WGC Review of Groundwater Directive Annex I/II 21st WORKING GROUP C PLENARY MEETING   13th October 2011 Hotel Gromada Airport 32, 17. Stycznia Street, 02-148 Warsaw, Poland The meeting is held under the Polish EU Presidency

Background CIS Work Programme (2010-2012), WGC Mandate establishes task to develop recommendations for revision of Annex I and II following a review according to Article 10 of the GWD. Outcome to be presented to the European Commission (report) via SCG. Experiences of Member States will be taken into account along with outcomes and recommendations of research, in particular the GENESIS project, and representations from NGOs

Elements of Annex I/II review Input from WGC in Autumn 2011 Stakeholder conference in early 2012 Impact assessment taking into account all inputs Final outcome in Nov 2012 Negotiation (if required)

WGC input timetable October 2010: Discussion between task leaders at WGC October 2010: Outline work plan approved by WGC February – March 2011:Questionnaire April 2011: Workshop/WGC meeting in Budapest May- Sept 2011: Preparation of report/recommendations October 2011: Presentation to WGC (Poland) November 2011: SCG and Water Directors

Possible options No changes to Annex I and II Additional groundwater quality standards and/or changes to Annex I requirements (Annex I only) Modifications to Annex II Part A (threshold value setting criteria) (Annex II only) Additions to/reduction of Annex II threshold value ‘minimum list’ – Annex II Part B (Annex II only) Changes to reporting requirements specified in Annex II Part C. (Annex II only)

Questionnaire 27 completed returns: Series of Questions asking WGC members to indicate whether changes are needed to Annex I and II of GWD Annex I – GW Quality Standards Annex II – Threshold Values (parts A-C) Method for deriving TVs (Part A) Minimum list of TVs (Part B) Reporting requirements (Part C) 27 completed returns: 22 are from MS, 2 from NGO, 3 from Others

Questionnaire responses (final) No – 23: Yes – 4 Should there be additional Groundwater Quality Standards in Annex I? No – 15: Yes – 12 Is there a need for clarification of obligations under Annex I? No – 6: Yes - 21 Are the guidelines for establishing TVs satisfactory? (Annex II, Part A) No – 17: Yes – 8: Possibly - 2 Should additional substances be added to the “minimum list of pollutants”? (Annex II, Part B) No – 19: Yes – 6: Possibly – 2 Should substances be removed from the “minimum list”? (Annex II, Part B) No – 21: Yes – 6 Are modifications needed to the reporting requirements in Annex II Part C? No – 19: Yes - 8 Should there be a need to formally report the compliance regime used with TVs

Report outline 1. Background 2. Introduction Annex I/II, WGC review requirements, WGC review process 3. Member State Implementation – Feedback from 1st RBP cycle Groundwater Threshold values and compliance regimes 4. Opportunities and challenges for revision of Annex I/II Possible options, research outputs, consultation outcomes 5. Outcomes and recommendations Annex I, II (Parts A-C) 6. Recommendations Annexes Questionnaire, workshop CIRCA Supporting information

Review outcomes Majority in favour of no amendment to either Annex I or Annex II Some conflicting proposals, e.g. remove/add substances from Annex II Small number of common proposals for modifications Annex I: relevant metabolite definition Clarification of metric that standards apply to Lower standards for some pesticides Recognition of PS Directive (2008/105/EC) Clarification of reporting requirements (and role) of natural background concentrations

Recommendations – Annex I No new pollutants in Annex I Provide definition of “relevant metabolite“ Clarify to metric to which groundwater quality standards apply to, e.g. maximum or mean Consider introduction of lower standards for aldrin, dieldrin, heptachlor, heptachlorepoxide (0.03 µg/L)

Recommendations – Annex II No change to Annex II (Part A) No change to “minimum list of pollutants“ (Part B) Include requirement to take into account Directive 2008/105/EC (priority substances) when setting threshold values (Part B) Clarify need to report the range of natural background concentrations (Part C)

Acknowledgements Activity leaders: Contributors: Stéphanie Croguennec, Balázs Horváth, Ariane Blum, Rob Ward (Lead) Contributors: 41 questionnaire respondees, workshop attendees and comments Draft reports, questionnaire summaries on CIRCA

Next steps Discussion and approval of report by WGC Submission to SCG (by ?) Submission to Water Directors Submission to European Commission Presentation at stakeholder workshop (2012) ?

Relevant metabolite (1) “A known metabolite of a pesticide (or associated breakdown product) that has comparable intrinsic properties as the active substances in terms of its biological target activity, or certain toxicological properties (human and ecological) that are considered severe and unacceptable with regard to meeting the criteria for achieving good chemical status.”

Relevant metabolite (2) “A known metabolite of a pesticide (or associated breakdown product) that has certain toxicological properties (human and ecological) that at concentrations of 0.1 µg/l (or higher) would be considered severe and unacceptable with regard to meeting the criteria for achieving good chemical status. For other metabolites, threshold values should be established accordingly (see Annex II(b))”

Priority Substances 2008/105/EC - EQS Directive

Summarise Section 5 and 6, finishing with recommendations but stressing the majority in favour of NO CHANGE Acknowldegements Where to find delvierables Next step timescales