Offshore Oil and Gas Environmental Register

DECC / EDU – Offshore Oil & Gas Environment and Decommissioning Branch (OGED)

Offshore Oil and Gas Environmental Register

EU Environmental Issues

Edition:AugusttoNovember2015

Welcome to our EU Environmental Issues Register. We intend to make updated versions of the Register available on our website on a monthly basis- although, depending on other priorities this may not always be possible and therefore, some editions may be published later than expected. At present, it is anticipated that the next edition - covering December2015- will be published in January(or possibly February) 2016. On future editions we will highlight on the contents page (in bold / italics) those existing entries which have been subject to amendments. For ease of reference, any revisions and / or new text added to the existing entries will be shown in dark red. New topics will be identified on the contents page (in bold / italics / red text) with the associated text in the document also being shown in dark red.

For those viewing the Register for the first time, we hope that you find it useful. Please revert to earlier editions of this Register on our website ()for previous information on the existing issues covered.

We see the provision of information as a ‘two-way process’. Therefore, any feedback / suggestions on this document and / or the notification of any issues you are aware of but which are not included, plus the details of any other contacts who may find this document useful, would be gratefully received and should be sent to:.

NOTE: TO USE THE ‘HYPERLINKS’ PROVIDED IN THIS DOCUMENT, YOU MIGHTNEED TO PRESS THE `CTRL’ KEY AND THEN CLICK ON THE ITEM OF INTEREST. ALL OF THE LINKS IN THIS DOCUMENT WERE FUNCTIONING AT THE TIME OF PUBLICATION.

Disclaimer: This Register is primarily for DECC/EDU-OGED’s internal purposes and the information presented reflects our understanding of the situation on each issue at a particular point in time. Therefore, circumstances on some of the issues will inevitably change as things progress and whilst we will do our best to reflect any variations in future editions, we cannot guarantee that the Register will be exhaustive or current ‘up to the minute’.

CONTENTS PAGE

Contents
(Alphabetical Order) / Page(s)
Important EU Environmental Issuesfor the offshore oil and gas industry
Carbon Dioxide(CO2)CaptureandStorage (CCS) / 3 & 4
ChemicalsPolicy(REACH) / 4-13
EmissionsTradingSystem(EU-ETS) / 14-20
Energy EfficiencyDirective / 21-23
Environmental ImpactAssessment (EIA) Directive / 2324
EnvironmentalLiabilityDirective / 24-26
EuropeanPollutantReleaseandTransferRegister (E-PRTR) / 2627
FluorinatedGreenhouseGasesandOzone-DepletingSubstances Regulations / 27-32
IndustrialEmissionsDirective(IED) / 3233
INSPIRE–SpatialInformationforEurope / 34
MarineSpatialPlanningDirective / 3536
Marine StrategyFrameworkDirective / 36-38
MercuryStrategy(Regulation on banning mercury exports / the safe storageofmetallicmercuryandDirective on specific criteria for the storage of metallic mercury considered as waste) / 3839
Natura2000Network / 39-43
PersistentOrganicPollutants(POPs)Regulation / 4344
SafetyofOffshoreOilandGasOperations / 44-46
Other relevant EU issues – where DECC/EDU has either a limited or no direct enforcement role
Batteries andAccumulatorsDirective / 47
WasteElectricalandElectronicEquipment(WEEE) Directive / 4849
WasteFrameworkDirectiveandShipmentofWaste Regulation / 49-53

Key: EU = European Commission or European Union; EP = European Parliament; Council = Council of Ministers; and MS = Member States

IMPORTANT EU ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES FOR THE OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Capture and Storage (CCS)

[Directive 2009/31/EC]

Legislative Background:The CCS Directive establishes a legal framework for stimulating / regulating the environmentally safe and permanent storage of CO2.

Commission Legislation
CCS Directive 2009/31/EC /
Decision 2011/92/EU (Questionnaire) /
OSPAR Legislation
Changes to OSPAR Convention to legalise CCS /
UK Implementing Legislation
The Storage of Carbon Dioxide (Licensing) Regulations 2010 /
The Storage of Carbon Dioxide (Termination of Licences) Regulations 2011 /
The Storage of Carbon Dioxide (Access to Infrastructure) Regulations 2011 /
The Storage of Carbon Dioxide (Amendment of the Energy Act 2008) Regulations 2011 /
The Storage of Carbon Dioxide (Licensing) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2011 /
The Storage of Carbon Dioxide (Inspections) Regulations 2012 /
The Gas and Petroleum (Consents) Charges Regulations 2013 /

EDU has created a page on the ‘Gov UK’ website to cover developments on Carbon Storage Licensing (plus those pertaining to Gas Storage). The page is at:

Recent Key Developments / Issues:

September 2015

The Commission adopted a new technology innovation plan to deliver on its Energy Union Strategy (see details on Energy Union Strategy at: The new Strategic Energy Technology (SET) Plan published on 15 September 2015 (further information is accessible from: outlined ten priorities for research and innovation relating to objectives seen as important for the Energy Union. CCS projects were also mentioned as options for those countries that wished to develop them.

November 2015

(i) The Commission published its CCS Directive review report (available from: as part of a wider package of documents on the EU’s Energy Union - see other papers associated with the ‘State of the Energy Union‘ at: In essence, the CCS Directive review report indicated that experience under the Directive was too limited to justify any changes at this point in time.

(ii)The UK has halted the £1bn CCS funding competition - see Government Statement at:

Next Steps:

The Commission is expected to conduct a full review of the CCS Directive in 2020 (i.e. after a few CCS demonstration plants have been constructed and operated in Europe and after storage of CO2 has been demonstrated).

DECC / EDU Focal Point: Evelyn Pizzolla (for `EU-ETS’ bit of CCS)

[Back toContentsPage]

Chemicals Policy - REACH

[Regulation(EC) No. 1907/2006]

Legislative Background:TheEU REACH Regulation requires Registration over 11 years of some 30,000 chemical substances. Management of the Regulation’s requirements at EU level will be handled by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). Day-to-day operation of REACH in each MS is overseen by their Competent Authorities (CAs). In the UK, the CA is provided by HSE which is working with Defra / other Government Depts / Agencies on enforcement aspects. EDU has an offshore enforcement role. HSE is contactable at:.

Commission Legislation
REACH Regulation /

Commission Supplemental Legislation

Since the entry into force of the EU REACH Regulation, a number of supplementary Commission legislation has been issued - details on these (including proposed revisions andexpected new measures)are provided in Appendix 3 of the REACH Industry Guidance document for the offshore sector - see ‘Other key REACH-related issues’ heading further down below.

OSPAR Recommendations for harmonising the Harmonised Mandatory Control System (HMCS) with REACH

The following OSPAR measures - which more closely align the OSPAR Harmonised Mandatory Control System (HMCS) forcontrolling offshore chemicals with the requirements of REACH - came into effect in January 2011 and 2012:

(a)OSPAR Recommendation 2010/3on a Harmonised Offshore Chemical Notification Format (HOCNF)

(b)Recommendation 2010/4ona Harmonised Pre-Screening Scheme for Offshore Chemicals

(c) Revised Guidelines (2012/05) for completingthe HOCNF

Links to the above measures are provided in Appendix 6 of the REACH Industry Guidance document (see ‘Other key REACH-related issues’ heading further down below).

UK Implementing Legislation
The REACH Enforcement Regulations 2008 (as amended by the REACH Enforcement (Amendment) Regulations 2013 and 2014 (see below)) /
The Energy Act 2008 (Consequential Modifications) (Offshore Environmental Protection) Order 2010 /
The Biocidal Products and Chemicals (Appointment of Authorities and Enforcement) Regulations 2013 /
The Biocidal Products (Fees and Charges) Regulations 2013 /
The REACH Enforcement (Amendment) Regulations 2013 /
The REACH Enforcement (Amendment) Regulations 2014 /
The Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Chemicals (Amendments to Secondary Legislation) Regulations 2015 /

Other key REACH-related issues:

A REACH Guidance document for the offshore sector can be accessed at: Guidance document also contains information on:

the deadlines for REACH implementation (Section 3.4); and

Guidance from the ECHA and other sources on REACH plus additional EU regulatory measures on chemicals (Appendix 5).

The notes of EDU REACH Working Group meetings (plus earlier stakeholder updates) are available from:

Recent Key Developments / Issues:

August 2015

(i) UN experts accused the chemicals industry of attempting to confuse and mislead policymakers on the science of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs). The authors of a major 2013 report for the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Health Organization (WHO) on EDCs hit back at a 2014 critique of their findings funded by the EU chemicals lobbies and their US counterparts - see experts rebuttal, the 2013 UN report and the 2014 industry-funded critique at: and respectively. The UN's experts accused the critique’s authors of employing similar techniques to those used by the tobacco industry to argue against plain packaging for cigarettes. These included selective quoting of evidence and mimicking scientific critique by judging studies against unrealistic criteria.

In the experts’ rebuttal titled 'Manufacturing doubt about endocrine disrupter science', the UN’s experts said the industry-funded critique created the false impression of scientific controversy and seemed intended to confuse non-experts. According to the experts, the industry-funded critique promoted misinterpretation of the UNEP / WHO report by non-specialists, politicians and other decision-makers not intimately familiar with the topic of endocrine disruption and therefore susceptible to false generalisations of bias and subjectivity. The experts noted that the critique’s funders were engaged in lobbying against regulation of EDCs, including in the context of the planned EU-US trade deal, which will cover chemicals regulation.

The 2013 UN report linked EDC exposure with diseases and disorders and with declining wildlife populations. It found exposure to be ubiquitous worldwide and called for much more testing to identify EDCs, concluding that they were a global threat that needed to be resolved. The 2014 industry-funded critique argued that the UN report was biased and inaccurate, and unfit for guiding evidence-based decisions on EDCs. It criticised the authors for ignoring potency, an issue now being considered for the EU definition of EDCs, and accused them of suggesting that EDCs were a factor in disease trends without having sufficient evidence to back this up. The Commission is currently drafting criteria for identifying endocrine disrupting chemicals for regulatory purposes. It is not yet clear how stringent an approach it will propose. See related development in item (iii) under the ‘October 2015’ heading.

(ii) In a response to Commission consultations on the planned Circular Economy Package (see details on the proposals (expected to be presented at the end of 2015) and consultations at: respectively), CEFIC stated that the question of whether to allow banned chemicals in recycled materials should be decided with case by case assessments of the risk to people and the environment - see CEFIC response at: However, NGO ChemTrust indicated that it would favour a ‘clean circular economy’ with hazardous substances disallowed from recycling by default to ensure the use of hazardous chemicals was not perpetuated - ChemTrust’s response can be accessed from:

CEFIC also believed that the circular economy should not be used as an excuse to impose unnecessary restrictions on the safe use of chemicals, adding that the REACH and CLP Chemicals Regulations can ensure a high level of protection in a circular economy. CEFIC explained that as a general rule, if EU Regulations permit the use of a substance because it has been shown that it can be used safely, then there is no reason why it should not be recycled and could not be used again safely.

ChemTrust stated that chemicals’ safety should be assessed under REACH assuming 100% recycling, including a conservative assumption of where a material may end up once recycled. This could require a revision of the EU REACH Regulation. ChemTrust additionally noted that the EP had warned that recycling should not justify the perpetuation of the use of hazardous legacy substances. In ChemTrust’s opinion, if exemptions were put in place to allow the recycling of hazardous substances then the resulting material should be labelled. CEFIC also suggested that legacy chemicals may be needed for replacement parts to extend the life of products and improve reparability. CEFIC implied that if legacy materials were excluded from recycling then they should be disposed of safely, and every option for disposal, including incineration, should be available as appropriate. CEFIC also recommended that a pragmatic solution should be found to inform recyclers of the presence of substances of very high concern to enable safe use and compliance with the EU REACH Regulation.

September 2015

(i) The ECHA:

• Approved 99 biocidal products for sale in the EU under the 2012 Biocides Regulation - see ECHA Statement at: The ECHA also advised delegates at a Biocides Event (see further details at: that as widespread non-compliance was anticipated, the Commission and countries had agreed to a six-month grace period. Non-compliant companies were likely to only receive a warning. Some MS including the UK had begun compliance checks. MS should have submitted reports on their implementation of the Biocides Regulation by 1 September 2015. These reports had to contain information on official controls in place, adverse environmental effects, use of nanomaterials in biocides, and instances of poisoning or occupational disease. Many MS did not meet this deadline and the Commission intendedto write to them to express concerns. It was confirmed at the Stakeholder Event that the Commission would not propose legislation to promote more sustainable use of biocides, as MS resources were considered to be stretched so now was not the time to add more work for them. The Commission informed delegates at the Stakeholder Event that it wanted, in the first instance, to concentrate on a review programme, product Authorisation and enforcement activities.

• Launched a rolling consultation concerning proposed restrictions to limit or ban the manufacture, placing on the market or use of certain substances, under the REACH Regulation, due to unacceptable risks to human health and the environment - the consultation (plus associated closing dates for responses) is accessible at:

(ii) The ECHA adopted several decisions on hazardous substance restrictions at a plenary meeting. The Committee for Socio-Economic Analysis (SEAC) supported, among other things, a proposal to restrict the manufacture, marketing and use of PFOA. Often used for application in fire-fighting foams, PFOA and its salt (APFO) had been identified as substances of very high concern (SVHC) under REACH. Banning the production and use of the substance was also being discussed on the global stage under the Stockholm Convention. However, the Committee recommended several additional derogations, a longer transitional period and higher concentration limits. The Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) also backed increased limits for PFOA. See ECHA Press Releases on the RAC and SEAC opinions at: and respectively. The opinions on PFOA would be subject to a 60-day public consultation period. SEAC planned to adopt its final opinion on these substances in December 2015.

(iii) The EU Court backed a more stringent interpretation of the REACH Regulation than that given by the Commission. In line with the recommendation of its advocate general earlier in 2015, the Court ruled on 10 September 2015 that REACH information requirements in relation to substances of very high concern (SVHC) apply to the individual components of a given article and not just to the article as a whole - see Judgement at: The Commission indicated that it would analyse the Court’s decision, and subsequently work with the ECHA and MS to implement the judgment. REACH sets a 0.1% concentration threshold for SVHC in articles. Above that threshold, firms must communicate the presence of the SVHC to regulators and to others in the supply chain. The Commission advised MS in 2011 that the 0.1% threshold applied to the whole article rather than to its individual components, but six MS disagreed. They argued that individual components should be regulated to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment. The question was referred to the EU Court, which was taking a more stringent approach based on the concentration of SVHC in individual components.

The Court noted that REACH defines an ‘article’ but does not contain specific provisions for a complex product containing several articles. Nonetheless, in the Court’s view each of the articles incorporated as a component of a complex product was covered by the relevant duties to notify and provide information. The Court also ruled on which producers were subject to information requirements. The duty to notify the presence of SVHC in a component applies to the maker of the component, rather than the maker of an article containing the component. However, the importer of a product comprised of a number of component articles was subject to information requirements for the components. The Court additionally stated that whilst it can be difficult for importers to obtain the required information from their suppliers established in non-EU countries, this did not alter their duty to notify in accordance with the REACH Regulation’s requirements. In a related development, the ECHA announced that it would update its guidance to firms on complying with EU chemicals legislation following the important Court ruling on hazardous substances in products - see ECHA Statement at: The ECHA was planning to publish an update to its guidance on ‘the requirements for substances in articles’ before the end of 2015. The ECHA would fast-track its guidance update through the EU policymaking procedure without public consultation. A more comprehensive review would follow which will include examples that are fully aligned with the Court judgment.

(iv) World leaders officially adopted new sustainable development goals (SDGs) for 2030 at a three-day summit in New York - see more information at: and The 17 SDGs, to be implemented from 2016, were agreed by diplomats from the 193 UN member states in August 2015. They will replace the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) set for the last 15 years. The new goals were generally welcomed by both industry and civil society. See CEFIC’s webpage on the SDGs at:

(v) Chemsec launched an expanded version of the hazardous chemicals information tool - see further details at:

October 2015

(i) The Executive Director (ED) of the ECHA urged a revision of the REACH Regulation to facilitate risk management of nanomaterials. The ED advised the EP’s Environment Committee that firms were resisting the Agency’s requests for additional information to judge whether substances in nano form could be used safely - see video of the debate at: The ED stated that around 40% of the ECHA’s requests for more information about nano forms were appealed by firms (meaning that once an appeal had been made, the request for information was suspended, inhibiting the Agency’s assessment of the substance’s impact), compared with just 5% for chemicals in general. The ED said that he was particularly concerned that some companies were even challenging the premise that REACH covers nanomaterials at all. An official explained that the Commission was working very intensely to finalise an impact assessment on revising the REACH Annexes for nanomaterials before the end of the 2015. A proposal would be published shortly thereafter. See related development directly below.