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

2. Background
CIS Work Programme ( ), 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

3. 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)

4. 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

5. 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)

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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)

11. 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)

12. 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

13. 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) ?

15. 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.”

16. 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))”

17. Priority Substances 2008/105/EC - EQS Directive

18. 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