a
very important influence in the assessment of chemical status. The WFD provides for
integral protection of the aquatic environment against chemical pollution, and of animal
and human health via that environment. It provides for the establishment of appropriate
EQS in water, sediment and/or biota. Some of the most dangerous priority substances are
very hydrophobic and tend to bioaccumulate in sediment or in biota. The 2008 EQS
Directive establishes only water EQS except for three substances for which a biota EQS is
specified. The Directive also provides full flexibility for Member States to establish EQS
(providing the same level of protection) and to monitor chemical status in other matrices.
Given the lack of sufficiently sensitive analytical methods for hydrophobic substances in
water, the choice of matrix often becomes a critical factor having a major impact on the
assessment of chemical status and thus on the comparability of Member States'
assessments: if Member States choose to monitor in biota, widespread failures are found
whereas if the choice is to monitor in water, the analytical methods fail to detect the
substance.
In January 2012 the Commission proposed a number of modifications to the EQS Directive to
solve this comparability issue. Based on the latest scientific developments in EQS setting (see
CIS Guidance 27 on deriving EQS), biota standards were developed and proposed for
bioaccumulative substances that are difficult to measure in water. As a result, the
comparability issue and issues related to it are being discussed at the Council Working Group.
The CIS Guidance Documents 19 and 25 already address various aspects of chemical
monitoring for surface waters, sediment and biota.
2
2. The identification of the areas where further CIS guidance is needed
Based on the elements mentioned above, DG Environment has identified the following items
that merit consideration for further development of CIS guidance:
a) Biota monitoring: issues such as species, age, size, part analysed, etc have been
addressed in general terms in CIS guidance 25. Building on this, further guidance could be
provided to recommend concrete solutions applicable to EU river basins. Considerations
related to specific water categories should also be included (coastal waters vs freshwater).
b) Setting EQS for other biota classes based on fish standards: in general biota standards
have been set for fish. If Member States choose another biota class (e.g. mussels), a
different EQS providing the same level of protection needs to be developed. A specific
practical guidance for this purpose could be developed that is consistent with CIS
Guidance 27, with various levels of complexity depending on the information available.
c) Analytical methods for priority substances: the guidance 19 and 25 could be expanded
and updated to include possible new priority substances and to update the methods
available for the existing priority substances. The guidance could include the outcomes of
the current work by CEN on the basis of the Mandate 424 (which includes the
development of standard methods for 4 existing priority substances). Where appropriate
analytical techniques are not available, specific actions should be recommended to
develop suitable methods, within the CIS or through alternative means (e.g. CEN).
The work would be carried out by the Working Group E on Chemical Aspects (points a and c
through the Chemical Monitoring and Emerging Pollutants (CMEP) Sub-Group).
3. Additional technical development work
Also in the context of the above discussion, it has become clear that some technical
innovations could improve the representativeness of chemical monitoring results and
circumvent the analytical difficulties associated with low water concentrations. Some progress
has already been made in developing, for example, passive sampling techniques, but other
innovative methods are emerging which can also address implementation challenges.
However, they are not yet ready for routine application, not least because (in the case of
passive sampling) alternative EQS would have to be developed.
The CMEP could pursue this area of work to support the implementation of chemical
monitoring requirements in the longer term.
4. The proposal
The Water Directors are invited to support the proposal to develop further CIS guidance on
chemical monitoring and priority substances as well as undertake supporting technical
development work under the next CIS Work Programme.
3