DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
ENVIRONMENT
Directorate C – Quality of Life, Water & Air
ENV.C.1 – Water
Brussels, 17/18.3.2014
SECOND MEETING OF WFD CIS WORKING GROUP CHEMICALS
Draft Minutes, not yet checked by DG Environment
Monday and Tuesday17th and 18thMarch2014
Centre A. Borschette (CCAB), Room 4B, Rue Froissart 36, BE-1049 Brussels (Metro Schuman area)
All the presentations and documents of this meeting can be downloaded from the CIRCABC website:
- WELCOME AND ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
Document: WG Chem 2014-3-17-18 (1) – Draft Agenda revised
The COM Chair (Helen Clayton) welcomed WG members to the 2nd meeting of the CIS Working Group on Chemicals.
The COM outlined some changes to the draft agenda for the meeting and provision of documents uploaded. There was an also an update of working arrangements in the Water Unit at COM. Peter Gammeltoft has now retired.
- Ubiquitous PBTs from DE has been added to be discussed with agenda item 15.
- The COM asked if there were any comments on the draft agenda for the meeting.
No question or additions were raised and the agenda was adopted.
- ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING PLUS MATTERS ARISING
Document: WG Chem 2014-03-17-18 (2) Draft Minutes WG Chem 2013-10-14
The Minutes of the 1stG meeting were uploaded onto CIRCABC. There is a commenting period on these until Easter. These will be adopted if there are no comments (18th April).
No comments on the minutes of the 2nd Meeting were noted.
The UK raised the point about an informal meeting for monitoring and implementation at the previous meeting.This informal meeting was held between MS in February and there will be another in September if a host country comes forward.
- EMISSIONS INVENTORY FORMATS – FEEDBACK FROM MORNING MEETING
The COMreported back on the meeting held in the morning. The MS preparation for reporting their inventory was discussed. The format needs to be decided upon and there is also reporting guidance in development.
Comments will be requested on the reporting and guidance before this is finalised.
- BIOTA MONITORING GUIDANCE
wca presentedslides outlining the key principles of the new guidance and the timelines for completion (August 2014). These slides are on CIRCABC.
COM asked why the biota monitoring data was recommended to be log-transformed and the median and not the mean used?
UK stated that data from such monitoring was generally highly skewed and log transforming countered this effect. Discussion could be had as to whether the mean or the median could be used since confidence intervals are perhaps more complicated to generate for the medians.
FRsupports the approach taken and is keen to ensure that the guidance is aimed at being thoroughly practical, and includes sections on the tiered approach and passive sampling (perhaps as a first tier in that tiered approach). What will happen about the development of analytical methods?
JRC stated that generally these methods are easier for biota than for waters and so are relatively well developed.
ATwas keen to ensure that one EQSbiota was used and that the discussion around conversion between trophic levels and perhaps between different matrices was robust and in line with the Directive.
wca stated that the key was one of ensuring equivalency, methods were in the guidance to try and ensure this was the case and to provide consistency.
NL would like to ensure the trend examples in the Annexes remained in the document.
DE agreed with the comments of FR and stressed the need for the guidance to be practical, the current draft was a mix of scientific concepts and some practical guidance, but there needed to be more of the latter.
COM It would also be useful to have recommendations at the end of each section or a summary.
SEsaid that while they not have looked at the guidance, there is probably a need for some statements on establishing ambient backgrounds in biota, especially for mercury.
UKasked if this is because the mercury EQS may be set at a level that is below the ambient background?
wca This issue will be raised at the meeting in Amsterdam in May.
- MSFD GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS – UPDATE
JRC presented slides to group on bridging between MSFD and WFD. Reporting undertaken by MS has been published and attempts made to identify gaps.
Comments will be fed from this group into the biota guidance drafting group (Item 4 on this Agenda). JRC is also working on a document on marine specific substances.
There was also an update on marine and riverine litter identification and quantification. JRC invited all MS to update on marine and riverine litter initiatives to assist with harmonisation of data and information. Some rivers had been selected for a pilot assessment.
BEasked which rivers will be selected for the pilot project?
JRC Rhine, Danube – the last to be finalised in a few weeks.
AT Is the River commissions involved in this work?
JRC For the time being this project is only small, but has involved the various river commissions.
EEA The app for mobile phones for people to report on observations on marine litter is downloadable from the EEA website.
- CHEMICALS DATA FROM MS ON TERRITORIAL WATERS
COM MS need to be aware that these waters also need to be monitored. How are MS doing this? Are they monitoring this?
UK Coastal out to 12 miles. Dilution could be quite important here. But it is suspected that there is not verymuch data here.
- BLMs
wca presentedslides outlining the progress on the bioavailability guidance for the implementation of EQSbioavailabile. This guidance should be completed by the summer of 2014 and is now available for comment on CIRCABC. There will be a meeting at SETAC Europe this year (14/5/14), probably on the Wednesday afternoon to finalise solutions to the technical challenges and all are welcome to bring their ‘problems’ in relation to using the bioavailability. Please let Graham know.
DETwo questions, is this guidance likely to be CIS Guidance and if so what is the process? Secondly, in terms of reporting, is a failure to comply reported at the first tier of the tiered approach where the dissolved monitoring data are compared directly with the EQSbioavailable?
wca/UK No, the first tier is a screen (many sites can be rapidly removed at this level), and to assess compliance bioavailability should be considered. There is only one EQS, and the user-friendly tools correct the exposure to the same form as EQS allowing for comparison of ‘like with like’.
COM For the guidance to become CIS Guidance there must be full MS support or at least a majority and the guidance must be useful.
FR Will there be something specific in the guidance about the estimation and use of ambient background concentrations?
wcaYes definitely, with examples from France, UK and The Netherlands.
- REVISION OF WFD REPORTING GUIDANCE
COM this is a document that is being worked on by another group (WD DIS) at the moment, The data information and sharing group have produced a draft (on CIRCABC). The specific focus for us is chapters 2 (reporting on ecological and chemical status at WB level) and 7 (reporting at RBD level), that are concerned with chemicals.
Further, the chapter on the inventory on emissions, which is currently not in the uploaded draft, should also be reviewed by the members of this group. Comments should be received on this before Easter.
EL Have MS reported on the pressures and impacts on the territorial waters yet?
COM Not yet probably. The facility isn’t yet in place in terms of harmonisation. Any further questions on the reporting format?
DE Draft has been received, and some remarks on this will be put in writing but specifically on the chemical status, which Directive is the relevant one? 2008 or 2013? Combine the EQS from both or chose one over the other for each substance? When doing a timeline use the EQS for that moment in time or the later one?
COMThe EQS to use is the one that is referred to in the draft. Use the one from the 2008 Directive, and also a comparison using the new EQS, i.e. use both. Is there a difference between these two assessments? COM insisted MSs to comment if there it is unclear which directive to use.
DE will make some written comments and ask for some clear advice from the COM.
NLMixing zones in the reporting guidance is not in line with the current Directive. Therefore, the group doing the guidance need to stick more closely to the Directive.
COMDoes this mean the mixing zone varies with time?
NL Yes, it will differ from moment to moment. It can be modelled, but it will vary. NL would like to see this approach in the reporting guidelines, detail the approach BUT you cannot state prescriptively the characteristics of the mixing zone.
ES Working on transposition of 2013 Directive at the moment, but it is tough exercise in terms of timing. It would be useful to have a table about differences 2008 vs 2013 directives, explained by a commission (COM noted), what standard to apply, when, what must be done by 2015 (checklist)
COMSo a transposition check list would be helpful?
ESYes, but a bit more than this.
COMThe implementation plan is due in the summer 2014, and will perhaps help here.
- RESULTS OF THE WATCH LIST PILOT PROJECT
JRCreports verbally. The report has been finished, but there has not been approved for printing. It will be available as an e-copy by Friday for comment. The site-locations will be removed from the report.
JRC are now looking at going from the pilot study towards criteria for the logistics, such as sampling stations. For the watch list exercise there probably needs to be consensus in regard to logistics, etc. A way forward maybe a workshop to help make these decisions?
LU Is it possible to get national data in detail out of the report? Also for the workshop, it should address the questions raised previously in relation to comparability of sites.The timelines look very tight, so when might the workshop be?
COM The monitoring can’t start till the autumn of 2015.
JRC One workshop might not be enough, the process is complex. The report contains all monitoring data for all countries, so these data can be extracted from here.
COM Some of the national data have already been shared. In terms of use of the data, the COM would like the MS to approve the use of these data for the prioritisation exercise.
UKSo this is an opt in option?
COM Yes.
JRC stated that these data were not collected for inclusion in the prioritisation exercise.
AESGP These data were collected to use in the pilot exercise, not for prioritisation. There seems to be a contradiction between this and the suggestion that these data may now be submitted by Member States for the prioritisation monitoring database
Euromines – Johannes Drielsma – QA/QC should not cost more than the monitoring exercise, is this what the JRC stated?
JRC The exercise cost < 1 M euros, the QA/QC would be greater than this, and most MS would probably not be keen on this.
UK Workshop suggestion is a good idea and would support it.
ECPAAt the time of the discussion of the WL Pilot it was clearly stated and agreed by the COM that these data would not subsequently be used for prioritisation. Now the suggestion here is that they can be.
COMBut the data exist, and so if the MS wish to use them for this exercise then they can. COM have no objection to this. So MS can submit these data for the data call for prioritisation.
AESGPWill it be clear in the report that if these data are used what the disadvantages might be from their use, the pilot was not designed with the intention of using these data in this way.
AT Could JRC summarise the recommendations from the pilot?
JRC stated thatthe summary is on CIRCABC, all details can be found here. A summary was provided.
ES We would like the ESresults.
BGWhich QA/QC criteria used for the limits?
JRC All this is detailed in report...... ISO 17025.
BG Which limits will be used for priority substances?
JRC No EQS have been set for these substances so there are no limits.
- UPDATE ON REVIEW OF ANNEXES I AND II OF THE GROUNDWATER DIRECTIVE
DG ENVinformation update. No presentation. Review of annexes started last year, including call for evidence and stakeholder workshop. Identified problems in blue print of Directive, in terms of insufficient comparability between MS limits and GW status.
No Changes to Annex I, but for Annex II there are changes likely. Inclusion of chemical principles for determination of natural backgrounds in waters, changes to reporting requirements, specifically the methodologies of reporting groundwaters at risk. List of chemicals to be extended to include nitrites and total phosphorus (phosphates).
These changes are nowsubject toa scrutiny and consultation period. By summer 2014, the proposal will be adopted and then there will be two years for transposition.
BEWhat about the translation? Is this only in English so far?
DG ENVThis has already been made available.
CHAre transformation products in GW discussed in this revision?
DG ENVDuring the long consultation periodno queries where had on transformation products.
- REVIEW OF THE PS LIST
JRCpresentation is available on CIRCABC on the new prioritisation exercise. This is based on the wca scoping report, with revisions and amendments from JRC and COM, A new version of the report has been uploaded to replace the first placed on CIRCABC last week.
EFPIAIs it the intention that the final step determines the PEC:PNEC ratio using these factors, thus providing a consistent and comparable measure of risk?’ To maintain consistency and transparency the factors in the last slide should not be considered in isolation in addition to the PEC:PNEC ratio but should be included as part of it.?
JRC Yes.
AESGPImplore the JRC not to use data from the wiki type database mentioned in the slides. In this exercise we need to be certain of reliability and relevancy, but this is not the case for wikis.
UKFrom the diagram in the slides, does a substance need to be a high priority in both modelling and monitoring to go forward? This is important because when effects data are limited a large AF can be applied and selected, but based on very limited information.
JRC If you just use modelling outputs, need to be very careful. You really should have some corroboration with the monitoring outputs too.
NORMAN The substances fit into this system, also fit for watch list, i.e. when you have hazard data and no exposure data.
COM Yes, a substance can be selected based on modelling only, especially if there are data elsewhere in the world. Perhaps then less MS data are needed to allow prioritisation?
LU PHS or PS and delisting?
COM A section has been added to the report covering these and giving factors for delisting. Although caution needs to always be applied.
IT Agree with the structure of the document. But, when accounting for HH related issues, we should consider fishery products, how is bioaccumulation going to be considered. Also how are drinking water issues to be incorporated into this process of prioritisation? Finally, how are mixtures to be accounted for?
JRC Not easy to include drinking water aspects. Biota should be taken into account.
COM Mixtures are not accounted for.
JRC Groundwater also considered in this process as this group is also dealing with emerging substances.
JRC IPChem available and monitoring data can be uploaded to this portal.
BG What about a maximum number of substances on this list? Can we have too many?
COM Resources are limited, but initially no artificial limit will be placed on this exercise.
AT Support the view of LUX for a clear criteria for delisting.
DK Mixtures are accounted for in groups, e.g. PAHs. So what about using this as a way forward?
COM This wouldn’t be a problem, so long as there is a reasonable way to go forward with monitoring for implementation.
AESGPReferring to the last version of the prioritisation document and with respect to the statement that pharmaceuticals are no different than any other chemical, wondered why there was the need for a pre-ranking process. Further, in the RCOM on the prioritisation report there is a conflict potentially between mandates of the Directive. The call for a separate strategy is linked to pharmaceuticals being different from chemicals. Should they be treated differently, what is the COMs view on the strategic approach? A pre-ranking indicates they are different, and then how can they be forced back into the world of chemicals?
COM Pharmas are the same as other chemicals. The strategic approach would not stop us listing other substances. There probably should be a pre-ranking exercise though. Although many pharmas will drop out due to a lack of exposure data.