|
Possible Control of EU Priority Substances in Danish Waters Summary and conclusionsThis study comprises a technical and economic assessment of three scenarios for future regulation on priority substances and priority hazardous substances in Denmark. In July 2006 the Commission presented a proposal for a Directive laying down environmental quality standards for 33 priority substances and priority hazardous substances. The proposed Directive is a Daughter Directive to the Water Framework Directive which, among other things, establishes reduction targets for the two substance categories. The three scenarios are without new specific EU legislation, with specific EU legislation according to a draft proposal for a Directive as of May 2005 and with specific EU legislation according to the Commissions proposal presented in July 2006, respectively. In the report it is demonstrated that the environmental quality standards proposed by the Commission are generally met in Danish surface waters with the exception of a few substances in some parts of the country where discharge of stormwater from separate systems has great influence, in particular under summer conditions. The report suggests solutions for potential problems, including EU controls and technical solutions for the cessation of emissions, discharges and losses of priority substances according to the Water Framework Directive, and the economic consequenses are assessed. Background and objectives A list of 33 priority substances (PS) and priority hazardous substances (PHS) was established already in 2001 with the adoption of Decision No. 2455/2001/EC of the Council and the Parliament. A screening of these substances was initiated by Danish Environmental Protection Agency (DEPA) in late 2004 with the aim of identifying those substances for which additional national measures might be needed in order to comply with future environmental quality standards. The screening exercise resulted in a reduced list of 10 substances that have been further assessed in the present study. Two of these substances, anthracene and fluoranthene, have been assessed only as members of the group of PAH substances. The objective of the present study was to review and assess in more detail the consequences to Denmark of implementing EU legislation on priority substances established according to the Water Framework Directive, including the Commission's official proposal for a new Directive, focussing on the following substances (selected on the basis of the results of the screening study): Priority Substances Priority hazardous substances DEHP Anthracene Fluoranthene Cadmium Lead Mercury Nickel Nonylphenol PAH Tributyltin compounds About the study The study has been based on three scenarios as follows:
In reality, for the environmental quality standards the three scenarios are alike as nationally established environmental quality standards most likely will be (almost) identical to the ones proposed by the Commission. Since in all other respects scenario A and C are the same, no distinction is made between these two scenarios in the report and its conclusions. By contrast, distinction should be made between scenario A and C on the one hand and scenario B on the other in the binding character of the obligation of achieving the Water Framework Directive reduction target for priority substances and priority hazardous substances. The reason for doing so is that different provisions of the Water Framework Directive apply depending on whether controls are adopted at the EU level (scenario B) or at the national level (scenario A and C). Main conclusions From a national perspective the concentrations of priority substances and priority hazardous substances in discharges and emissions into the Danish aquatic environment seem, from a national perspective, to be so low that the proposed environmental quality standards are already complied with today. However, in the summer season for some substances, in particular nonylphenol, it is likely to be difficult to comply with the environmental quality standards in many streams in some parts of the country in connection with stormwater discharges from separate systems. Community controls appear to be the most appropriate instrument by which pollution with nonylphenol from diffuse sources and from certain products can be sufficiently reduced to complying with the environmental quality standards in surface waters adjacent to stormwater discharges. The scenarios differ with respect to fulfilling the Water Framework Directive reduction target. As regards discharges from point sources specific controls might be needed in scenario A and C only for cadmium (substitution of the substance in sacrificial anodes for small ships, no costs), mercury (filters at dental clinics and collection of mercury containing equipment, a total of 16-19 million DKK in financial costs[1]), nonylphenol (substitution of the substance in a number of products, EU control needed) and TBT (ban on use of TBT as a stabiliser in PVC, EU control needed). Additional controls might be needed in scenario B, but the scenario seems no longer topical after the Commission having presented its proposal for a new Directive. Apparently, in any case additional controls might be needed in order to reduce pollution from diffuse sources via stormwater discharges in some parts of the country, in particular in scenario B. For all three scenarios measures have been identified that could contribute to the cessation/phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses of priority hazardous substances. For e.g. nonylphenol, that appears to be the most problematic substance in a Danish context, introduction of Community controls, including product control, is considered being the only practical way of reducing emission of the substance at source. Results Considering the reduction targets of the Water Framework Directive for priority substances and priority hazardous substances a technical/economical analysis and assessment is undertaken both for each substance included in the study and for possible common measures addressing diffuse pollution via stormwater discharges from separate systems. The results are summarised in Table 1 below. The costs are indicated in present value, i.e. as a total sum that is supposed to be spread over a number of years. Table 1 Summary of proposed measures in Scenarios A/C and Scenario B respectively with indi-cation of welfare-economic costs of the measures (+ financial costs in parenthesis).
1 As part of common action against several substances in critical areas (40 % of volume). Footnotes[1] In present value, i.e. the annual costs will be significantly lower.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||