D10: Impact of Contaminants - Hydromod
D10: Impact of Contaminants - Hydromod
D10: Impact of Contaminants - Hydromod
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Integrated Water Resource Management for Important Deep European Lakes and their Catchment Areas<br />
EUROLAKES<br />
<strong>D10</strong>: <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Contaminants</strong><br />
FP5_Contract No.: EVK1-CT1999-00004<br />
Version: 4.0<br />
Date: 25/07/01<br />
File: <strong>D10</strong>-vers.4.0.doc<br />
Page 14 <strong>of</strong> 136<br />
WFD once the Dangerous Substances Directive has been repealed. The five daughter<br />
directives to the Dangerous Substances Directive (listed in WFD Annex IX) will be reviewed.<br />
For those substances, which are found on the first WFD priority list, quality<br />
standards and emission limits will be updated. For those which are not on the first priority<br />
list, standards shall be reviewed with an option for entire repeal (Article 16(10)).<br />
Combined approach<br />
In general, under the Water Framework Directive, specific environmental quality standards<br />
(EQSs) for pollutants (i.e. concentrations <strong>of</strong> pollutants, not to be exceeded in the<br />
receiving waters) and more general ecological-status objectives must be met by applying<br />
controls on pollutant discharges. For certain activities and certain pollutants, a different<br />
form <strong>of</strong> combined approach applies whereby emission controls based on BAT,<br />
relevant emission limit values or, in the case <strong>of</strong> diffuse impacts, Best Environmental<br />
Practices must be applied first. If these are inadequate for meeting an environmental<br />
quality standard or objective, more stringent emission controls must be set accordingly.<br />
This true form <strong>of</strong> combined approach not only achieves the required environmental<br />
standards and objectives, but may even reduce inputs below these targets. The BAT<br />
and Best Environmental Practice requirements drive polluters to audit and improve their<br />
overall environmental efficiency. Such a combined approach applies to substances and<br />
processes controlled by the Nitrates Directive, the IPPC Directive, the Urban Waste<br />
Water Directive, directives adopted for priority substances and also the existing<br />
daughter directives to the Dangerous Substances Directive (Article 10). For priority substances<br />
(regulation at EU level), both environmental quality standards and uniform<br />
emission limit values should be set. However, Article 16(6) merely states that the<br />
Commission should "take account <strong>of</strong> Community-wide uniform emission limit values". It<br />
remains to be seen whether this is a binding requirement. In the absence <strong>of</strong> Community-wide<br />
measures on priority substances (i.e. if the Council and Parliament are unable<br />
to agree on measures), Member States have to act on these substances anyway. Article<br />
16(8) states that Member States have to establish environmental quality standards<br />
(EQS) and "controls on the principal sources <strong>of</strong> such discharges, based inter alia on<br />
consideration <strong>of</strong> all technical reduction options". This statement implies that Member<br />
States must apply the strong form <strong>of</strong> the combined approach, with application <strong>of</strong> Best<br />
Available Technologies first, and stronger controls if necessary. After all, this is the regime<br />
that applies in the event <strong>of</strong> Community-wide measures being agreed.<br />
Derogation and Extensions <strong>of</strong> Deadlines Regarding Chemicals<br />
Article 4(4) allows Member States to extend the deadline for achieving good status by<br />
up to twelve years beyond 2015. Such a rule is justified by the need to take account <strong>of</strong><br />
adverse natural conditions or insurmountable technical difficulties. However, there is<br />
also a more problematical clause allowing extensions on the grounds <strong>of</strong> disproportionate<br />
expense. Fortunately, the reasons and justification for making use <strong>of</strong> an extension<br />
<strong>of</strong> the deadline must be included in the River Basin Management Plan, for which public<br />
consultation is required at all stages. It should therefore be possible to ensure that extensions<br />
are only used when it can be shown that achievement <strong>of</strong> the objectives is impossible<br />
within the agreed timetable.