Setting Environmental Quality Standards for Metals: Science to Policy

1
Setting Environmental Quality Standards for
Metals Science to Policy
S.
Eisenreich, A. Paya-Perez Peter Lepper
European Chemicals
Bureau EC
Joint Research Centre Ispra, Italy
2
Quality Standards for WFD Priority Substances
Outline

• Background (Stipulations of the Water
  Framework Directive)

• General methodological approach to derive EQS

• Metal specific considerations

• Elaboration of Quality Standard Proposals

• Legal Implementation of WFD QS State of Play

• Further Development of Methodology

3
Background

• Water Framework Directive (CD 2000/60/EC), Art.
  16
• Legal framework for prioritisation of
  substances presenting a significant risk to or
  via the aquatic environment

• Adoption of a List of Priority Substances (Annex
  X, WFD) by EP and Council Decision in Dec.
  2001 (2455/2001/EC)
• ? 33 substances (mainly organics, 13 used as
  a.i. in PPP, 4 metals)

Priority Substances (PS) progressive reduction
of discharges, emissions and losses
Priority Hazardous Substances (PHS)cessation
or phasing out of discharges, emissions and
losses (by 2025)
4
Background

• Water Framework Directive (CD 2000/60/EC), Art.
  16
• stipulates for all P(H)S the establishment of
  harmonised
• Quality Standards applicable to
  concentrations in water, sediment or biota
  (inland waters as well as transitional, coastal
  and territorial waters)

and Emission Control Measures applying BAT
and BEP principles
5
General Approach to Derive Quality Standards

• Study to develop a methodological framework for
  QS derivation
• Survey on pertinence of MS and EU approaches
  to set QS or conduct RAs (incl.
  consideration of scientific developments)

• Methodology to derive QS is mainly based on the
  EU frameworks for RA developed in the
  context of CDs 793/93/EEC and 91/414/EEC
  (e.g. TGD, Uniform Principles, GD "Aquatic
  Ecotoxicology ")

• Reasons
• Maintaining consistency in the ecological
  effects assessment methodology on EU-level
• Use of elements for QS-setting that are already
  accepted by Member States and other
  Stakeholders

6
General Approach to Derive Quality Standards

• Objective of the QS established in the context of
  the WFD
• a sustainable functioning of aquatic ecosystems
  as well as
• the protection of human health

Art. 16 WFD requires the setting of QS applicable
to concentrations in water, sediment or biota

• QS for all compartments are not required if
  there is no indication that a given
  substance may pose a certain compartment at
  risk

? Definition of criteria to trigger the setting
of QS for the different compartments or
protection objectives
7
General Approach to Derive Quality Standards
Criteria triggering QS derivation
No trigger applies
log Kp(SPM-Water) ?3
BCF ?100 or BMF gt1 (or log Pow gt3)
CMR properties of substance, or bioaccumulation potential plus classification as T/ T (oral, dermal) or R48 (serious effects by prolonged exp.)
Drinking water standard divided by fraction not removable by DW processing technology in place
Objectives of protection
Pelagic community (water)
Benthic community (sediment)
Secondary poisoning of predators (biota)
Fishery product ingestion by humans
Abstraction of drinking water (Areas acc. to Art. 7 WFD)
8
General Approach to Derive Quality Standards
Protection Objectives
Water Sediment Biotasecondary poisoning Human Health DW Abs.
no QS
Trigger criterion fulfilled? no
no trigger
yes
yes
yes
yes
Effect data pelagic organisms Effect data sediment org. or Equilibrium Partitioning Mammal Bird (ecol. Endpoint) BAF, BCF, BMF Mammal(hum. health Endp.), TDI, ADI BAF, BCF, BMF DW standard Removal efficiency
QSwater
QSHH
QSsed
QSDWA
QSbiota

• Lowest specific QS is used as Overall Quality
  Standard

9
General Approach to Derive Quality Standards

• 2 different types of Quality Standards
• AA-QS referring to the annual average
  concentration in a water body
• MAC-QS referring to the maximum acceptable
  concentration not be exceeded any time
  (protection against acute effects exerted by
  transient concentration peaks)

• In addition
• Separate EQS for freshwater / saltwater if
  FW or SW databases indicated significant
  differences in species sensitivities or if
  differences in behaviour of toxiciant due to
  different matrices can be expected (e.g. for
  metals)

10

• Metal QS

• Specific issues to be considered
• Metals are naturally occurring substances with
  spatially different natural background
  concentrations
• For many metals toxicity appears to be a function
  of the concentration of free metal ions or
  particular complex ion species (only these are
  bioavailable)
• The occurrence / concentration of bioavailable
  metal species is dependent on a metal specific
  combination of water quality parameters (e.g. pH,
  hardness, alkalinity, dissolved C, specific
  cations, anions etc.)
• The degree to which water quality parameters
  govern the bioavailability of metals is specific
  and varies to a wide extend from metal to metal

11

• Metal QS

• For some ME promising approaches (BLMs) exist to
  calculate the concentration of toxic species at
  the biota/water interface depending on WQP
  parameters and to predict toxicity (BLMs e.g. for
  Cu Zn Ni under development)
• Models to determine the bioavailability of toxic
  metal species in dependence of WQPs are not (yet)
  available for the metals on the Priority List
  (Ni under development)
• Correlation of BA with single WQPs proved
  unsatisfactory (except hardn. Cd)

12

• Metal QS

• The current approach accounts for
• - ME-bioavailability by referring to the
  dissolved instead of the total
  concentration
• - Natural occurrence of ME by use of the
  Added Risk Approach
• EQS Cb MPA

13
Elaboration of Quality Standard Proposals
1. Endorsement of concept for QS derivation by
EAF (2002)
2. Collation of data referring to - aquatic
toxicity (pelagic benthic), mammalian avian
tox. - bio-accumulation - human health
aspects - persistence (EU RARs, Reports
by other organisations, MS, Industry, NGOs,
literature)
3. Assessment of data quality
4. Elaboration of 1st QS-proposals (2002)
5. MS, CSTEE and stakeholder consultation
6. Revision and finalisation of QS proposals
(2003 - 2005)
14

• CSTEE Opinion on Approach to Set Metal QS (May 04)

• CSTEE criticised ARA
• Lack of accurate information on background
  variability/availability and a number of
  ecological processes (e.g. adaptation/acclimation)
  may increase the overall uncertainty
  associated with the ME EQS
• CSTEE suggested
• To base EQS on the total bioavailable
  environmental fraction (ECbioav) and the
  PNECbioavailable , and to do this on a
  site specific, watershed specific or regional
  basis

15
Legal Implementation of WFD QS State of Play

• COMMISSON
• Commission adopted proposed Directive
  (COM(2006)397) and Communication (COM(2006)398)
  on 17 July 2006
• QS proposals limited to water (in the absence of
  extensive and reliable data on the effects of PS
  on sediment organisms)
• Water and Biota Standards for Mercury,
  Hexachlorobenzene and Hexachlorobutadiene (due to
  uncertainties regarding possible bioaccumulation)
  
• EQS for metals - MS to take account of
  background levels and bioavailability -
  Revision of Ni and Pb QS after finalisation or RAs

16
Legal Implementation of WFD QS State of Play

• European Parliament
• 22 May First Reading in the Plenary of the
  European Parliament adotping 71 amendments (Text
  available at http//www.europarl.europa.eu/sides
  /getDoc.do?pubRef-//EP//TEXTTA20070522ITEMSDO
  CXMLV0//ENlanguageENsdocta5)
• Some key features of EP report
• Proposed EQS agreed without change
• Additional PHS identified (not based on TGD/REACH
  criteria)
• Strengthen the need for biota and sediment EQS
  COM to propose new EQS
• Addition of 30 new chemicals to the PS list
  (incl. Dioxins and PCBs) criteria for addition
  unclear

17
Legal Implementation of WFD QS State of Play

• Council
• Debates started under FIN Presidency in 2006
• DE Presidency (1-6/2007) had several meetings and
  has made good progress, however some open issues
  remain
• 28 June Political Agreement endorsed by the
  Environment Council(text can be found at
  http//register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/07/st10
  /st10790-ad01.en07.pdf)
• Current draft very close to COM proposal, in
  particular proposed EQS largely agreed
• Important open issues are how to deal with
  sediment and biota EQS in the future

18
Legal Implementation of WFD QS State of Play

• Follow Up
• The adoption of Common Position, by the
  Environmental Council should be possible on 20
  December
• The second reading of the EP is expected at
  beginning of 2008, but not earlier than February

19
Further Development of Methodology
Expert Advisory Forum on PS (EAF) has been
transformed to Working Group E
EG on Prioritisation Guidance on priority
setting Method development
WG-E Prioritisation Data collection Implementation
Guidance PS Directive Guidance
EG on EQS Guidance on EQS setting EQS data sheets
20
Further Development of Methodology

• EG on EQS - Mandate
• Identify the methodological themes to be
  addressed for further work
• Develop/agree on a (interim) methodology for
  setting EQS (for revised list of PS),
• Draft a TGD on setting EQS in the context of the
  WFD
• Assist the Commission in setting EQS
• - Review of existing EQS after proposal
  is adopted if scientific evidence changed (for
  Ni, Pb and PAH) (tentative timetable mid-2008)
• - Development of methodology and proposal
  for EQS in biota and sediments for existing PS
  (tentative timetable mid-2009)
• - Development of EQS for new PS list
  (tentative timetable mid-2009)
• Basis Manual on Methodology, INERIS document on
  open issues, CSTEE opinion, REACH
  guidance documents , other documents and
  comments by EAF and Expert Groups

21
Further Development of Methodology
EG on EQS Working Groups 1 - General Issues 2 -
Metals (ME specific issues water, sediments,
biota) 3 - Organic substances (water, biota) 4 -
Organic substances (sediments) 5 - Standards for
substance groups (e.g. PAH)
22

• EG-EQS Metals sub-group

Members Henning Clausen (DK-EPA,
rapporteur) Katrien Delbeke (ECI) Frank van
Assche (IZA-Europe) Juris Fridmanis
(LV-EPA) Kjell Johansson (SE-EPA) David Sheahan
(CEFAS, UK) Marta Sobanska (EC-JRC) Peter Lepper
(EC-JRC)
23

• EG-EQS Metals sub-group

Work Programme 1. Generic issues (natural
background levels derivation and use inorganic
vs. organic metal compounds) 2. EQS for Water
(protection of pelagic organisms)
Bioavailability Influence of WQP on ME
speciation, use of Speciation and Biotic Ligand
Modelling Tiered approach for compliance
checking 3. EQS for Sediment (protection of
benthic organisms) Bioavailability AVS/SEM,
OC and other metal binding phases - the role of
sulfide complexation,organic carbon other
metal binding phases in sediment ecotoxicity
Tiered approach for compliance checking
Criteria for triggering the need for
sediment-EQS 4. EQS for Biota (protection against
secondary poisoning) Bioavailability
Parameters influencing ME uptake and accumulation
by aquatic biota, biomagnification in the
food web and secondary poisoning Tiered
approach for compliance checking Criteria for
triggering the need for sediment or biota EQS
24

• Challenges

• Are the BA models sufficiently scientifically
  robust for all metals ?
• How to deal with metals for which speciation
  models do not exist or do not work?
• How to ensure that variable factors such as e.g.
  seasonality are appropriately covered in the
  EQS setting?
• At what spatial scale is the BA-EQS system best
  applied?
• Applicability of the proposed BA correction
  systems for regulatory purposes? (consider as
  well cost efficiency and user friendliness)
• How to integrate/take maximal benefit of
  biomonitoring data on the ecological status
  to validate EQS, respectively the approaches to
  set EQS?