Environmental Project No. 1182 2007 – Possible Control of EU Priority Substances in Danish Waters – 12 Assessment of the other 23 priority pollutants

Possible Control of EU Priority Substances in Danish Waters

12 Assessment of the other 23 priority pollutants

12.1 Priority substances
12.2 Priority hazardous substances

12.1 Priority substances

As mentioned in Section 2.2, 23 out of the 33 priority substances included in the Daughter Directive proposal were in the screening project found not to require further national measures/actions in order to comply with the EQS values proposed at that time.

Some of the proposed EQS values have been changed since the draft version of the directive proposal on which the screening assessment was based. As, further, the screening was conducted more than 1½ years before the current study, it was decided to briefly review the assessments of these substances again and adjust them, if necessary.

From this review it is concluded that the vast majority of the AA- and MAC-EQS are either unchanged or less strict than in the draft proposal, and in these cases the assessment in relation to EQS compliance remains the same, i.e. the environmental levels of the substances already comply with the requirements.

For atrazine, hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) and isoproturon (some of) the MAC values have been lowered by up to a factor 2. This does not either lead to any changes in the original conclusions (i.e. compliance).

For octylphenol, the AA-EQS for "other surface waters", i.e. transitional and coastal waters, has been lowered from 0.06 μg/L to 0.01 μg/L. However, as the required reduction in sewage effluent concentrations to comply with this value is less than 10 times and the obtainable initial dilution in transitional and coastal waters is normally more than 10 times, it is assessed that the tightened EQS does not lead to a different conclusion than previously (i.e. compliance).

The AA-EQS for trichloromethane was lowered from 12 μg/L to 2.5 μg/L in the final directive proposal. Also, with this more strict value the concentrations of the substance in sewage effluent etc. are compliant with the requirements.

In conclusion, it is assessed that at the national level there is no need for further measures against any of the 23 not-selected PS to comply with the EQS requirements stated in the final proposal for the Daughter Directive (Scenario C)..

12.2 Priority hazardous substances

A few of the substances that originally were proposed for inclusion in the group of Priority Hazardous Substances, PHS, have been omitted from this category in the final version of the directive proposal (Scenario C).

The PHS among the 23 priority substances that were not selected for this study are now the following:

Pentabromodiphenylether
Chloroalkanes, C10-C13
Endosulfan
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclohexane
Pentachlorobenzene

Regarding the five latter PHS, the conclusion from the screening assessment remains unchanged, i.e. the substances were either not used in Denmark at all or theywere phased out years ago, i.e. it is not relevant to initiate further regulatory measures aiming at ceasing or phasing out discharges or emissions of these substances.

The import, sale and use of pentachlorodiphenylether (PeBDE) (as a substance or in products containing more than 0.1 % of the substance) were banned in 2004 (Statutory Order No. 76 of 9 February 2004). A general ban on import and sale of electrical and electronic equipment containing brominated diphenylethers entered into force on 1 July 2006 (Statutory Order No. 1008 of 12 October 2004). Therefore, it is concluded that relevant national regulatory measures to phase out PeBDE have already been implemented though the beneficial environmental effect of these will not fully materialise before some years.

It is uncertain whether C₁₀-C₁₃ chloroalkanes are still used in Denmark, but if so, the amount is very limited (< 1 ton/year). Previously, chloroalkanes were used as additives to certain lubricants, but this use was banned a few years ago by Statutory Order No. 461 of 26 May 2003. It cannot be completely excluded that other uses of chloroalkanes still exist, e.g. as an additive in certain hardeners and sealants, but it has not been possible to obtain any exact information on the issue.

The issue has not been pursued further in this study, as additional measures against chloroalkanes in any case will have to be implemented at EU-level to have the desired effect and as the impact of the present use, if any, on the aquatic environment is believed to be very small.