1. Sediment & biota standards Monitoring for prioritisation & emerging pollutants National EQSs for specific substances

2. Sediment & biota standards

3. Sediment & biota standards in WFD
Art 2.35: ‘Environmental quality standard’ means the concentration of a particular pollutant or group of pollutants in water, sediment or biota which should not be exceeded in order to protect human health and the environment.
Art 16.7: the Commission shall submit proposals for quality standards applicable to the concentrations of the priority substances in surface water, sediments or biota.
Procedure for the setting of chemical quality standards by Member States: In deriving environmental quality standards for pollutants listed in points 1 to 9 of Annex VIII for the protection of aquatic biota, Member States shall act in accordance with the following provisions. Standards may be set for water, sediment or biota.

4. Sediment & biota standards: rationale
Some hydrophobic substances accumulate in sediments and biota and are hardly detectable in water
Some substances bioaccumulate through the trophic chain and cause risk to aquatic environment, predators and to human health
Depending on the characteristics of the substance and its environmental fate, the most appropriate matrix for standard setting and monitoring is water, sediment and/or biota

5. Sediment & biota: Commission proposal 2006
Impact assessment
“Regarding the methodologies for deriving quality standards for sediments and biota, there are still some open issues on which no systematic approach could be agreed upon. The biggest obstacle for deriving EQS for sediment and biota was the considerable lack of data”
“…given the biological relevance of sediment and biota standards and the fact that many persistent substances accumulate in these media, it is a high priority to develop the methodologies and gather further data in order to ensure that such EQS can be set in the near future.”
SCHER opinion (May 2004)
“As a general conclusion the CSTEE believes that specific quality standards can and should be developed for sediment and biota. This should be based on direct assessment and monitoring of sediments and biota directly.”

6. Sediment & biota: EQS guidance 2010
Extensive expansion of guidance for setting EQS for sediment and biota (ch. 4 and 5)
SCHER opinion 2010:
“Does the SCHER believe that the current state of technical and scientific knowledge is mature enough to support the development of legally binding standards for sediment and/or biota? If this is the case, which would be the most important criteria or considerations to take into account in deriving those standards (e.g. minimum quality criteria for underlying ecotoxicological data)?”
In general, SCHER concludes that the current state of scientific and technical knowledge is sufficiently mature to develop legally binding standards. (…) SCHER considers the normal criteria (such as the Klimisch criteria) (Hulzebos et al., 2010) in the evaluation of studies as sufficient for the scientifically sound derivation of legally binding standards.

7. Sediment & biota: Directive 2008/105/EC
Annex I water standards only
Art 3.2: “Member States may opt to apply EQS for sediment and/or biota instead of those laid down in Part A of Annex I…”. In this case:
3 biota standards are given and shall be applied
But footnote 9 in Annex I: “If Member States do not apply EQS for biota they shall introduce stricter EQS for water in order to achieve the same level of protection as the EQS for biota set out in Article 3(2) of this Directive” → water standards in Annex I for these 3 substances are useless !
For other substances: sediment/biota standards should provide the same level of protection as water standards in Annex I
Monitoring
Monitoring for long-term trends to ensure no increase

8. Sediment & biota: frequently heard arguments
Pros
It makes no sense to monitor hydrophobic substances in water
It is not possible to meet QA/QC Directive requirements for some substances if monitored in water
Sediment and biota integrate information on exposure to accumulative substances and therefore is more reliable
Cons
Variability
Increased costs of sampling and monitoring (?)
Difficulty in choosing the appropriate indicator (biota)

9. Sediment & biota: reliable monitoring in water?
EQS
LOD of non-detects
analysis

10. Sediment & biota: questionnaire existing substances
Majority of replies in favour of using sediment and/or biota standards for the relevant substances
Substance
Sediment
Biota 1
Alachlor 2
Anthracene 8 4 3
Atrazine
Benzene 5
Brominated diphenylether (PBDE) 6
Cadmium and its compounds 6a
Carbon-tetrachloride 7
C10-13 chloroalkanes
Chlorfenvinphos 9
Chlorpyrifos (Chlorpyrifos-ethyl) 9a
Cyclodiene pesticides
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Endrin
Isodrin 9b
Para-para-DDT 10
1,2-dichloroethane 11
Dichloromethane 12
Di(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate (DEHP) 13
Diuron 14
Endosulfan 15
Fluoranthene 16
Hexachloro-benzene 17
Hexachloro-butadiene 18
Hexachoro-cyclohexanes 19
Isoproturon 20
Lead and its compounds
Substance
Sediment
Biota 21
Mercury and its compounds 9 4 22
Naphthalene 23
Nickel and its compounds 6 5 24
Nonylphenols (4-nonylphenols) 25
Octylphenols ((4-(1,1’,3,3’-tetramethylbutyl)-phenol)) 26
Pentachloro-benzene 27
Pentachloro-phenol 2 28
Polyaromatic hydrocarbons
Benzo(a)pyrene 8
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 29
Simazine
29a
Tetrachlor-ethylene
29b
Trichlor-ethylene 30
Tributyltin compounds (Tributyltin-cation) 31
Trichloro-benzenes 32
Trichloromethane 33
Trifluralin 3
In bold substances mentioned in article 3.3

11. Sediment & biota: summary
Sediment & biota are the most appropriate matrix for many priority substances
We have a guidance to set EQS
We have a guidance for monitoring
Priority substances are causing a risk at EU level
EQS set at EU level

12. Sediment & biota: options
Leave it as it is in EQSD, only adding/modifying water EQSs in Annex I
Adding/modifying water EQSs in Annex I and adding sediment and/or biota standards for additional substances in article 3.2.a)
Moving/adding sediment and biota standards to Annex I, leaving the choice of matrix to MS

13. Monitoring for prioritisation & emerging pollutants

14. Monitoring for prioritisation
WFD as a safety net to ensure that aquatic environment and human health is protected
Ensure that results of risk assessments and assumptions as regards risk reduction measures under other policies work in practice
Prioritisation based on monitoring is providing the highest added value from WFD (other policies rely largely on modelling as monitoring data is not readily available for them)
Big progress in data collection
analysis in COMMPS database
analysis in 2009 database including sediment & biota

15. Monitoring for prioritisation: fit for purpose?
80% of the database is coming from 2 countries
1150 substances but only 50 substances for which data is given by more than 20 Member States
Scarce data from emerging pollutants, coming only from 1-2 countries (e.g. Pharmaceuticals)
Not clear what the driver is for monitoring one or other substance in each Member State – not necessarily based on potential risk
Data not always fit for prioritisation (e.g. LOD >> PNEC)
Strong bias towards already regulated pollutants

16. Emerging pollutants Catch-22
Substances are not regulated...
...so they are not monitored...
...so there is not data available...
...so there is no basis to propose regulation. ¿?

17. Monitoring for prioritisation: change of approach?
Development of a watch list
Top down selection of (emerging) pollutants that can be dynamically adapted by agreement at EU level
Selection of representative stations by MS according to agreed criteria
Aim at having stations across the EU
Stations not necessarily the same for all substances
Recommendations as regards the timing of sampling
Relatively low number of analysis (e.g. 1-5 per station)
Minimum quality criteria for analysis

18. Monitoring for prioritisation: promoting best practice
Source: Comparison of LoDs in report “Quality assessment of the monitoring database”, June 2010
3 orders
of magnitude
5 orders
of magnitude

19. Monitoring for prioritisation: principles of a watch list
Limited number of substances...
...but targeted and dynamically adapted
Limited number of samples...
...but representative across EU and of minimum quality (fit for purpose)
High benefit/cost ratio for the purpose of future prioritisation exercises!
Additional costs may be very limited: MS can prioritise this targeted monitoring in their regular monitoring programmes

20. Monitoring for prioritisation: use of WFD flexibility in 2nd cycle
WFD annex V 1.3.1: Surveillance monitoring shall be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year during the period covered by a river basin management plan (…) unless the previous surveillance monitoring exercise showed that the body concerned reached good status and there is no evidence from the review of impact of human activity in Annex II that the impacts on the body have changed. In these cases, surveillance monitoring shall be carried out once every three river basin management plans.
EU15
EU27

21. Monitoring for prioritisation: options for a watch list
Formal approach – comitology
Pros: stronger requirement
Cons: administratively more burdensome (for COM)
Informal approach – EEA
Pros: flexible and dynamic
Cons: no legal requirement, voluntary approach, hence less likely to success in terms of coverage, quality requirements...

22. National EQSs for specific substances

23. National EQSs for specific pollutants

24. National EQSs for specific pollutants: development at EU level
Non legally binding development
Continue technical work in the Sub-Group on the basis of annual work programmes proposed by WGE and agreed by Water Directors, prioritising a limited number of the most important/difficult pollutants
MS driven!
EQS “stamped” at EU level (possibility to consult SCHER) that can be used as a basis for national EQSs
Efficient use of expertise and resources
Avoid duplication of work
Avoid large differences

25. Comments welcome by 11 February 2011 to Jorge. Rodriguez-Romero@ec
Comments welcome by 11 February 2011 to