1. Comparison of Limits of River Basin District Specific Pollutants set for the Demands of European Water Framework Directive
Ulrich Claussen & Jens Arle
(Federal Environment Agency, Section of the Marine Environment, Germany)

2. Introduction Background:
European Water Framework Directive (WFD, 2000)
Fundamental change from pollution control to ensuring ecosystem integrity
WFD describes a common procedure for setting chemical quality standards (compare WFD, Annex V, 1.2.6)

3. Introduction
Aim:
Evaluation and comparison of the limits (EQS`s) of River Basin District Specific Pollutants (RBDSP`s) set by EU MS
Comparison of MS`s – EQS with substance specific PNEC –values available on the web - page of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

4. Data sources data of HTML Factsheets from 19 Member States
reported to WISE until Oct. 2010
additional data: workshop of WG E
additional data: provided by certain MS bilaterally following the presentation of the first draft of this report at ECOSTAT in March 2011

5. Methods & Analysis Use of MS Excel for direct comparison of the EQS`s
Comparison of EQS of River Basin District Specific Pollutants with PNEC freshwater -values (Predicted No Effect Concentrations) as reference points (available on the ECHA (European Chemicals Agency) web page: d-sub.aspx#search)

6. Number of River Basin District Specific Pollutants in Rivers per MS

7. Distribution of River Basin District Specific Pollutants in Rivers among MS`s
Heterogenity:
Only few substances were reported by more than one or some MS
Communalities:
The same two substances (Copper & Zinc) were only reported by 20 MS

8. Comparison of EQS`s of River Basin District Specific Pollutants among MS`s (some Examples [µg/L])
CAS-No.
Name of Substance AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK ES FI FR IE IT LT LU LV MT NL NO PL RO SE SK SV UK
Phenols (petroleum) 10
0,0032 8 1
300 11
Bentazone 50
4,5
0,1
0,01
0,5 73 30
500
Tetrabutylzinn
0,012
40∩
1,6²/0,017³
0,001
(Aminomethyl)phosphonic acid
250
1,2-Dibromoethane 2
0,0033
Glyphosate 36 4
100 15 x
Large differences in EQS`s were observed for a considerable number of substances.

9. Comparison between PNEC– values and EQS`s of River Basin District Specific Pollutants
For 71 (19,4 %) out of the overall 366 reported RBDSPs in the data - set PNEC freshwater –values could be identified in the ECHA database
The comparison of official PNEC freshwater – values and EQSs of RBDSPs reported revealed in large differences and there was low correspon- dence between PNEC freshwater – values and EQSs of RBDSPs reported

10. Summary
Large numbers of River Basin District Specific Pollutants were identified by MS but with large differences in the amount used by each MS
Substantial number of EQSs for RBDSPs could be compared amongst MS:
unexpected high differences in EQS`s were observed
Comparison of EQS with PNEC–values (ECHA / REACH) shows large differences and low correspondence

11. Resulting Questions
What are the reasons for the observed heterogenity of RBDSP – EQS`s across MS?
What methodologies have been used by MS to derive EQS?

12. Conclusions
EU-COM and MS are invited to assess the necessity for further pan-european harmonisation of riverine RBDSP – EQS`s to allow for improved comparability amongst MS

13. Water Directors are invited to:
take note of the progress of this ad hoc activity on River Basin District Specific Pollutants in the Working Group A ECOSTAT
decide on the necessity for further harmonisation among MS of EQSs for River Basin District Specific Pollutants, with the aim to achieve or improve comparability of ecological status assessment as required by the WFD

14. Thank you for your attention!